Rabble

This is a clip from Off the Hill: Election 2025, what’s next for Canada? featuring 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 from Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Hosted by Libby Davies.

About our guests

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 Off the Hill: Election 2025, what’s next for Canada? (FULL VIDEO) appeared first on rabble.ca.

Pierre Poilievre is strikingly full of vim and vigour when it comes to taking on his political opponents. Yet he seems strangely lifeless and lacklustre when taking on Donald Trump.

So, despite enormous pressure on the Conservative leader to direct his pit bull tendencies towards the menacing U.S. president, Poilievre just can’t seem to do it with any conviction — probably because it goes against every bone in his body.

Let’s be clear: Poilievre is no fan of Trump’s tariffs or plans to annex Canada. But he is a devoted fan of the main Trump agenda — the one highlighted by tech-billionaire-lunatic Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw as he gleefully hacks government programs as part of Trump’s quest to deliver more tax cuts and power to the ultra-wealthy.

This is exactly the sort of anti-government mayhem that Poilievre has spent most of his life fantasizing about — and spent most of the last couple of years preparing to implement in Canada.

But this full-throttle, anti-government agenda is playing out disastrously south of the border; even elements of the MAGA base are angrily showing up at Republican town halls to protest Musk’s reckless evisceration of their health and social security benefits. They wanted cheaper eggs, not poverty in retirement.

Of course, Poilievre could ignore Musk’s reckless romp through America’s threadbare social safety net and just focus on Trump’s tariff wars. But he doesn’t seem particularly knowledgeable or interested in tariffs and trade policies.

What he does know about — having been a lifelong disciple of right-wing economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek — is how to dismantle government programs and disarm government regulatory powers, as Musk is doing.

And, although there’s been little media coverage, it’s significant that Poilievre has become closely aligned with Canada’s high-tech industry, which is more sharply anti-government than much of Canada’s business community.

This new alignment has striking similarities to developments in the U.S., where disruptive American tech giants, led by Musk, have embraced and boosted Trump. The similarity between the Canadian and U.S. situations is captured well in a new book, “The Poilievre Project,” by Martin Lukacs, managing editor of the online news outlet The Breach.

As Lukacs notes, the tech industry on both sides of the border is aggressively pushing a right-wing agenda, pressing for huge government spending cuts (along the lines of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE), deep tax cuts for investors and business, and a rollback in government powers to regulate business.

Leading figures in the Canadian tech community, including Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke and Bay Street tech financier John Ruffolo, have developed close ties to Poilievre, whose stark government-slashing agenda is in sync with theirs.

Their excitement about Poilievre intensified last spring after the Trudeau government decided to raise taxes on capital gains — a move that was widely attacked for allegedly hurting many middle-class taxpayers, but in fact was almost exclusively aimed at Canada’s wealthy.

Enraged by the capital gains tax hike, Ruffolo invited dozens of tech executives to a major Bay Street fundraiser for Poilievre last summer. Meanwhile Lutke, celebrated as a highly successful entrepreneur, is reportedly keeping a low political profile to avoid suggestions he aspires to become Canada’s Elon Musk.

All this has been kept under wraps by a Conservative campaign determined to present Poilievre in the far-fetched role as the workers’ friend and even as the adversary of Canada’s corporate leaders.

Lukacs notes that, while Poilievre has carefully cultivated the image of being tough on the business elite, he has quietly attended lavish fundraisers organized by some of Canada’s leading business and financial players.

So, while Poilievre will undoubtedly try to sound like he’s going after Trump in the debate tonight, he and key elements in Canada’s business elite would like nothing more than a Trump-style disembowelment of government — which would shred much of the social welfare system that millions of Canadians rely on.

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star.

The post Poilievre’s statements opposing Trump lack feeling and conviction appeared first on rabble.ca.

Mark Joffe is no longer Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, a job in which he has been almost invisible for two and a half years.

No one seems to know exactly why. A statement to media from the government said Dr. Joffe’s contract ended Monday, after a two-week extension, and a search started at once to find a replacement. 

He was an Alberta Health Services (AHS) vice-president in 2022 when he was put in the job. The province said then it was an interim role with no additional pay and he would continue as chief medical officer of health only until the health minister rescinded his appointment.

So was he pushed or did he jump? Was his departure unexpected? Who made the call? None of that is clear. 

A variety of headline writers opted for the cautious explanation that Dr. Joffe is “out” as chief medical officer of health. (Translation: We have no idea why.) 

Dr. Joffe stepped into the job back in November 2022 when Deena Hinshaw, who had held the position through the COVID-19 pandemic, was fired days after Danielle Smith became premier. As a right-wing radio talk show host during the pandemic, Smith had campaigned in the internal party election on her credentials as a vaccine skeptic, advocate of quack COVID cures, and bitter foe of public health measures. 

Since then, Dr. Joffe has been criticized for having very little to say about public health and infectious diseases. He hasn’t appeared at a news conference since 2023. This, however, was assumed to suit the Smith.

“The province is now short one chief medical officer of health,” NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi observed tartly Tuesday. “Well, some would argue we’ve been short a chief medical officer of health ever since Premier Smith took office.”

We do know that, like other parts of North America, Alberta is now in the throes of a burgeoning measles outbreak – driven in significant part by the anti-vaxx sentiments promoted by Premier Smith in her radio career. There were 77 known cases in the province yesterday, which given the rate at which the disease spreads means there are a heck of a lot more. 

And Dr. Joffe did make a statement published on the Alberta Government website last Friday, in which he said: “I want to remind all Albertans that these outbreaks are highly preventable. Albertans can protect themselves and those around them by ensuring their measles immunizations are up to date. Immunization with measles-containing vaccine is the single most important public health intervention to prevent measles.”

“The measles vaccine is safe and highly effective at preventing infection and complications and is readily available to eligible Albertans,” he added.

Tuesday’s statement praised Dr. Joffe for serving Albertans “with dedication and professionalism.” Alert readers will recall, of course, that when it was announced in January that Athana Mentzelopoulos had departed as CEO of AHS, Health Minister Adriana LaGrange extended her “sincerest gratitude … for the work she has done leading Alberta Health Services.”

Mentzelopoulos is now suing AHS for wrongful dismissal. This is not to suggest anything about the reasons for Dr. Joffe’s departure, only that one cannot necessarily trust the things this government tells us.

Speaking of which, in yesterday’s statement, the government also said it “remains vigilant in its approach to measles” and wants “to reassure Albertans that public health continues to be a top priority during this transition.”

As long, presumably, as the government’s approach to measles has nothing to do with vaccinations. 

With Orwellian imprecision, UCP tables ‘Compassionate Intervention Act’

Also yesterday, the Smith Government tabled what promises to be one of its most controversial pieces of legislation, Bill 53, named with Orwellian imprecision the Compassionate Intervention Act, a title worthy of the Ministry of Love.

The Involuntary Addiction Treatment Act would have probably passed muster, with the caveat that the kind of “treatment” favoured by Premier Smith’s inner party requires scare quotes because it is rejected by so many genuine experts in addiction recovery. 

“If passed, the Compassionate Intervention Act would create a pathway for parents, family members, guardians, health care professionals, and police or peace officers to request a treatment order or care plan for those who, because of their severe addiction, are likely to cause harm to themselves or others,” the news release announcing the long-expected legislation soothingly promised. 

It will be passed, of course, because it a signature piece of United Conservative Party legislation.

But have no doubt, Mental Health and Addiction Minister Dan Williams was not reflecting reality when he told a news conference yesterday that “this program is also not a criminal justice program. This is a health-care program.”

Make no mistake, the “compassionate intervention centres” planned under this scheme will be jails, each with 150 “secure” beds. That is to say, the beds will be in locked rooms. 

One doesn’t need to be an expert in addiction treatment to understand from the controversy among actual experts surrounding this long-telegraphed plan, that the government’s repeated claims Alberta has established a “gold standard” of opioid addiction treatment apparently not discovered by all the other jurisdictions that are dealing with this deadly worldwide crisis are highly tendentious. 

But if it doesn’t work out, Premier Smith told the news conference, featuring a huge throng of supporters, no matter, they’ll just try something else. “You don’t know something works until you try it,” she told a reporter who asked what evidence supports involuntary treatment, “and you won’t know what your success rate is until you try it. And you won’t know what your recidivism rate is until you try it. … We’ll do the analysis to see what works, and if we need to try something new, we will try something new.” 

This is the scientific method, UCP style, presumably. 

Between the sweet lines of yesterday’s news release, this bill smacks of police being able to toss people into jail on a whim without a hint of due process.

This is obviously unconstitutional, but Smith has stated that her government would use Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notorious Notwithstanding Clause, if that’s what it takes to pass or use the legislation. 

Moreover while it is not clear who will own and operate the planned “compassionate intervention centres,” or how their employees will be trained, the plan smacks of union busting, health care privatization, and quackery. 

The post Chief Medical Officer of Health Mark Joffe is out, seemingly unexpectedly appeared first on rabble.ca.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) is calling for voters to prioritize public services and the jobs in this sector ahead of the April 28 federal election. As part of their ongoing “For you, Canada” campaign, PSAC is bringing attention to what is at stake for the public servants and those who rely on their labour. 

The federal public service is Canada’s largest single employer, with almost 288,000 employees. But cuts to the public service could threaten tens of thousands of these jobs. Currently the Liberal Party leads in the polls, with 45 per cent of the federal vote intention. 

PSAC said the Liberals’ track record is mixed when it comes to protecting public services. The union highlighted that the liberal government, in March 2024, introduced an initiative aimed at “refocusing government spending.” The initiative aimed to “refocus” $14.1 billion over 5 years from organizations and $1.3 billion over 5 years from crown corporations.

More recently, current Liberal leader Mark Carney promised to cap the size of the federal public service while he was running for party leadership. 

The Conservative Party of Canada, which is second in the polls, has signaled a deep commitment to cutting federal jobs and reducing government services according to PSAC. The party’s leader, Pierre Poilievre, pledged to shrink the federal public service by at least 17,000 jobs.

Past Conservative governments, PSAC wrote, significantly cut frontline jobs and outsourced public services, weakening internal capacity. The union noted that Poilievre was a part of these past governments.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, which are tied for third in vote intention, have consistently supported public services and those who deliver them, the union wrote. The Bloc, however, supports these services through a Quebec-first lens. 

PSAC has held off on endorsing any party just yet, but has been clear that they are keeping abreast of leaders’ attitudes towards the public service. 

