Rabble

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

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

Reflecting on the need for labour education Hornick says:

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

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

About today’s guest:

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

Labour Fair Opening: Benjamin McCarthy, Labour Fair 2025 Coordinator

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

Image: JP Hornick  / Used with permission.

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

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

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

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

Host: Resh Budhu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About our guests this month 

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

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

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

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

About Off the Hill 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UCC expressed similar sentiments of anger and dissatisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we can’t do it without your help! 

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

Thank you as always for your continued support! 

Yours in solidarity,

Sarah Sahagian (she/her)
Executive director / publisher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, of course they did. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eating through and beyond the tariffs…

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

Vegetables

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

Fruits

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

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

So my friends – do not despair, just prepare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript of Smith’s statement in the Legislature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scary stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this is not a normal world.

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

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

UAW gets in bed with Trump; Unifor resists

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

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

In the UAW’s words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UAW also upbraids Trump’s attacks on free speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need for a progressive defence of sovereignty in Canada 

Here in Canada, the election campaign proceeds apace. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it is time to reinvent that model. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About our guest this week

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Insurance amidst tariff threats

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

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

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

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

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

Improved tax system to bolster public services

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

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

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

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

Protecting public health care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many ask why is Trump imposing tariffs?                                                                 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For many millennia, the anguished and rugged liminal geography that Coll Thrush examines in his brilliant new book, Wrecked, (the Pacific coastline from what is now called British Columbia south to Coos Bay in southern Oregon,) was the traditional territory of a number of Indigenous nations, including the Tla-O-Qui-Aht, the Makah, the Chehailis, the Chinook and the Siuslaw. From 1693 on, more than 2,000 ships from European and colonial empires of trade and settlement came to grief along this shoreline, which came to be known to colonizers  as “The Graveyard of the Pacific.”

Thrush is a professor of history at the University of BC and the author of two well received  previous books, Native Seattle: Histories from the Crossing-Over Place and Indigenous London: Native Travelers at the Heart of Empire. (Full disclosure: I know Thrush and his husband from the pre-covid days when we all  hung out at the same gym.)

In the preface to his current work, Thrush clearly situates himself as a settler-ancestry kid fascinated by the shipwrecks he would see on family visits to the coast and as a committed ally of Indigenous peoples With those two perspectives in mind, he describes his book as a “view from the shore,” and what a view it is!

The author moves from intimate personal memories of the role that shipwrecks played in his childhood experience and imagination to exhaustive archival research and profound ethical reflection, not only about the too often violent and disrespectful treatment of Indigenous nations by the crews of the settler ships that haunted the Graveyard but also about similar disrespect among settler journalists, politicians and some of his fellow historians. This is a profound and challenging text, full of insights and intellectual rigor, but never hectoring or polemic in tone. What drives the book and makes it such a satisfying read is the  wonderful human stories it has to tell.

These stories include the loss in 1693 of the Spanish galleon Santo Cristo de Burgos, laden with Chinese porcelain and silk, fabrics from India and beeswax. For years the only trace of this lost ship and its cargo was to be found in Indigenous memory and settler legends about a ghost ship that disappeared into hidden sea caves beneath mount Neahkahnie, the highest mountain on the Graveyard shoreline. But in 2022 a National Geographic expedition penetrated the sea cave beneath the mountain and retrieved spars from the ship crafted from hardwood grown only in the Philippines, and historians learned yet another lesson about the importance of taking Indigenous oral traditions seriously.

Two other significant maritime mishaps that Thrush addresses in this Pacific Rim picaresque (although, as he notes, neither are “exactly shipwrecks”) are the demise of the Boston in 1803 and the Tonquin in 1811. The Boston crew insulted and abused the Nuu-chah-nulth people led by hawilth Maquinna at Nootka Sound. When fighting broke out, the Nuu-chah-nulth warriors prevailed and killed nearly all the crew, leaving only two survivors. One of them, John Jewitt, lived among his captors for several years before reconnecting with white “civilization” and authoring a book about his time on the coast.

In another “trading” negotiation that went wrong in 1811, Jonathan Thorn, the captain of the Tonquin ( pride of John Jacob Astor’s resource exploitation enterprise up and down the coast) insulted a chief. The Indigenous warriors prevailed again, until, in a series of events that remain murky to historians, the gunpowder stores onboard exploded, sinking Astor’s ship. Both these events became part of the settler narrative about dangerous “savages,” a narrative that justified genocidal violence against Indigenous nations like the shelling of an Ahousaht village in 1864.

