Rabble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflecting on the need for labour education Hornick says:

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

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

About today’s guest:

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

Labour Fair Opening: Benjamin McCarthy, Labour Fair 2025 Coordinator

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

Image: JP Hornick  / Used with permission.

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

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

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

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

Host: Resh Budhu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About our guests this month 

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

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

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

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

About Off the Hill 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UCC expressed similar sentiments of anger and dissatisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we can’t do it without your help! 

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

Thank you as always for your continued support! 

Yours in solidarity,

Sarah Sahagian (she/her)
Executive director / publisher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, of course they did. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eating through and beyond the tariffs…

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

Vegetables

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

Fruits

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

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

So my friends – do not despair, just prepare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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