PSAC’s national president, Sharon DeSousa, wrote in an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen that the country does not need job cuts right now. In fact, as the government aims to support workers amid the ongoing trade dispute with the U.S., public servants are necessary for the rollout of these services. 

LISTEN: Issues facing working Canadians ahead of a federal election

“If we want to weather the economic storm of the U.S. tariffs, departments such as Employment and Social Development Canada cannot proceed with planned reductions to public service positions,” DeSousa wrote. “Workers across the country will be counting on these public servants to deliver financial relief when they need it most.”

On March 4, U.S. president Donald Trump imposed 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods. Labour market data from Unifor shows Canada lost 33,000 jobs in the same month. This is the highest monthly decline since January 2022. 

“To make it through this crisis, and the next, we need to protect public services, and that means supporting the hundreds of thousands of workers who provide these vital supports,” DeSousa wrote.

The post PSAC urges Canadians to vote to protect public services jobs this election appeared first on rabble.ca.

Elon Musk once seemed like one of the good guys. In a 2015 talk at the Sorbonne in France just before the Paris COP21 climate summit, he clearly explained the global heating crisis and the need to “fight the propaganda of the carbon industry.” As head of the innovative electric vehicle company Tesla he seemed to want to do good in the world. Now, he’s become so toxic to so many people that even his electric car business is crashing.

The U.S. president who has long railed against electric cars and other modern innovations was recently on the While House lawn shilling for Musk’s expensive electric trucks and cars, hoping to attract buyers who have been duped into believing that electric cars are for “radical left lunatics.”

Electric vehicles won’t solve the climate crisis on their own, and encouraging widespread private vehicle ownership is bad for the environment, whether the cars and trucks are powered by gas or electricity. But as long as people are using personal vehicles, electric is far better.

The same technologies can also be used to power public transit and car share and ride services. Offering better, cleaner mass transportation and other travel modes will reduce private car use, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

It’s difficult to say now whether Musk’s moves will hurt or help overall electric vehicle sales. He certainly hasn’t done his own company any favours. But many of his competitors are doing well, even without presidential endorsements.

Those who know the many benefits of electric vehicles — less maintenance, lower “fuel” costs, reduced air and noise pollution, greater efficiency — are not likely to avoid buying an e-vehicle; they just might not choose a Tesla. And maybe a few MAGA supporters will heed the president’s pitch and change their minds about e-vehicles.

Overall electric vehicle sales are doing well for now, especially in China, where lower-priced cars are available, but also in North America and Europe, where sales are increasing steadily. Tesla’s sales have gone down, as people react to the power Musk has been wielding over the U.S. president and administration, getting his minions to slash thousands of jobs in essential areas, only to have courts order them reinstated.

It’s a shame, because the company has been a leader in electric vehicles and could have spurred even more innovation, especially in areas of public transportation. I suppose there’s a chance it could still turn things around.

What’s critical is that the electric vehicle transition continues. Again, private automobiles for all — with congested streets and enormous resources poured into roads and parking infrastructure — aren’t the answer no matter how they’re powered. But electric vehicles are better, and technology and charging infrastructure are improving.

Ultimately, we need to get away from car culture. The idea that we need tonnes of computerized metal and plastic to move one or two people, whether we’re using gas or electricity, is absurd. Using far fewer resources, we could develop extensive clean-powered public transport systems, better ride hailing and car and bike share programs and extensive train and bus service between cities — along with the infrastructure to support it all. We could turn road and parking spaces into bike and walking paths and parks and gardens.

Those who need vehicles for work or public services would benefit from less congested roads and cheaper maintenance and operating costs with electric options.

I’m not sure what’s got into Elon Musk, but at one time he seemed to have some great ideas. Investing in an innovative company selling electric vehicles was one of them. His commitment to science and evidence were also solid.

Surely he can see that being on the side of sanity and solutions when it comes to the climate emergency is a more fulfilling place to be than on the side of those who want to tear away at progress and fuel the crisis even more — to “drill, baby, drill.” Surely he understands that electric vehicle technology is an important part of the solution and that he could be seen as a leader, as someone who used his wealth and power to help create a better world. But he’s chosen a chaotic, destructive path.

Let’s hope he doesn’t get in the way of the positive progress he’s helped make happen.

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.

The post What the hell happened to Elon Musk? appeared first on rabble.ca.

A grassroots campaign to put Palestine on the ballot has garnered support from 181 candidates running for a seat in the House of Commons. According to a post from the “Vote Palestine” campaign’s Instagram, 124 candidates from the NDP, 44 Green Party candidates and 13 Liberal Party candidates have provided full platform endorsement as of April 11. 

The platform’s organizers say their calls are guided by Canada’s obligations under international law. The platform has five key demands, including a two-way arms embargo, the end of Canadian involvement in illegal Israeli settlements, a plan to address anti-Palestinian racism, the recognition of the state of Palestine and proper funding of relief efforts in Gaza. 

Canada is heading towards a federal election on April 28, and Canadians have a multitude of demands amidst economic instability exacerbated in part by a trade war with the U.S. Ahead of the debate taking place this week, Abacus data showed that Canadians most want to hear politicians’ plans for handling U.S. relations and the country’s administration headed by Donal​​d Trump. Other top concerns are housing affordability and healthcare access. 

READ MORE: Worker’s agenda for the federal election

While international conflicts like the violence in Gaza are not top of mind for voters, Vote Palestine organizers maintain that this issue should remain in Canadians’ consciousness. In fact, how the government reacts to attacks on Gaza is related to those top–of-mind issues Canadians are concerned about. 

Hassan Husseini, a member of Unifor and an activist on the national steering committee of Labour for Palestine, said working people should support efforts for justice in Palestine because it aligns with their class interests. 

“I​​ work in the labor movement and I negotiate collective agreements for workers across the country,” Husseini said. “Often when we get to the bargaining table, they tell us there is no money, even when you bargain with governments. Yet we turn around and see that they are giving money to regimes that do nothing but violate their own people’s rights.” 

This money should be going to essential public and social services, Husseini said. This could address the need for housing and health care. Money divested from arms could also fund protections for laid-off workers amidst Donald Trump’s tariffs. 

Polling from the Angus Reid Institute shows the Liberals are currently leading the polls closely followed by the Conservatives. How parties handle the issue of violence in Gaza could affect voter intentions from progressives. 

A Leger poll done for the National Post shows 45 per cent of Canadians agree that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, while 23 per cent disagree, and 32 per cent don’t know.

Some concerned voters are looking at the mistakes of the Democrats’ campaign in the 2024 US presidential election as an example of why candidates should take a clear stance on Palestine. 

An article by Mohammed Sinan Siyech, a researcher with a PhD in Islamic and Middle East Studies from Edinburgh University, argues that the Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, lost votes in part because of their lukewarm support of Palestine. 

Sinan Siyech pointed to polling which showed that in three of the seven swing states, between 30 to 39 per cent of voters were more likely to vote Democrat if the US were to withhold aid to Israel as a result of the genocide in Gaza. 

The post Vote Palestine platform aims to put Gaza on the ballot appeared first on rabble.ca.

Full disclosure: almost every idea for my rabble column comes to me in the middle of the night. A friend, who aspires to be a writer, said to me “Cathy, that’s wonderful!”

No, it’s not.

The ideas sometimes come from haunting dreams (nightmares) that mirror reality: homeless people forced onto buses by officials, a disease outbreak in a post-apocalyptic period ravages a community, unhoused people with their belongings in a shopping cart crisscross the city in search of shelter, a military force battles people in their camp. The ideas can also come from an issue I’m lying awake stewing over – who took Indigenous artist Sam Ash’s painting?

I write my column to witness, and I hope that my columns contribute to make a difference.

The City of Toronto did stop its using six transit buses for shelter for the winter season, governments introduced layers of  pandemic protections for people who were unhoused, the City’s Ombudsman report signalled the systemic injustice in the city’s policing approach to encampments, and after a two-year search the Sam Ash painting, I gifted has been repatriated to its proper home at the Atkinson Foundation.

My latest middle of the night awakening? A dream where Prime Minister Mark Carney was speaking with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

I will leave you to analyze that, but in my mind it’s like an epic David and Goliath story between Trumpian global dominance and Canada, represented by the Prime Minister, elbows up and all. But the dream did coincide with what can only be described as a remarkable Liberal TV ad hyping a housing promise which finally sparked some policy debate in the election, so dominated by Trump’s economic war on the world.

In the 30 second video, Carney is sitting at a kitchen table hearkening back to Canada’s post-World War II efforts to solve a housing crisis. Images flash on the screen: returning veterans debark a naval ship, a newspaper ad declares a housing shortage followed by archival images of government builds of prefabricated homes. He gestures in the kitchen, “those homes are still here.”

Carney announces his intent to launch a new housing program. Billed as ‘Building Canada Strong’, he tells us Canada will repeat this wartime housing effort by creating a new crown corporation Build Canada Homes (BCH) that over the next decade will build 500,000 new homes per year.

I was pumped. I’ve always been fascinated by Canada’s post-war housing story. I have a file of photos of wartime (some say peacetime) homes that I’ve seen across the country (yes, many are still there) and a box of research including a tape from the CBC radio archives that tells the story of a riveting period in Canadian history through the voice of veteran Franklyn Hanratty,

In every speech I’ve ever given I’ve told the story that few knew to inspire that we can do it again.

You may know the Tommy Douglas story of how we got Medicare, our national health program. You may not know this story—how we got our national housing program. In 1945, the federal government had declared Toronto an emergency shelter area, forbidding people from moving there unless they were starting a job deemed essential. In 1947, Toronto Mayor Saunders put an ad in the newspaper that warned: ‘Acute Housing Shortage in Toronto—do not come.’ When Canadian soldiers returned from World War II, they were met with this housing shortage. It was such a desperate situation that the veterans took to the streets to protest. In Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver, women’s groups joined in. They protested, they held picket signs, they demonstrated, and they even took over empty buildings like the Hotel Vancouver and the Kildare barracks in Ottawa and squatted in them. Franklyn Hanratty, the leader of the Ottawa protest, said, “Scores of Ottawa families are living under intolerable conditions.” From A Knapsack Full of Dreams. Memoirs of a Street Nurse.

This grassroots movement led to the creation of the Wartime Housing Limited which later evolved into Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

Today the concept of wartime housing is in the public lexicon. Politicians, pundits, policy nerds, even members of the public are referencing how this post-war effort led to a national housing program. At its peak, that program built 20,000 new units a year. Then it was gone, killed in 1993 – 1994 by both federal Conservative and Liberal governments.