Indigenous law gave the nations along the shoreline title to anything that came ashore, whether grounded whales or shipwrecked sailing ships, a view that white settlers and colonizers did not share, needless to say. While Thrush has many tales to tell about shipwreck survivors being rescued by Indigenous people, he makes clear that the counter narrative of “evil natives” mistreating the sacrosanct properties and bodies of the white intruders tended to take up more space in settler discourse and served to rationalize conquest and displacement of the original inhabitants of the coast.

This is an important book, full of fascinating  stories and cogent, useful ethical reflections. In a time when Canada’s partial and not yet adequate attempt at truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is under attack from the political Right and honored more in rhetoric than in action by many in the political centre, it is part of the truth we need to face and engage before true reconciliation can occur.

As the author recently told an interviewer:

“ I think Indigenous history and Indigenous studies—which are not necessarily the same thing—are engaged with silence on multiple levels. First, there is the ongoing work to overcome the erasures of settler colonialism, which seek to render Indigenous peoples and polities invisible or absent. It’s more than just a matter of articulating that Indigenous people were actors in the past; it’s a matter of showing how Indigenous peoples and Indigeneity were critical to the most important aspects of colonial history, from their military and political influence to more subtle processes such as the formation of whiteness and ideas about “liberty.”

Highly recommended.

The post ‘Wrecked’ de-colonizes the ‘Graveyard of the Pacific’ appeared first on rabble.ca.

Analysis of public data showing startling increases in the cost of outsourced surgical procedures in Alberta that cannot be explained by inflation or input costs seem to corroborate claims of contract irregularities made by fired Alberta Health Services (AHS) CEO Athana Mentzelopoulos, says a new report on for-profit surgical costs. 

The report, Operation Profit: Private Surgical Contracts Deliver Higher Costs and Longer Waits, by B.C.-based health policy researcher Andrew Longhurst, points to a “sharp increase” in the unit cost paid by AHS to so-called “chartered surgical facilities” – that is, private surgical clinics contracted under the provincial Government’s Alberta Surgical Initiative. 

The average cost of outsourced surgical procedures has soared by 79 per cent since 2019, when the United Conservative Party Government policy of contracting out private surgical services through the ASI began, says the report based on available public data.

“Between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 fiscal years, the average cost of an outsourced procedure rose by 52 per cent,” Longhurst wrote in the report released this morning by the Edmonton-based Parkland Institute. “This represents a significant acceleration in cost growth, as the previous year saw only a 13-per-cent increase.”

The big cost jump is likely the result of negotiated contract prices with private surgical providers being ratcheted up, he said. But the magnitude of the increase “cannot be explained by inflation or other reasonable hikes in input costs.”

“It is also unlikely that there was a change in CSFs performing more complex procedures that attracted a higher rate, since these facilities only perform routine, lower complexity procedures,” he added.

While the contracts negotiated by AHS with private operators are shrouded in secrecy, the report noted, the researcher cited The Globe and Mail’s February 21 report by journalists Carrie Tait and Alanna Smith, which showed hip, knee and shoulder procedure costs at for-profit CFSs “were 57 to 133 per cent more expensive than the same procedures performed in public hospitals.” The Alberta Surgical Group showed the largest premium. 

“The findings of this Parkland Institute analysis appear to corroborate concerns about the potential irregularities identified by Mentzelopoulos, which may have led to her dismissal by the government,” the researcher concluded. (Just to be perfectly clear, Mentzelopoulos alleged in her statement of claim, which has not yet been examined by a court, that she was fired because she was trying to investigate the irregularities she says she found and intended to stop.)

The conclusions of Longhurst’s report, however, are much broader. Not only do the data show how for-profit surgical contracts in Alberta have shot upward, they indicate the ASI has resulted in longer wait times for critical surgeries and diverted limited pool of qualified surgeons and other medical staff from public hospitals at the same time as the government’s funding of public hospitals has declined.

This diversion is not a surprise. It happens wherever right-wing governments experiment with privatized surgical services. 

But the report makes it clear that, by any measure, the UCP privatization program is doing the opposite of what the government claims and making almost everything worse.