Carney’s plan is ambitious.

But it’s perhaps what’s not in the Building Canada Strong policy that should caution us.

• No timeline or annual targets to reach a build of 500,000 units per year.
• Non-profits and co-operatives are not mentioned.
• No outline of percentage of private development versus public and not-for-profit.
• No mention of tenant protections.
• No mention of restrictions to prevent the financialization of housing.
• No guarantees for responsible and transparent spending for the public good not corporation profit.

History shows us we should be wary.

Many fear the BCH will replicate the weakness of the 2017 National Housing Strategy that was criticized by the Auditor General of Canada for lack of accountability and non-transparent spending to ensure that housing was built for those most in need.

Alison Kemper, a professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Toronto Metropolitan University and who I consider a profound moral compass, recently noted that her MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who happens to be the Minister of Housing, was hosting a fundraiser. Regular price tickets were $500. She cautioned:

“A great way for companies to buy blocks of tickets and make closer friends with the Minister of Housing. So, if you wondered if there was any chance that (Prime Minister) Carney’s new homes would be set up to avoid real estate speculation or exploitative ownership, I fear we need to be hyper vigilant. The Liberals’ natural allies and supporters are not middle-income renters who need secure, permanent housing. They are the companies who will buy tickets and influence. And even the best Liberal candidate is not immune to the traditional way to attain and retain power. If we want Carney’s wonderful housing announcement to result in any non-market housing, we’re going to have to fight.”

The influence of developers on government housing policy is well supported by an article by Martin Lukacs who chronicles big developer connections with the Liberal Party and even more expensive dinners with former housing minister Sean Fraser. Some of the corporate real estate developers (Bosa, Wesgroup, Aquilini) spent up to $1,725 for their rubber chicken dinner with Mr. Fraser.

However, there is an even more egregious omission in Building Canada Strong.

Prime Minister Carney needs to say “I’m sorry” for past wrongs of his government.

There is no sense of remorse for the historic role the Liberal government played in first cancelling federal funding and when it re-entered the field, so poorly funding social housing for three decades. Yes, the Conservatives should also apologize too but I don’t expect that (Pierre Poilievre was once Minister of Housing).

Hundreds of thousands of people have been unjustly left in inadequate housing or were pushed into homelessness. Intentional policy neglect traumatized families, worsened health, caused permanent mental health damage and shortened life span. Literally, thousands have died in perhaps the most significant example of social murder since colonization.

And let’s not forget the evidence that Indigenous people have been impacted by the housing crisis at a higher percentage than the rest of Canada’s population and there is yet to be mention of reconciliation in Building Canada Strong.

In my nursing memoir I quote a grandson who stated, “heart is justice.’ If there is heart in Building Canada Strong, let’s see it.

Mr. Carney acknowledge the injustices of the past, promise to do better, and begin your housing war with an apology.

The post Is the Liberals’ promise of a wartime housing effort enough? appeared first on rabble.ca.

In episode eight, we return to the George Brown College Labour Fair and a discussion with Ontario Federation of Labour president Laura Walton and chief steward and second vice president of OPSEU/SEFPO Local 556 Jeff Brown. We discuss the multiple issues facing the labour movement, union priorities and, in this age of polycrisis, what exactly we are working for.

Speaking to the upcoming federal elections, Walton says:

“I think we all can agree it’s not going to be an NDP federal government. It’s either gonna be Liberals or Conservatives. And I call them cancer and chemo; one’s gonna kill you, the other one’s gonna make you sick. We’re going to be under, in Ontario, two governments that are not worker friendly, both federally and provincially. And it’s going to be incumbent on workers to really embrace organizing principles … Now’s not the time to be quiet. Now’s the time that we’re going to have to join our voices together to really push back.”

Reflecting on the how the trade war may impact already underfunded Ontario colleges, Brown says:

“The colleges extend into so many fields in our province. Obviously healthcare, nursing community workers, but also things like all the skilled trades, forestry, aviation. I mean, these are the workers in communities that are the backbone of our economy … and the concern that being this underfunded, now with this trade war … the provincial government will use this as an excuse to further starve the system.”

About today’s guests:

Laura Walton is the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) Canada’s largest provincial labour federation. Walton served as president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees’ Ontario School Boards Council of Unions (OSBCU) starting in 2019. She also served on the CUPE Ontario Executive Board. With a firm belief in the equalizing power of inclusive public education, Walton led her 55,000 coworkers across Ontario to withdraw their labour for two days in November 2022 in protest of the Ford government using the notwithstanding clause to ram through legislation that imposed a contract on CUPE education workers. Previously she served as president of CUPE Local 1022 which represents the education workers of Hastings and Prince Edward County District School Board.

Dr. Jeff Brown is an experienced educator, researcher, and labour activist.  He is a full-time professor in the Liberal Arts and Sciences department at George Brown College in Toronto and Chief Steward/2nd Vice-President of OPSEU Local 556, representing unionized faculty at George Brown.  He is also a member of the Ontario College Faculty Divisional Executive.

Session Introduction & Audience Questions by: Ashley Booth

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

Image: Laura Walton, Jeff Brown  / 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: Labour now: Union responses to the polycrisis appeared first on rabble.ca.

According to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, her government was just trying to be helpful when it instructed thousands of public employees to refer calls from the auditor general about his ongoing investigation into allegations of dodgy health care contracts to a lawyer it had retained.

“The auditor general can ask any employee, former or current, any questions he likes as he is doing the investigation,” Premier Smith assured the Alberta Legislature yesterday in response to a question from the NDP’s Christina Gray, who is Opposition leader as long as the government refuses to call a by-election in Edmonton-Strathcona that would give party Leader Naheed Nenshi a seat in the House. 

“We believe our role is to assist in being able to facilitate that access,” the premier added soothingly.

Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. Responding to Smith, Gray wondered: “Does the premier understand how corrupt this looks?” 

Similarly, after the news broke on Thursday of the email sent to Alberta Health Services staff and employees of the provincial Health Department by a senior civil servant instructing them to redirect investigators “to our legal counsel,” Health Minister Adriana LaGrange insisted, “this is not about impeding the investigation.” 

LaGrange also claimed that it is standard operating procedure for public employees in Alberta “either have legal counsel present, or ministry senior staff present when participating in interviews.” Presumably she meant government counsel, not their own. 

Questions in the Legislature, of course, quickly turned this into a she said/she said dispute. So let’s look elsewhere to understand why the tales told by Smith and LaGrange are extremely unlikely. 

Our text today comes from the Code of Conduct of the Law Society of Alberta, which states on page 31, “A lawyer must not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under this Code.”

As Edmonton defence lawyer Tom Engel pointed out on social media, the ADM’s suggested response for employees – “Alberta Health has retained legal counsel to represent us in the OAG investigation” – is not true, at least if you take that ambiguous “us” to include the employee.

“AHS retained this law firm but not to represent individual employees,” Engel stated in his post. “This should be referred to the Law Society, along with the issue of obstructing the AG’s investigation.”

Indeed, the question of conflicts is so important, and there are so many situations in which conflicts could potentially arise, that the society’s Code of Conduct devotes 23 full pages to the topic, and at that I daresay that is not exhaustive. 

“A conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person,” the Code explains. “A substantial risk is one that is significant and, while not certain or probable, is more than a mere possibility. A client’s interests may be prejudiced unless the lawyer’s advice, judgment and action on the client’s behalf are free from conflicts of interest.”

We non-lawyers need not plow through all the situations the document discusses to understand that if a lawyer has been engaged by the government of Alberta to represent its interests in an investigation of this type, it would be impossible in many situations that might arise for that lawyer to properly represent both the interests of his client, the government, and of the government’s employee. 

Put simply, Alberta Health (as the Health Department is confusingly known) is a legal entity that has different interests in the AG’s investigation than its employees do. 

For example, what if an employee, fearing retribution, asked for her identity to be protected because she has information about a dodgy contract? How can a lawyer representing the department, which is being sued for wrongful dismissal by a former CEO, represent the interests of both the employee and the employer? 

Common sense suggests the government’s lawyer simply cannot. 

What if an employee wanted to negotiate an agreement to protect himself from future prosecution? His own lawyer might be able to negotiate such a deal. But it’s hard to see how a lawyer representing the employer could have any proper role in that. 

Auditor General Doug Wylie’s staff, undoubtedly acting on his instructions, stated forcefully last week that this is not how his office works, or ever has. That is credible. 

The suggestions that this is standard operating practice (as per LaGrange) or that the government isn’t trying to obstruct the AG’s investigation (as stated by the premier) are much harder to believe. 

At the very least, if it really is standard operating procedure, it needs to stop right now!

Here endeth the lesson. 

Former UCP minister sides with NDP call for full inquiry

Meanwhile, also yesterday, former Infrastructure Minister Peter Guthrie shocked tout le monde political Alberta by siding with the NDP in calling for a full judicial inquiry led by a real judge in to the dodgy contracts affair. 

Guthrie resigned from Cabinet over its handling of the allegations in February, and he was barred from meeting with the UCP caucus for the sin of suggesting that LaGrange should have been removed from her post. 

Still, he’s been allowed to sit on the UCP benches – although that may change soon. But what the heck, as he said yesterday, “I am now at Day 48 of my so-called 30-day suspension, impeding my democratic right to fully represent the people of Airdrie-Cochrane.”

So Guthrie tabled a couple of newspaper articles calling for a full judicial inquiry and used the opportunity to say that “if we have nothing to hide, we should take that path.” For this, he is unlikely ever to be forgiven by the premier or her henchpersons.

Guthrie’s former portfolio is an important part of this story. After all, in the face of allegations of about sketchy surgical contracts, he was obviously in a position to worry similar things might have been going on in other departments. 

Lesser Slave Lake MLA Scott Sinclair, who was kicked right out of the UCP Caucus for saying he might vote against the government’s budget, also supported the NDP.

The post Alberta government’s lawyer can’t represent public employees in health services investigation appeared first on rabble.ca.

Charlie Angus may be retiring from federal politics, but there’s nothing retiring about the veteran New Democrat MP for Timmins-James Bay who showed up in Edmonton Sunday afternoon on the latest stop on what is being billed as his national Resistance tour. 

Angus, who is 62, is pretty much an NDP rock star – literally, actually – and an exuberant crowd packed St. Basil’s Cultural Centre to hear him rip into U.S. President Donald Trump, federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, Preston Manning, and the whole Maple MAGA crowd. He didn’t mince words. 

The Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral hall south of Whyte Ave. can seat about 700 people. It was packed, with folks without tickets being turned away at the door – so if the NDP had been using Conservative math, I suppose, the rally would go down in history as a crowd of thousands, maybe more! 

Be that as it may, after being introduced by Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson, Angus tore with evangelical fervor into those well-known Conservative politicians who badmouth our country, try to divide its citizens, and cozy up to the Trump Administration.

How, Angus asked rhetorically, did Canadian resistance begin to Trump’s insults and economic depredations, not to mention the support, passive and active, the U.S. President gets from certain Conservative politicians with ties to Alberta? 

“It started with you waking up and saying, ‘I am not going to let my country be taken away from me,’” he said, to cheers. “When you saw that Quisling traitor go down to Mar-a-Lago to hang out with Kevin O’Leary, and you said, ‘She doesn’t represent us. She doesn’t!’ And you knew you had to do something. That’s how the resistance began!”

“Have I mentioned I went to see the Legislature this morning? I was hoping to meet Danielle Smith,” Angus continued. “I’m just glad she hasn’t put up the Stars and Bars and the Confederate rebel flag on the Legislature yet!” 

(I confess, Dear Readers, I’m giggling as I transcribe this, imagining the faux outrage of Premier Smith’s supporters, including the ones with Confederate Battle Flag plates on the front of their trucks, if they were to read this. Well, there appeared to be no mainstream media there, so most of them will be spared the agony.)

On the topic of Premier Smith’s version of diplomacy with the Trump Administration, Mr. Angus wondered: “What’s with that? With MAGA? Meeting with a guy who planned the tariff war that’s out to destroy our jobs, and our economy, and our families? And she was hanging out with him?

“She should have been here, defending the people of Alberta who are being hammered by the tariffs!” Well, to be fair, we have all heard Smith dispute that interpretation of her conduct, and no doubt we will again.

Speaking of flags, Angus had some thoughts on the use and abuse of Canada’s Maple Leaf Flag, which was in plentiful supply at the Palm Sunday event attended by most Alberta NDP candidates. 

“For a long time, we’ve been sleepwalking as a nation,” he said. “We’ve been disconnected from each other. We’ve been allowing the voices of disinformation and rage, and the Danielle Smiths and the Pierre Poilievres, to pick apart our nation. Our flag was stolen from us by conspiracy haters who hung our flag upside down and paraded it through the streets.”

Well, he said, “we’re taking our flag, and taking it back, and flying it right side up!” (More cheers.)

“But there’s a difference about why we can raise the flag,” he added. “We are on a journey of understanding that there can be no resistance without reconciliation. The crimes committed in the residential schools have to be atoned for. And we cannot change what happened before, but we can change where we’re going.”

On the topic of President Trump, Angus was scathing: “I don’t fear Donald Trump. He’s just a decrepit, creepy predator. He might have fooled some people there, but he doesn’t fool us. He’s now come against Canada. And what do we have? We have the Juno Beach gene in us! Once the fight starts, we don’t stop that fight till the job is done.” He had uncles, he added, who “kicked Nazi asses all over Europe.” 

As for the federal Conservative leader, Angus said, “We cannot let Pierre Poilievre and the politics of disinformation, and rage, and Canada-is-broken, ever get in.”

In 21 years as an MP, he noted, “there are many Conservatives that I know, that I may not agree with … but I respect.” But of Poilievre, he continued, “I do not respect what I see with the hate slogans, and the disinformation, and the refusal to even disassociate himself from the likes of Alex Jones. You know? That’s who he is. 

“I never actually heard him say that he had a problem with Danielle Smith threatening to break up our country. He’s never said that either.”

“Do not let us be divided from each other,” Angus implored the crowd. “That’s what Danielle Smith and the Premier Moe have been doing. That’s what Preston Manning is doing.”

“Who,” he asked, “in the moment when a nation is under threat from a foreign fascist power, starts talking about breaking up the country? Shame! Them and their straw army!”

“So don’t let us get divided from each other. Quebec is strong. The Maritimes is strong. The North is strong. The West is strong. We are strong together. And we are strong from respecting that we are on Indigenous lands.”

It’s impossible, of course, to say if things would be different for the federal NDP this year if Angus had won the NDP leadership back in 2017, but he certainly seems to be generating more energy nowadays than the winner of that contest, party Leader Jagmeet Singh. 

It may not mean anything, but it’s an alternative history that’s interesting to ponder. 

The post Charlie Angus brings the Resistance to Edmonton appeared first on rabble.ca.

As we approach our 24th birthday as a progressive news outlet, we’ve been reflecting on just how much the world has changed since we first began.

We’ve reported through political upheavals, climate disasters, social justice movements, labour challenges and wins – and a rapidly shifting media landscape. From the rise of grassroots activism to the collapse of corporate media trust, these decades have been anything but quiet.

And yet — one thing has remained constant: our commitment to truth, accountability, and progressive values.

Looking back on 24 years… 

From Barack Obama’s historic election as the first African American president of the United States in 2008, to Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency eight years later—ushering in major shifts in U.S. domestic and foreign policy and igniting nationwide debates on immigration, healthcare and national security.

From the tragic 2017 shooting at a Quebec mosque that claimed six Muslim Canadian lives and sparked national conversations about Islamophobia and gun control, to the landmark legalization of cannabis in 2018, signalling a significant change in Canadian drug policy.

From Greta Thunberg’s powerful 2019 address at the United Nations Climate Change Conference—which galvanized global youth movements and intensified calls for climate action—to the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

From the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, which drew global attention and raised urgent questions around international security and energy policy, to the present day: the re-election of Donald Trump, renewed tariff threats, the rise of far-right movements worldwide, and a Canadian federal election just weeks away.

These stories represent just a glimpse of the past 24 years in national news and a small fraction of the work rabble.ca has shared. Your support has been crucial in not just sharing the stories above, but all the stories in between. 

Stories like the challenges facing women in journalism and politics, the clean water emergency in Canada’s northern territories and Indigenous communities, and the fight to reveal and remove racism in the federal public service. These stories barely made it to the mainstream media conscious, but were vitally important that they be shared. 

Your support has made sharing all of these stories possible. 

Celebrate 24 years by becoming a monthly donor

If you’re not yet a monthly donor but are able to contribute, we would greatly appreciate your support at any level. 

We also welcome one-time donations, which play a vital role in sustaining our work. 

Every contribution, whether ongoing or a one-time gift, directly empowers the rabble.ca team to continue providing the news that matters most to you— including the stories ignored by mainstream media. 

Your donations help amplify progressive voices and ensure that news for the rest of us continues to be shared. 

Yours in solidarity,

Sarah Sahagian (she/her)
Executive director / publisher

The post Looking back at 24 years of rabble.ca appeared first on rabble.ca.

UPDATE: The time for the French language debate was moved to 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. The English language debate will still be held at 8 p.m. Eastern on Thursday.

The federal leaders’ debates are almost upon us! Indeed, since the first leaders’ debate was televised in 1968, the major party’s candidates have cavened each election season to discuss – and sometimes scream about –  the issues that matter to Canadians. From climate change to the economy and Canada-US relations, each party gets the opportunity  to tout their own plans. They’ll also get plenty of time to spar with their political rivals!  .

The five men debating (yes, it’s sadly all men this time) will be Liberal Leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, NDP Leader Jagmeet Signh, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, and Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault. Televised  

The French-language Leaders’ debate will take place at 8 p.m. on April 16. The second, English language debate will air at 7 p.m. on April 17. Both debates will be available to watch on CBC television or to stream through CBC Gem and CBC’s YouTube channel.

But what should we voters be looking for when we tune into the debates? How can you tell which leaders’ arguments are solid and which have bigger holes than your favourite donut at Tim Hortons? 

The team at rabble.ca has assembled a list of tips to help you understand what to look for…

Tip #1: Watch for policy differences

The Leaders’ Debate is a great opportunity for the country’s top politicians to clarify and differentiate their policies – if they take it. Dr. Daniel Westlake is an assistant professor of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. He explains, “When I think about election debates, I think less about who won or lost and more about whether a leader was able to focus attention on an issue in a way that is likely to resonate beyond the debate.”

Many years the debates are a forgettable collection of each side’s blandest sound bites, but sometimes, there are important points made. Westlake points to the Federal Leaders’ Debate of 1988. According to the professor, “The exchange…between John Turner and Brian Mulroney over free trade…allowed the Liberal party to paint themselves as the party opposed to free trade.” Ultimately, that ‘88 debate may have prevented the Liberals from ending that election in third place.

Tip #2: Look for style over substance

Sure,it can be fun to watch politicians fly insults at one another while wearing their blandest grey suits; however, a good zinger is not the same as a good argument. While I for one will never forget when then NDP leader Jack Layton used the social media term “#fail” to criticise his political opponents in the 2011 Leaders’ Debate. And sure, a quotable line or two can help voters connect with a candidate’s message. However, at a certain point, viewers should also be looking for substance. IF a leader says they’ll stimulate the economy, they should be explaining HOW. If they argue their party is best placed to take on Trump, they should be explaining why. 

Without a track record or a policy proposal to point to, an assertion one’s plan is better than another party’s is just a braggadocious assertion, and nothing more!

TIP #3: Consider each leaders’ language proficiency in both official languages

Our party leaders are not required by law to be bilingual, but since Canada is officially a bilingual nation, the ability to communicate in both English and in French is beneficial – and some would say, essential. Since our party Leaders will be holding debates in both official languages, there will be ample time to assess their language skills. 

Tip #4 watch what each party emphasizes

While the moderator ensures a host of topics will get addressed during a leaders’ debate, watch for the talking points to which each leader returns. For example, if a leader keeps returning to plans to cut taxes – no matter what the topic – that’s probably a top priority for them, or at least the policy they think could win them the most votes.

Tip #5: watch out for quality refutation

Refutation essentially refers to the process by which one proves another person’s argument is wrong, or flawed. In order to refute one’s opponent, the speaker must look for logical holes in the audience or point to a lack of supporting evidence. 

So what does bad refutation look like? Let’s consider a discussion where the leaders are discussing which party is best placed to manage Canada’s national security, with Poilievre arguing the Conservatives have a track record of taking Canada’s national security more seriously than any other party. Naturally, the other party members will want to refute the Opposition Leader’s claims of superiority. But what should that sound like? The answer is that you want to rely on facts over childish ad hominem attacks…

Example A): A poor – if entertaining – response: “The Conservative Party lacks the backbone, the balls, and the intelligence to keep Canada Safe.” 