Wait times: Since the start of the ASI, wait times have increased for nine of 11 procedures tracked by the respected Canadian Institute for Health Information, among them knee replacements and all cancer surgeries. Median wait times for colorectal cancer surgery in Alberta rose 8 per cent; wait times for lung cancer surgery soared 48 per cent.

Impact on Public Hospitals: “Public hospitals are being starved of staff and funding, while private providers receive inflated payments for the lowest complexity surgeries,” Longhurst said. Meanwhile, from 2013 to 2022, only three provinces reported declines in real per-capita public hospital spending. Alberta’s 13-per-cent drop was the biggest. “Provincial hospital expenditure as a share of GDP in Alberta declined from 2.2 per cent in 2013 to 2 per cent in 2022, making it the lowest in the country.” 

Public subsidies for the private sector: Since the ASI began in the 2018-19 fiscal year, the report notes, “public payments to for-profit facilities increased by 225 per cent.” But the ASI, it concluded, has “simply shifted surgical activity to for-profit facilities at the expense of public hospitals.” 

Surgical activity: Over five years, the Alberta Government’s payments of $154 million to for-profit operators only added 16,493 procedures to the system.

“Albertans deserve accountability and transparency in how their health-care dollars are spent, Longhurst concluded. His report calls for a full public inquiry with the ability to summon witnesses to testify under oath.

The post Parkland study finds increase in outsourced surgical costs in Alberta appeared first on rabble.ca.

It’s election time in Canada. All elections are important, but the April 28 election comes at a critical time. We’re facing an increasingly costly, accelerating climate crisis, daily plant and animal extinctions, a worsening affordability crisis, a widening wealth gap and rising anti-democratic authoritarianism in parts of the world.

Canada is caught between two superpowers, the United States and Russia, but few would have thought it was our neighbour to the south we’d have to defend against. With confusing on- and off-again tariffs, threats to make Canada the 51st state and claims on our water and other natural riches, the U.S. administration seems determined to weaken our economy and bend us to its will.

Although we share many ties with the U.S. — cultural, geographic, historical, familial and economic — we are distinct. Of course we’re not perfect, but we have universal health care and other benefits; a high standard of living; a diverse, skilled and educated population and respect for fundamental civil liberties, such as freedom of expression and assembly. We may have a long way to go, but we’ve made strides toward greater social justice and environmental protection.

We need political leaders who will maintain and build on the strengths we’ve developed over our troubled history. We also need decision-makers who will take the climate and biodiversity crises seriously, who will strengthen measures to reduce emissions and pollution while ensuring that no one gets left behind in the energy transition. We need a government that respects Indigenous governance, rights and title.

Many of these issues shouldn’t even be political. I remember in the 1980s when climate change really appeared on the public radar. Leaders including Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher all urged greater environmental protections and strong measures to reduce the climate threat.

But fossil fuel industrialists aren’t ready to give up their obscenely enormous profits, no matter how much damage their products cause. Their wealth allows them to influence politicians and governments through lobbying, campaign financing and more. They also shape public policy and opinion through media ties and fake grassroots or “astroturf” organizations.

The wealthy Koch family network, which has global interests in oil, plastics, forestry and more, has been a driving force behind the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, the American Enterprise Institute, Canada’s Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The latter is responsible for Project 2025, the far right blueprint for the current U.S. administration.

We can’t let billionaires and oligarchs determine our direction, and we can’t let what’s happening in the U.S. spill over into Canada. We need to protect and strengthen our democracy and the shared values it’s built on.

Our politics have become too divided over issues that shouldn’t be divisive, such as the need for clean air, safe water, toxic-free food and a stable climate. We face serious threats, from climate disruption to dumbfounding U.S. aggression. Policy differences are healthy, but some things should not be in dispute — including the need to tackle the climate crisis and to stay strong in the face of U.S. bullying.

This is a time for everyone in Canada to stand united.

Politicians and political parties exist to represent our interests — even though some appear to be more concerned about their billionaire backers than the public. It’s up to us to tell them what we expect. Most people in Canada want continued progress on issues ranging from climate change to nature preservation and restoration. We want to maintain our strengths as a distinct nation — our diversity, social programs, education and health care systems and freedoms.

The most important thing we can do as adults is vote. But to really do our part, we should talk to candidates from all parties to ensure they’ll strive to protect and improve our environment, social programs, economy and independence. This is a good time to get informed, go to town halls, talk to friends, neighbours and family, write letters to your local news outlets or join campaigns.