Example B): A better response: “Pierre Poilievre has repeatedly refused calls to submit to a background check that would enable him to have security clearance. A leader who is not willing to go through a background check in order to access information that is vital to Canada’s security interests is not committed to keeping this country safe. It would be laughable to say otherwise.”

Tip #6: Don’t get distracted by the “gotcha moments”

Former NDP member of Parliament and Off The Hill co-host Libby Davies knows a thing or two about  She knows that what the mainstream media is looking for in these debates isn’t necessarily what matters. Says Davies, “The mainstream media are obsessed with ‘gotcha’ moments and encourage sharp interchange and interruptions amongst the leaders.” But it’s important that we the voters not fall for such distractions. Davies explains it’s more important to ask yourself, “Who looks at ease and answers questions with confidence and knowledgeable answers rather than trying to score points like it’s a sports game?”

Tip #7: It’s okay to come to your own conclusion about who won the debate

Voters are allowed to have their own unique priorities. If your friends on the metaphorical mainstreet of social media are all cheering from one party’s policies regarding Canada-US relations, for example, you’re still allowed to be disappointed with their approach to climate change/labour rights/gender equality. Democracy often, democracy is actually better when we disagree!

The post rabble’s guide to the 2025 federal leaders debates appeared first on rabble.ca.

“Democracy is millions and millions of little truths. All the time.” Here, Historian and author of On Freedom, Timothy Snyder, drove home the need for our collective pursuit of truth – a value that stood at the core of the sixth Democracy XChange summit, held from April 3 to 5 in Toronto. 

Presented by OCAD University, the Dais at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), and the Open Democracy Project, the summit welcomed over 800 guests and panelists from across the public, private and non-profit sectors to engage in conversations crucial for a time defined by political volatility, mistrust in public institutions and unparalleled polarization. 

Centering the theme Challenge Assumptions, Spark Action, the summit organizers hoped that participants would work together to move past the anxiousness and cynicism that so often muddles conversations about the current state of democracy, evoking instead a sense of courage and pride. More so, it was about moving beyond just talking, but practicing change and mobilizing communities. As Ana Serrano, President of OCAD University, explained: “We started this to bring people together to question how to practice democracy. Democracy is an active thing, it’s a verb as opposed to a noun, and it happens beyond the ballot box, on a daily basis.” 

To achieve this, the organizers made explicit their effort to ensure a broad representative of varied political perspectives at the conference. In line with ‘challenging assumptions’ the differences in opinion encouraged open dialogue, the depolarization of debates and a richer exchange of ideas. 

The workshops and panels all tackled some of today’s most pressing civil issues. Recordings of the main stage talks are now available online, and below is a round-up of some salient takeaways. 

On polarization: 

The panel discussion ‘Elections and How Polling Can Bridge Divides’ focused on how, while within our interpersonal relationships and online opinions may seem more polarized than ever, we often overlook the middle of the political spectrum. 

“We are not nearly as divided as we think we are… 60% of people occupy the space somewhere in the middle, and they can have thoughtful, sometimes conflicting views on where they land on a lot of issues. The challenge today is… that we have seen an unprecedented wildfire in the level of divisive narrative coming from our political leadership” argued Shachi Kuri, pollster and President of the Angus Reid Institute.

Kuri went on to use the example of the “Freedom Convoy” of 2022 to illustrate how Canadian political leaders are often responsible for stoking the flames of polarization. 

“At the time there was about 45 per cent of Canadians who said that, even if they didn’t agree with the grievances [that motivated the Convoy], they understood it… But on one hand you had the then-putative leader of the Conservative party, Pierre Polivere, going out into the face of some really reprehensible behaviour on part of some of these Convoyers calling them ‘national heroes,’” said Kuri.

“On the other hand, you had the Prime Minister at the time making the insinuation that anyone who felt a level of understanding with the complaints of the Conyovers were people who, quote-on-quote ‘stood with swastikas’. So they managed to alienate anyone [in the middle]… and we see this everywhere,” Kuri continued.

The result of this is the silencing of public opinion in the centre.

“People don’t talk about it, they hold the middleness to themselves, because there is no mechanism to have the conversation that says well you know, my feelings and my views are way more complicated than Hell No or Hell Yes,” Kuri said.

At the current moment, this might not ring so true as a new sense of Canadian pride has unified the nation in response to Trump’s threats of annexation. Yet, having gone from what seemed like a Conservative stronghold to a Labour one in a matter of weeks, the panel spoke to the unpredictability of the see-saw upon which Canada’s political climate teeters. 

On the need for more local news: 

In an attempt to combat this polarization, speakers on The Fight for Local News: Who Pays for Journalism in Canada panel urged for more support for news coverage that gives a louder voice to local communities. Teresa Marques, CEO of the Rideau Hall Foundation, argued that philanthropy needs to play a larger role in this, whilst Gabrielle Brassard-Lecours, founder of Ricochet Media, warned of the consequences of a lack of certified local news sources and the rise of “newsfluencers”. In referring to her experience teaching journalism she worriedly explained how her students – Canada’s future journalists – would most often cite Instagram and Tiktok as their main sources of news. 

On online interference with elections: 

As a startling example of the prevalence of digital interference with democratic processes internationally, Madalina Botan of the European Digital Media Observatory outlined the findings that exposed Russian meddling in the December 2024 Romanian presidential election, resulting in its annulment. 

“It was indicated that there were more than 25,000 fake accounts created within one month prior to the election in order to boost the digital profile of this far-right candidate [Călin Georgescu], and there have been 85,000 cybernetic attacks on the Romanian digital infrastructure related to the election by foreign interference, namely Russia,” Botan explained. 

It is worth noting that, since then, Georgescu has not only been continually promoted by Russia, but by Elon Musk and the current President of the United States. 

It is no secret that political candidates use social media to propel their outreach, especially towards younger voters, and especially by the far-right. In reference again to the Romanian example. 

“Tiktok seemed to be the most instrumentalized platform to promote [Georgescu], also platforms like Telegram and Instagram… [where there was] coordinated campaign efforts of undisclosed payments to influencers, troll activities and fake accounts,” Botan said. 

Evidently, there needs to be more public accountability for the Big Tech companies platforming this interference. To summarize, Baton praised regulations like the Digital Services Act, adopted by the EU in 2022, which acts as a “sort of constitution for the internet.” 

Botan stressed that “the health of our online environment, our information ecosystem, has a huge impact on polarization, which in turn obviously has a huge impact on democracy. So hopefully progress will continue to be made, even though the trend these days – especially in the US – is towards deregulation.’’ 

On an indigenous approach to democracy: 

“Canada is not yet a democracy for Indigenous peoples. It has not upheld the values it purports to be so proud of. Canada needs indigenous worldviews that centre kinship and relationality at this time more than ever,” Eden Fineday, Publisher of IndigiNews reminded the audience.

On the pursuit – and weaponization – of freedom:  Historian Timothy Snyder in conversation with journalist Carol Off. Credit: Greg English.

In his new book On Freedom, Snyder implores us to move away from “negative freedom” – freedom from government, political opposition, communal interdependence, and towards “positive freedom,” freedom for collectivity, factuality and a more hopeful future. 

This way of thinking, way of living, is all the more necessary at a time when the very concept of freedom is being perverted and deprived of meaning by the far-right. Think again of the “Freedom Convoy” or more recently, Trump’s “Liberation Day.” From this, it may be easy to become cynical of the notion of freedom as co-opted by neoliberal individualists. Yet, Snyder urges us to see the failure in the often quoted far-right conquest for “liberation from the truth:” 

“You cannot be free just by clearing the way of concepts, of structures, of governments. That’s not freedom. That’s either total isolation or lunatic oligarchy, or both. The notion of being ‘liberated from the truth’ makes no sense. You cannot have freedom without truth,” Snyder said.

Inherent to the pursuit of truth is the generation of factuality, and crucially, this is a collective process. We cannot be sure of the truth without thousands of people working to collect data and verify facts. The truth, then, is incompatible with individualism and when this supply of truth is cut off it creates the space for Big Lies. 

“Big Lies form in a vacuum, and a big lie tears the fabric of reality,” Snyder continued.

To avoid deepening this rupture, Ana Serrano appealed to Democracy XChange’s attendees: “Given what’s happening in the US, we need to urgently work together to shore up democratic practices and evolve them in order to remain a democracy. That means as Timothy Snyder says we need to lean into factuality, freedom as the value of values, and compassion.”

Each and every panel over the three-day summit did just this. Participants opened up conversation and sparked action towards hope for the future of democracy, and against hopelessness. Making for a poignant conclusion, Synder closed with the following remarks: 

“The idea of freedom that I have is one in which we can see futures again, because we understand that futures aren’t based upon some kind of technical inevitability – the notion that we’ve figured it all out and it’s all just smooth sailing from here. That is deadening, and it’s wrong and it’s fundamentally authoritarian. Freedom has to involve imagination, it has to involve creating the conditions in which we can be more imaginative, morally. And once we realise this, and once we start organizing towards this it makes it a lot easier. I sincerely believe that the future cannot just be a little better than the present, the future can be a lot better.”

All main stage talks are available to watch and share, and follow Documentary XChange for updates on X, LinkedIn, Instagram and Youtube.

The post Democracy XChange 2025: can we move past cynicism to find new faith in democracy? appeared first on rabble.ca.

As the Canadian Federal election looms ever closer, it is evident that a large part of the population is planning on voting strategically; that is, voting for a candidate they think is more likely to win, rather than a candidate that most closely resembles their own worldview. 

Compared to polls from 2021, the most recent polls predict a significant increase in the amount of seats held by the Conservative and Liberal parties, as compared to the Green Party, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois. 

According to data from Ipsos strategic voting is an ever increasing presence in Canadian politics. Thirty-three per cent of respondents to Ipsos’ poll that plan to vote Liberal say they are doing so to ensure another party does not win. This statistic is up 13 per cent from the 2019 election, where only 20 per cent of respondents stated their vote was strategic. 

This upcoming election is vastly different from prior ones for a few key reasons. Following comments made by Donald Trump on a variety of international and Canada-specific issues, a large part of the conversation surrounding this election has shifted away from domestic issues, and towards facing an increasing threat from the US. 

This is not to say that the US’ is the only underlying cause for an increase in strategic voting. The mechanism by which politicians are elected in Canada often favours the larger parties. Rather than using a proportional representation system, Canadian elections are calculated using the first-past-the-post system. In practice, this means that votes cast for parties that do not end up winning the riding are largely irrelevant on a federal scale. 

Under first-past-the-post, it is possible that a party that gets a minority of the vote gains a majority of seats in the parliament. Although aggregate polling from 338Canada projects a national vote of eight per cent for the NDP, for example, the same polls project that the New Democrats will actually gain eight seats in the house, or two per cent of the overall available seats. In this way, parties that are considered mainstream have a higher likelihood of forming a majority government with a minority of the vote. 

This is evident in previous Canadian elections as well. In 2021, the Liberal Party claimed 47.3 per cent of the seats in parliament with 32.6 per cent of the vote. It’s a similar story in 2019, with the Liberal Party claiming 46.4 per cent of the seats with 33.1 per cent of the vote. 

Under this system, parties are discouraged from cooperating with one another, instead positioned in a competitive stance against each other according to FairVote. This is especially true in ridings that are considered swing seats; that is to say ridings with a close margin between parties. Any vote cast in favour of one party is a vote that could have gone to another. This emphasizes the need to vote strategically, as even a small difference in turnout could have significant impacts on the representation of a party within the house. 

The negative effects of strategic voting disproportionately affect parties on the left of politics. Unlike the Conservatives, a party with a wide diversity of opinions within it, the left has been largely unable to unite in the same way. 

“Strategic voting is in some ways a desperation strategy voters can use, particularly the progressive voters, simply because on the centre left, the vote is split among three parties, whereas on the right it’s all concentrated into one,”  said Sonal Champsee of Cooperate for Canada, an organization that focuses on advocating for cooperation between parties in Canada. 

“As it happens, the people in the centre left love their diversity, the politicians love their diversity” said Barbara Schumacher, a founding member of Cooperate for Canada.

The problem continues even in seats considered safe by parties. Ridings that consistently swing in one direction are likely to be overlooked by parties, with focus drawn instead on the seats that are contested.

As the impacts of strategic voting become more prominent with every election, politicians for parties more impacted by strategic voting are having to adapt their strategies. 

“We’re doing an old-school ground game, where we’re really trying to build hand-to-hand, heart-to-heart relationships with our community,” said Avi Lewis, the NDP candidate for the Vancouver Centre. 

It is important to note that according to current polls, the NDP is projected to win eight seats, less than the 12 needed for Official Party Status. Across all of the NDP candidates rabble interviewed, an opinion remained constant: the need to recentre the discussion back towards focusing on Canadian issues. 

“We’re trying to communicate the message that we have to be very careful as we defend our country that we don’t sacrifice the things that matter,” said Joel Harden, candidate for the Ottawa Centre in an interview. “To me, the NDP is one of those things we cannot sacrifice. It’s critical. We help fight for dental care, we help fight for pharmacare, CERB, environmental protections. We are a voice that is critical on Parliament Hill that we cannot lose.”

A similar thread is present in interviews with Green Party candidates. 

“Our democratic system should be separate from international politics generally, but that doesn’t mean that international politics don’t have a bearing on our Canadian systems,” said Leigh Paulseth, candidate for the Ajax Centre.

As mentioned by candidates from both parties, the solution to fixing the problem of unfair representation lies within electoral reform. 

“I’m supportive of even just having a conversation around electoral reform and listening to the recommendations of experts, whatever those might be,” said Mike Morrice, Green Party candidate for the Kitchener Centre. 

Morrice has attempted to pass M-76, a parliamentary motion to conduct a citizens assembly on the topic of electoral reform, however the motion did not pass. 

Considering these trends, it is important now more than ever for voters to be conscious of the importance of their vote, and the impact it may have on Canadian politics in the years to come. Candidates like Paulseth put emphasis on the importance of the individual vote as opposed to the rest of the country. 

“I think strategic voting is a creature of the first-past-the-post system. It’s because we don’t allow our votes to count as much as they should,” said Paulseth.

The post NDP and Greens focus on issues close to home to counter strategic voting appeared first on rabble.ca.

The climate crisis is a global threat. Rising temperatures have already led to the devastation of ecosystems and drastic biodiversity loss.

Floods, tornadoes and forest fires destroy wildlife habitats and displace human populations.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) estimates that between 17,000 to 100,000 marine species go extinct each year due to rising global temperatures.

Scientists have warned that if global temperatures rise on average above 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to levels before the Industrial Revolution (1850-1900) the effects will be devastating and irreversible.

According to the UN, the first 12-month period to exceed an average global temperature of 1.5 degrees was February 2023 to January 2024.

With how pressing and urgent the climate crisis is, it has received little attention in the 2025 federal election.

Between imposed tariffs from the US and the threats made by Donald Trump to Canada’s sovereignty, most of Canada’s major political parties have made few statements on the environment.

Here is what each party is promising in terms of their environmental platforms.

The Liberal Party

In a media statement released on April 7, the Liberals are promising the following if elected:

• Conserve nature and biodiversity, including by creating at least 10 new national parks and marine conservation areas, and 15 new urban parks
• Connect Canadians with nature by making access to National Parks and Historic Sites free for this summer
• Bolster Indigenous stewardship, including by establishing a new Arctic Indigenous Guardians program, and funding Indigenous-led conservation and protection projects
• Protect our freshwater, including by investing $100 million in a strategic water security technology fund to advance Canadian R&D, AI, monitoring, and data tools
• Enshrine First Nations’ right to water into law
• Protect nature where it protects us, including by implementing nature-based climate solutions which deliver measurable carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits, while supporting community resilience
• Clean up, maintain, and protect wildlife in and around our coastal waters, including by investing an additional $15 million to modernize the location, retrieval, and responsible disposal of the ghost gear threatening marine mammals and birds and
• Champion nature conservation internationally, including by stopping illegal wildlife trade across our borders with modern digital solutions

NDP

In a media release from March 31, the NDP made the following promises on climate change and the environment:

• End the Consumer Carbon Tax—for good
• Keep the industrial carbon price
• Keep the emissions cap in place—and protect workers as we transition
• Eliminate oil and gas subsidies—redirecting $18 billion from corporate handouts to real help for families
• Introduce a Border Carbon Adjustment—so overseas polluters don’t undercut Canadian workers, and clean industries like Canadian steel and cement stay competitive

Furthermore, they also committed to ending public subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies. 

Additionally, the NDP have committed to funding energy saving retrofits for Canadian homes including heat pumps and providing unspecified support for Canadian manufacturers of those products.

Green Party

The Green Party in their platform is the only party to commit to converting the Canadian economy to 100 per cent clean energy.

They also commit to making a Youth Climate Corps.

Other commitments include:

• Stop giving public money to oil and gas companies and invest it in clean energy instead
• Hold big polluters responsible for the climate damage they cause
• Create strict, science-based limits on Canada’s total pollution
• Make companies prove they have real plans to deal with climate risks

The Bloc Québécois

In their 2025 party policy platform, the Bloc Québécois lay out the following priorities for the environment:

• Each federal decision will be assessed based on its alignment with the international Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C
• Eliminate subsidies for the oil and gas industry and impose emissions caps
• Proposing a tax on excess oil and gas profits to be reinvested into a climate change mitigation fund

The Conservative Party

The Conservative Party has made few public statements on the issue of the climate crisis. They also did not respond to a request for comment as of time of publication.

The Conservative Party Policy Declaration of September of 2023 states the following:

“We believe that there should be no federally imposed carbon taxes or cap and trade systems on either the provinces and territories or on the citizens of Canada. The provinces and territories should be free to develop their own climate change policies, without federal interference or federal penalties or incentives.”

A media release earlier this month from the Conservative Party outlining their “Economic Action Plan” sees goals for heaving investment in the oil and gas sector, while also reducing environmental protections to increase the rate of development.

Those policies include:

Repealing C-69 along with Bill C-48, lift the cap on Canadian energy and scrap the industrial carbon tax, to get major projects built, unlock our resources, and start selling Canadian energy to the world again, bringing home good jobs and billions of dollars in lost investment, and putting Canada First–For a Change. 

Creating a National Energy Corridor, a pre-approved transport corridor for pipelines, transmission lines, railways and other critical infrastructure to rapidly build the projects our country needs and move Canadian resources from coast to coast, bypassing the US and making us less reliant on the American market.

Creating a One-Stop-Shop to safely and rapidly approve resource projects, with one simple application and one environmental review within one year. This will make sure we can rapidly approve the projects Canadians need more of now: mines, roads, LNG terminals, hydro projects, and nuclear power stations.

Rapidly approving Phase 2 of LNG Canada to double gas production and accelerate at least nine other projects currently snarled in red tape.

Pre-permitting Shovel-Ready Zones for development, to eliminate delays and red tape so we can start building again.

The post Election 2025: On the climate crisis appeared first on rabble.ca.

In episode seven, we are pleased to feature executive director of the Workers’ Action Centre, Deena Ladd. In her keynote address for the 33rd annual Labour Fair at Toronto’s George Brown College, No One Left Behind: Building a Workers’ First Emergency Response to the Tariff Crisis that Unites Us, Ladd discusses the current trade war, the dangers facing workers and a solidarity-driven plan that puts workers first.

Reflecting on what’s needed in a workers’ first approach to the tariff crisis, Ladd says:

“Our communities are already in trouble. And we know that the tariffs imposed are gonna have a ripple impact, far worse than the pandemic’s … We desperately need a government strategy that has learned from these past economic crises to ensure that no one gets left behind … To make sure that when you are providing supports, that they first of all have to be adequate. That they’re not institutionalizing poverty. That they’re accessible … And that they’re structured in a way that doesn’t unintentionally punish people after the fact.”

About today’s speaker:

Deena Ladd has been working to improve wages and working conditions in sectors of work that are dominated with low-wages, violations of rights, precarious and temp work for over 30 years. She has worked to support and develop grassroots training, education and organizing to build the power of workers with groups such as the Fight for $15 and Fairness Campaign, Decent Work and Health Network, the Migrant Rights Network and Justice for Workers. Ladd is one of the founders and executive director of the Toronto Workers’ Action Centre. The Workers’ Action Centre organizes to improve wages and working conditions with low-waged workers, women, racialized and immigrant workers in precarious jobs that face discrimination, violations of rights and no benefits in the workplace.