No matter which party you vote for on April 28 (or earlier), make sure it is committed to keeping our environment healthy and our country strong and free.

This is an important time to be involved. Please vote!

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

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.

The post Vote to keep Canada strong and free! appeared first on rabble.ca.

As Canada teeters on the brink of a Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre, the alarm bells about abortion access and reproductive justice are deafening—especially for Indigenous communities. For a country that prides itself on universal healthcare and progressive values, this could be a jarring wake-up call. Let’s peel back the curtain and take a hard look at the history of conservative policies and what they spell out for the future of healthcare, autonomy, and justice.

A history of harm, neglect, and shrugged shoulders

Conservative governments in Canada have long treated Indigenous communities and healthcare like an afterthought—or worse, a problem to be minimized. Remember Stephen Harper? Under his leadership (from 2006 to 2015), Indigenous rights were shoved aside as inconvenient hurdles. Harper’s government notoriously underfunded essential services like housing, clean water, and healthcare, creating conditions that directly harmed Indigenous people.

Need an example? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Harper’s government actively discriminated against Indigenous children by chronically underfunding child welfare services on reserves. The consequences of such neglect trickle down into every aspect of life, including access to reproductive care.

Then there’s the shadow of colonialism. Forced sterilizations, coerced adoptions, and inadequate healthcare services were not just unfortunate mistakes—they were calculated strategies to erase Indigenous existence. Shockingly, coerced sterilizations have been documented as recently as 2021. What did past conservative governments do about these atrocities? A whole lot of nothing.

Pierre Poilievre’s “strategic silence” on abortion rights

While abortion may be legal across Canada, let’s not kid ourselves—access is uneven. The farther you are from an urban centre, the more hurdles you’ll face, and this is doubly true for Indigenous communities in rural and remote areas. Conservative leaders, including Poilievre, love to play the “we’re not reopening the abortion debate” card. But let’s look at the receipts. Conservative MPs have consistently tabled anti-choice private members’ bills. They’ve voted against reproductive rights and aligned with anti-abortion organizations that would make the 1950s blush.

Poilievre might promise not to touch abortion laws, but his silence speaks volumes. His track record, and that of his party, suggests a government that might not openly ban abortion but would happily defund reproductive healthcare, nix sexual health programs, and appoint officials who believe women and people who can get pregnant shouldn’t control their bodily autonomy. 

Indigenous communities: Bearing the brunt

If you think it’s tough accessing healthcare as a city-dwelling Canadian, imagine living hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest clinic, with only systemic racism and government austerity to keep you company. Indigenous communities are often left high and dry when it comes to healthcare, and reproductive services are no exception. Austerity measures and privatization—hallmarks of conservative policy—only deepen these disparities. When the healthcare system crumbles, those at the margins fall first and hardest.

Cuts to public healthcare funding hit Indigenous communities like a freight train. Poilievre’s likely approach to governance, with its emphasis on “fiscal responsibility” (read: gutting public services), risks pushing these communities further into crisis. And let’s not forget how conservative governments routinely ignore calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — so much for a “new era” of Indigenous relations.

Reproductive justice: More than just abortion

Reproductive justice is about the right to have children, not have children, and raise families in safe, healthy environments. For Indigenous communities, this means fighting for clean water, adequate housing, and equitable healthcare—basic human rights that conservatives often slash first in the name of “balanced budgets.”

Imagine a Poilievre government where social determinants of health are tossed aside like yesterday’s headlines. Sexual health education? On the chopping block. Funding for youth and rural healthcare? Gone. The federal Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) Fund—was created to improve access to contraception, abortion, and other essential services for Indigenous and marginalized communities. Cancelled. Foreign aid for SRH, including safe abortion care? Redirected or cut entirely. Universal Pharmacare for contraception? Abandoned, along with efforts to secure provincial agreements. Cuts to the federal Health Transfer Fund would further strain provincial healthcare systems, leading to reduced abortion clinic funding in some regions and devastating consequences for 2S/LGBTQI+ and marginalized communities.