Clip: Migrant Workers Alliance for Change

Audience Questions read by: Resh Budhu, Ben McCarthy

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

Image: Deena Ladd  / 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: Building a workers’ first emergency response to the tariff crisis appeared first on rabble.ca.

*Audio of pro-Palestine demonstration at the Vancouver Art Gallery on March 18, 2025*

The Freedom of peaceful assembly – or, in other words, to protest – and the freedom of association are among the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Protest has been a vital aspect of Canada’s democracy and social fabric since the country’s formation, playing a key role in advancing Indigenous rights, environmental causes, 2SLGBTQ+ and feminist issues, and labour rights.

This past week alone, people in various cities across the country came together to protest against the threats to Canadian sovereignty made by US President Donald Trump.

And sure, we might not all agree with every protest which happens in our cities and communities (the Freedom Convoy of 2022 comes to mind). But as stated in our Charter, as long as the protests do not include hate speech, become violent, incite violence, or pose a danger to public safety, we have decided – as a country – that the right to protest is more important than agreeing with every protest that is organized.

It is crucial that we are able to express our opinions, criticize our governments and institutions, and participate in public discourse.

Which is why the City of Toronto’s recent survey and proposed bylaw about demonstrations near vulnerable institutions is sounding some alarm bells.

This week on rabble radio, Jack Layton Journalism for Change fellow Ashleigh-Rae Thomas sits down with Samira Mohyeddin to talk about what this bylaw is and why it is being considered, why the right to protest is so important, and the “Palestine exception.”

About our guest

Samira Mohyeddin is an award winning journalist and producer. For nearly ten years she was a producer and host at CBC Radio and CBC Podcasts. She resigned in November of 2023 and founded On The Line Media. Samira has a Master of Arts in Modern Middle Eastern History and Gender from the University of Toronto and Genocide Studies from the Zoryan Institute. She is currently working on a documentary about the People’s Circle for Palestine student encampment at the University of Toronto.

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.

*Protest audio courtesy of Jase Tanner. 

The post Protecting the right to protest and the ‘Palestine exception’ appeared first on rabble.ca.

The turmoil in the United States is encouraging US scholars to think about moving to Canada. What would that mean to them and scholars in Canada? An interview with the president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Peter McInnis. The LabourStart about union events. And singing: “A Woman’s Place is in Her Union.”

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 American scholars moving to Canada, eh? appeared first on rabble.ca.

While hunting, chameleon lizards hide in plain sight by changing their colors to blend into their background. That is exactly what Pierre Poilievre has done since the summer of 2023 in his hunt and lust for power. 

Poilievre continues to fool many with his chameleon show and ads pretending to be a legitimate and reasonable politician. In the US the far-right evangelical, Christian nationalists who were instrumental in returning Trump to power, have now achieved their long-term goal and have gained complete power and control over the Republican party and the president. With their abhorrent treatment of women, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and the transgendered, you may as well call them the American Taliban. 

In order to become leader of the Conservatives Poilievre required the votes and support of the far-right evangelicals here in Canada. The question is, what did Poilievre promise them in order to gain their support? 

Many in Canada are not aware of the danger that is creeping into our country.

It is very important to look at who is endorsing and supporting Poilievre. The      Conservatives have partnered with Action 4 Canada, a right-wing  anti-DEI organization. Poilievre has also been endorsed by Alex Jones, the main far right conspiracy theorist in the US. Alex Jones praised Poilievre, as the “real deal and the new superhero of the right.” To date Poilievre has not rejected or repudiated the endorsement by Alex jones.

Pierre Poilievre has shown an affinity to the far-right, rubbing shoulders with, and getting his picture taken with, the far-right Freedom Convoy demonstrators in Ottawa. This begs the question. Who has Poilievre been in contact with and what groups has he been talking to? Is this the reason why Poilievre has been refusing to get his security clearance? because he doesn’t want anyone to know who he has been in contact with? Certainly, questions for the leader’s debate.

Poilievre, like Ontario Premier Doug Ford, is actively courting the labor vote. Labor needs a serious wakeup call on the threat posed by Poilievre!

It is important to note that Poilievre has repeatedly promised on the record that the first thing he is going to do as prime minister is bring in “right to work” legislation. 

It will take Conservative premiers like Ford, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith about five seconds to bring in right to work legislation provincially if Poilievre does that federally. Workers in US states that have brought in “right to work” legislation have had their wages and benefits slashed. This legislation also greatly affects non-union workers too, lowering the wage and benefits bar. 

Poilievre continues to ape Trump with his “Canada first” and “common sense” slogans. As is his promise to reduce “the bloated bureaucracy.”  

Poilievre has nothing but disdain for reporters who criticize him, calling them “The fake news media.” Poilievre’s plan to dismantle the CBC should alarm everyone. For many in the north CBC radio and TV is their only media source. A properly funded public broadcaster is also critical to our nation’s democratic health. 

Poilievre’s “common sense” cure all for the affordability crisis are tax cuts, cutting red tape (deregulation) and privatization. Completely discredited as the “trickle-down economic theory”. Like Trump, Poilievre’s solution to every problem seems to be a tax cut. “Common sense” is wreaking havoc in the US as it did under premier Mike Harris in Ontario in the 1990’s. There is only one way to pay for tax cuts, slash transfer payments to the provinces who in turn slash funding to healthcare and education. Healthcare privatization is clearly a goal for the Conservatives. their plan is to just leave healthcare up to the provinces. 

“Common sense” is a reverse Robin Hood policy, taking from the people and giving to the rich. 

Poilievre’s plan to deal with the climate crisis is just business as usual. Like Trump and Ford, removing regulations, again cutting red tape that gets in the way of profit making. Just making the climate crisis worse.

It is also important to look at Poilievre’s record and who is supporting him financially. Poilievre was Housing Minister in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which allowed 800,000 affordable rental units to be sold off to corporate landlords and developers. Under the Harper Conservatives, the average home price in Canada went up 70 per cent and he refused to do anything about it. Some of Poilievre’s top donors are real estate investors – the same people cranking up rents and fighting rent control across the country.

Democracy is at risk, not just in the US but here too. Democracy is a big issue. Canadians think we are not like Americans. We are much better than them.

 The fact is as human beings we’re are just as vulnerable to lies, misinformation, intolerance and fear as Americans are. As human beings we can also think critically, demanding answers to questions asked of Poilievre here.

Pierre Poilievre’s true colors are very dangerous. 

He must never be elected Prime Minister.

The post Debate questions for Pierre Poilievre appeared first on rabble.ca.

In the 19th century, the spectre haunting Europe was communism, or so Marx argued. In our century, a new spectre is as globalized as the economy, and its name is toxic masculinity. As a filthy, tang-coloured ooze of neo-fascism spreads over the globe, it brings with it a new popularity for online cults of  toxic masculinity, resentful incels, armed militias and leaders who champion a hard bodied, hard hearted version of masculinity, violent and brutal. Looking at you, Trump, Vance, Putin and your minions.

This movement is explicitly racist, anti-feminist, anti-trans and anti-woman, and it poses some important questions. Is almost all masculinity toxic, as some feminist critics might argue? For example, in her pioneering work Sexual Politics, American feminist Kate Millett provides the materials for a  persuasive case for this notion. and Anrea Dworkin provides further support for the case in her books, starting with Woman Hating.

More questions haunt me. What does it mean to be a man in the 21st century? Are all relationships we have as men suffused with competitiveness, misogyny, dread and the threat of violence? And finally, for those of us who live in the worlds of books and ideas, are there any answers to these questions to be found in art and culture?

Let me first say that I don’t  approach these topics with any  pretense of superiority to other men. Like most men who grew up in mid-century America, I was exposed to a lot of bad models and teachings about what it meant to be a real man- teachings from the larger culture and from my own semi-dysfunctional family. A man, I learned from my alcoholic father, drank heavily, disrespected women and took what he wanted, often through manipulation and duplicitous charm. From the culture I learned that a woman who had a lot of sexual partners was a slut, but a man with many sexual adventures was a stud, a player.

While I never really learned to perform mid-century masculinity very persuasively, I did learn the lessons well enough to be heedlessly sexist in my early relationships and subject women in my life to far too much selfish and misogynist behavior. I was not Harvey Weinstein, but I was, too often, a sexist asshole. I have tried over the years to apologize to those women and to make amends, but I have no illusions that gestures erased all the damage. “Walk like a Man” indeed! Feminist women and pro-feminist men helped me face and change these repellant behaviours. I am deeply indebted to them for their criticism and support.

And for another reason, beyond my own flawed behavior, this topic is intensely personal for me. At 26, my sister, Stella Candace Sandborn, was murdered in Sacramento California in 1979, almost certainly by a man performing one of this patriarchal world’s countless acts of femicide. She was most likely targeted simply because she was a woman, and her killer dumped her body, hands bound, underground. It was nearly two years after her disappearance that she was found,-and we were able to take her body home and bury her next to our mother. Can any book  or cultural product speak to such loss and horror, or persuasively link it to a kind of masculinity?

Maybe so. Certainly,  much of the western canon suggests that male bonding and “redemptive” violence are among its core tropes. Even our oldest surviving “novel,” The Epic of Gilgamesh, over 4,000 years old, perhaps history’s first buddy movie avant la lettre, circles agonizingly around these themes. In this version of the road trip narrative, the gods send Enkidu to Uruk to correct Gilgamesh the king’s bad behavior, which includes raping his subjects. In a scene echoed in countless songs, stories, films and novels since, the men bond by fighting each other and go on to travel into the wilderness and kill a monster and clear-cut a sacred forest. Not even the death of his now beloved companion dissuades Gilgamesh from his armed sorties into the world in a search for immortality. In braid, that will be repeated down the millennia, male bonding, mortal dread and violence are bound together like a garrote.

Later,  in Homer’s Iliad, the death of his beloved Patroclus doesn’t persuade Achilles to renounce his glory- seeking adventures at the walls of Troy. In fact, he emerges from the tent where he has been sulking (over a dispute about who owned a captive Trojan woman!) and re-dons the armor that Patroclus wore into battle while he sulked. He seeks vengeance on the Trojan prince who killed his lover. After all, as Dashiell Hammett has his hard-boiled hero Sam Spade muse in The Maltese Falcon, “when your partner is killed, you have to do something.”  Hammett was one of the founding fathers of the hard-boiled American detective fiction genre along with Raymond Chandler and James M. Cain in the early and middle decades of the 20th century. This is a genre that can plausibly be viewed, together with the noir movies it inspired, as an extended meditation on toxic masculinity, misogyny and violence. Portrayals of seductive, evil women abound, and  allegiances are felt  and betrayed primarily among men. Violence and death brood over everything. Surely there are some clues in this dark material to the ambiguities and mysteries of male bonding.