And here’s the kicker: The rise of far-right, anti-choice movements in Canada is no coincidence. A Poilievre administration would likely embolden these groups while gutting the very programs that make reproductive choice a reality—not just a theoretical right on paper. But let’s be clear—the Liberals have also failed to lead. Sexual health education is a provincial responsibility, yet provinces consistently underfund it. And despite years in power, the Liberals have failed to produce a national sex-ed strategy, leaving young people without the comprehensive, inclusive education they deserve.

Fighting back: Advocacy and action

If there’s a silver lining to this ominous forecast, it’s the resilience of communities and advocates who refuse to let Canada backslide. The fight for reproductive justice and Indigenous sovereignty will require all hands on deck. Here’s how we push forward:

1. Expand Access to Care: Advocate for equitable, culturally appropriate reproductive healthcare that reaches even the most remote communities.
2. Support Indigenous-Led Solutions: Champion Indigenous-led healthcare initiatives that prioritize sovereignty and self-determination.
3. Call Out Racism: Confront the systemic racism baked into Canada’s healthcare systems through anti-racist training, policies, and accountability.
4. Hold Leaders Accountable: Demand transparency and bold commitments from politicians to uphold reproductive rights—no more vague platitudes.
5. Raise Awareness: Educate the public on the intersection of reproductive justice and Indigenous rights. Build coalitions that are ready to counter regressive policies at every turn.

Conclusion: We can’t afford to wait

A Poilievre-led Conservative government would be a disaster for reproductive justice in Canada, especially for Indigenous communities already bearing the weight of systemic inequities. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Protecting these rights demands vigilance, passion, and unrelenting advocacy. We owe it to future generations to fight for a Canada where everyone—regardless of race, income, or geography—can access the care and dignity they deserve.

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

The post A Poilievre government could undermine reproductive justice and Indigenous rights appeared first on rabble.ca.

Living in Toronto is synonymous with a frustrating public transit system. Delays, off-route streetcars, if they show up at all, and sparse subway routes are part of the everyday experience. Personally, I’ve adjusted my emotions to find this a charming quality about the city, like an absent-minded parent/friend/romantic partner, who just can’t seem to remember dates or appointments – you learn to love them for it. But feelings are nebulous, and charming can quickly metamorphose into frustration, particularly when you find out that the chronically under-funded TTC is now employing plain-clothes inspectors on buses to hunt fare evaders.

Let me just get this out of the way: Pay your fare. Do your part. Help the TTC stay solvent.

Now – TTC is one of the most fare-dependent transit systems in North America, let alone the world. The pandemic took a massive hit on the transit system due to people staying home, and it’s still recovering. The TTC is primarily reliant on the City of Toronto for its funding, and provincial and federal governments keep their pursestrings tightly closed, leading to heavy reliance on riders. This is obviously unsustainable – we all know it’s foolish to rely on riders because ridership frequency will never be stable or linear. Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government hasn’t stepped in to help the TTC’s chronic underfunding woes, instead focusing on construction projects like the Ontario Line. This expansion of the subway system is much needed, and it’s a good project. However, we must remain cognizant that a construction project makes for sexier PR than funding the TTC.

Fare inspectors: Shooting the messenger

Fare evasions cost the TTC millions of dollars each year – according to an internal audit released in March 2024: Almost 12 per cent of riders evaded fares in 2023 costing Toronto’s transit system $123.8 million in fares. The same audit also revealed that fare evasion nearly doubled between 2018 and 2023. When a large portion of the transit system is relying on people’s honour to pay their fare share, of course fare inspectors are necessary to check if the system is working from time to time.

However, when the City decides to hire more inspectors and then dress them in plain clothes to hunt fare evaders, it begins to feel like a slap in the face as riders are constantly dealing with delays, unreliable service and an overall frustrating transit system. Fare inspectors also cost money – they’re paid a starting salary of $31.23 an hour (about $60K a year) excluding benefits, and some can earn over $100K. While inspectors are important within reason, this money can also be better spent. People don’t skip fares for fun (maybe some): it’s simply not reliable enough for an expensive service and perhaps people are skipping because they’re not getting their money’s worth.

I absolutely respectfully disagree with this Toronto Star column arguing that a public shaming culture should be enforced so people stop skipping fares. No thank you. I think who needs to be shamed are provincial and federal governments who have skipped on paying their fair share of subsidies to one of the biggest transit systems in North America, in a city that is Canada’s economic engine. Shame them, not the people.

The post A valid proof of payment is valid, but at what cost? appeared first on rabble.ca.