A remarkable new novel from Berlin based author Vijay Khurana is a good place to begin. Reading The Passenger Seat recently took me back to these questions and prompted this essay.

Khurana uses many of the classic tropes of the buddy road trip and crime novel/ true crime genres with a critical 21st century twist – think In Cold Blood meets Grand Theft Auto with the psychological complexity and moral anguish of Dostoevsky. And while shuffling those elements, he manages to create something altogether new, profound and subtle that puts each of the old genre elements into a new and heartbreaking light that illuminates some of the questions I am posing in this essay.

Khurana’s protagonists are a pair of half-formed boys/men growing up in a small North American town. The fiction is based loosely on a real tragedy that led to five deaths across northern BC and Manitoba in 2019.

This includes what appears to have been a suicide pact by two boys after they killed three other drivers on northern roads.)  The boys run away from their small-town home and head north, following vague dreams of high paying work- men’s work. They meet and kill a tourist couple in an act of almost abstract violence reminiscent of Camus’s The Stranger, (which also includes a moment of male bonding as the protagonist testifies in support of a friend who has assaulted his mistress) then go on to commit one more murder before they die in a suicide pact. So far, so noir.

But Khurana is intent on doing something more subtle and nuanced here than the usual noir tropes of crime fiction and true crime. The author uses the difficult but powerful mechanism of free indirect discourse to take us into the squalid inner lives of Teddy and Adam as they hang out, jump from a local bridge into dark water, play video games, drink and brood about their insecure, fragile sense of what manhood means and what their friendship means. The tone is ominous from the first scene onward. For example, “As the friends fall, rocks and shallows rise to meet them, except in the darker place they have aimed for.”

Khurana uses an apocryphal quote attributed to Norman Mailer as one of his book’s epigraphs, and it too contributes to the sense of menace and impending doom that haunts the boys as we get to know them. The quote, “When two men say hello on the street, one of them loses,” signals the central role of competitiveness and unspoken but profound and potentially lethal homophobia that will play out when these two friends take to the road. The boys are acutely aware of each other physically, and at the same time willfully blind to any flashes of desire that might light up that awareness. This tension is never made explicit, but it lurks beneath the surface of the dark waters of their lives and is one of the elements that turns their fraught journey toward death.

The novel is paradoxical in its impact. It vividly renders the boys’ impoverished, numbed and squalid inner lives without any major lapses into gory deaths, polemics or explicit exposition. It reads  like a horror story read in a deadened voice, all the more horrific for its quiet tone. Only one of the acts of violence is shown directly, while the others occur “off stage.”

In another artful move, Khurana provides a coda to his main narrative that shows two older men in the town where the boys grew up sharing moments of male bonding and collusive sexism. Ron, who was having an affair with Teddy’s mother before the boys’ lethal road trip two years before, celebrates his birthday with a friend ironically named Freeman. This ironic naming echoes an earlier name irony, with one of the boys sharing a name with the biblical “first man.” The action, such as it is, is rendered through free indirect narration from within Ron’s consciousness, and over a drunken evening and hungover morning after, Ron thinks guiltily about an earlier incident when he became aware of his friend’s violence against his wife and did nothing about it. This smaller scale, male-bonding- inspired silence is an indirect comment on the silences and anguish the reader has witnessed as Adam and Teddy conduct their doomed road trip.

The coda’s effect is almost musical as it suggests harmonies and rhymes between the two narratives of toxic male bonding and collusion in violence. The structure of the book and its lyrical prose combine to make telling points about toxic male bonding and its relationship to sexist violence, all without any counterproductive lecturing or explicit judgements. The magisterial way that Khurana uses the classic elements of noir crime writing to challenge and subvert those very elements is impressive and strange-  a bit like a violinist picking up a Stradivarius and playing Schoenberg instead of classical.

Two other recent publications in the noir genre provide ways to reflect on the relationship between the genre and sexist violence. Vancouver writer Sam Wiebe’s new Wakeland novel, The Last Exile,  is set in Vancouver and like all of Wiebe’s work delivers a beautifully crafted homage to the classics of the genre. While the  rogue’s gallery of outlaw bikers that ride through the book illuminate the links between toxic masculinity and violence in dramatic terms, and while the protagonist’s loyalty to his partner echoes that of Sam Spade and other noir heroes, Wakeland’s use of genre tropes, while expert and entertaining, lacks the critical depth and psychological darkness of Khurana’s management of the same motifs. If Khurana’s work is Schoenberg on a Stradivarius, Wiebe is that same instrument playing Brahms. Both delight, but one has more emotional heft and intellectual complexity.

George Pelecanos, like Wiebe, is a modern master of the noir form. He has produced a long series of pitch perfect, semi-autobiographical novels set in Washington DC’s ethnic and Black communities outside the Beltway. He’s gone on to  a successful TV screenwriting and producing career for shows like The Wire, Treme and The Deuce. 

In the title story of his most recent publication, the story collection Owning Up, he presents a powerful narrative of male bonding in both its toxic and non-toxic forms. While not without its grim and dispiriting moments, Owning Up represents the noir genre turned against its usual commitment to misogyny and violence. His protagonist here, Nikos, is a kid torn between his loyalties to a pair of older men in the violent shadow of a now little-remembered event, the Hanafi Muslim occupation of a DC building in 1977.

Nikos, like the protagonists of The Passenger Seat, is baffled by his own emerging sexuality and the whole vexing question of what it means to be a man. One of the older men who influences him is a seedy white hipster, Ray, who entangles him in daytime burglary that veers close to violence. Ray encourages Nikos to view Mindy, a girl he is dating, as “trim,” there to be pressured, used and abandoned. The other influence on Nikos as he muddles his way toward manhood is Ed, a black man who despises Ray and urges the kid to break his connection to Ray and treat his girlfriend with respect. Ed is instrumental in protecting Nikos from the worst of Ray’s influence, but not before the young man has followed Ray’s squalid advice about pressuring and objectifying his girlfriend.
All of this is viewed retrospectively, as Nikos, now an aging but successful writer, looks back on that formative moment in the 70s and tries to “own up” to his own sexist exploitation of Mindy and other women. It is an altogether plausible, non-polemic exploration of male bonding in all its ethical complexity. The bond between Ed and Nikos is a working model of one kind of  healthy, non-toxic male bonding and a heartening change from the poisoned ideological “testosterone” so often administered by the noir genres.

In a scene that is the dramatic and ethical core of the story, Ed tells Nikos:

“You need to treat that young lady with respect. I heard you talking to Ray about her one day, how you got with her in the back seat of your car….Yeah, that’s right. Bragging on what you did. Why you telling on her like that?”

It is a challenge that stays with Nikos and informs his later maturity and ethical growth. So, we have at least one powerful literary representation of healthy male bonding between an older man and the young man he mentors. How about healthy  peer male bonding?

Although Pelecanos does not explicitly reference the feminist critique of toxic masculinity in his powerful, subtle and moving short story, it remains an evocative subtext, informing his protagonist’s reflections. Another artist who has recently fused noir tropes with an expansive critique of patriarchal masculinity (aka toxic masculinity) is the American spoken word poet and performer Steve Connell, whose We Are the Lions  was commissioned by the YWCA for an anti-violence program called AMEND,  designed to promote healthy male bonding against, not for violence against women.

In We Are the Lions, the performer is seen alone in an empty loft space, wearing a tough guy jacket and seriously cropped tough guy hair. His opening lines establish his continuity with the bog-standard toxic masculinity we all grew up with. He begins:

“I don’t have a problem with pornography.

I mean, I don’t get upset when I see sexually exploitative commercials.

In fact, those are usually my favorite ones.

I mean I don’t know what her ass has to do with my hamburger, but I’m going to drive through the very next day.

I don’t have a problem with violent movies or images or the word bitch.

I don’t have a problem with jokes about women.

In fact, I freely admit there are times where I sit back with my fellas and kick back, talk about some bitch and how I wish I could hit that, talk openly in public places, unconcerned if your kids laugh.

I mean, it’s just words, just jokes, just dudes talking shit that you never expect is going to get back.”

But then the performance takes a surprising turn, as he says:

However, I do have a problem with violence and cruelty and rape and abuse and even if we know it’s just me, it’s just you, it’s just a few harmless jokes between me and my dudes, that still perpetuates a culture where it’s easy to confuse the link between the jokes and the bruise.

Between her getting choked and what’s just jokes between dudes.

And if there’s a connection between the things I don’t have a problem with and the things that I do then perhaps I need to rethink my views on the way we view women and how many views sexually exploited images get on YouTube.”

He goes on to tell a story about a village attacked in the night again and again by lions, lions who kill only women and children. The men of the village stay up to “protect” the innocent, but the next morning there are more victims. Slowly, the men come to realize that they are the lions, the monsters they fear are alive within them, alive to emerge in the dark and ravage.

“And we are the lions time and again.

And if we aren’t the lions, we’re on their side too often standing proudly in defense of the pride.

Perhaps afraid that if we stand with women against the lion we will, ourselves, be devoured.

And so ironically to prove we aren’t cowards we become cowards.

To prove we aren’t weak we become weak.

To prove we are still lions we become sheep, unwilling to do the one thing that must be done, speak.

And our silence chokes as heavy as hands.

It stings and every black eye, where men stand violence, lives or dies.

And that is why they call this just a women’s issue?”

Like Khurana, Connell uses the tropes of toxic masculinity and them turns them inside out, with Connell notably issuing a challenge to his fellow men to stand with women against misogyny and all its insults, assaults and erasure, to actually value  a lived human decency among men that is not built on the backs of women. This is an invitation to a bearable human future in which men and women can live together without subjection and assault. It may seem to some a utopian invitation, given how woven into our culture toxic masculinity is: it is no accident that a group of lions is called a pride. As men, we can, writers like Pelecanos and Khurana and Connell suggest, step away from our complicity and silence and into a more fully human solidarity that is far better than pride of place. We  can stop being lions and start living as human beings.

It seems, as Ghandi commented about “western civilization, “worth a try.”

A version of this column originally appeared in The Tyee.

The post Walk like a man: Toxic masculinity in crime fiction, fact and spoken word appeared first on rabble.ca.