Rabble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Bassel Eehor, a Lebanese-Canadian living in Toronto, watched the news of Israel’s relentless airstrikes on Palestine, his thoughts turned immediately to his family in Lebanon. Just weeks ago, his elderly parents were forced to flee their home in southern Lebanon as Israeli military operations targeted Hezbollah. “They’re still displaced, staying with relatives, and we live in fear for their safety every day,” Eehor shared.

Like many in the diaspora, Bassel fears that what is happening in Palestine—the mass displacement, airstrikes, and rising civilian death toll—could soon become Lebanon’s grim reality. As tensions escalate between Hezbollah and Israel, and Israeli strikes continue, Lebanese Canadians brace themselves for a humanitarian disaster that mirrors the devastation in Palestine.

For Eehor, the situations in Palestine and Lebanon are deeply interconnected. “They’re a continuation of the same war, the same tactics, and the same criminal behaviour by an occupying force,” he said.

Eehor is deeply concerned that the unconditional support from Western governments, particularly the USA, allows Israel to continue escalating its military actions. This support, he believes, enables the further destruction of civilian infrastructure and the deaths of innocent people in Gaza.

“It’s leading to the killing of more civilians, the destruction of entire villages and towns. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond unacceptable—there’s a genocide happening while the world watches in silence,” Eehor said.

The impact of Israeli attacks on Lebanon since  September 27, 2024, has been devastating. Over 2,400 people have been killed, 11,285 injured, and 779,613 displaced. Many have sought refuge in overcrowded shelters, with health crises emerging—such as the first cholera case detected in Akkar District. The ongoing violence has left much of the population in dire straits, with both communities and infrastructure severely damaged.

Eehor’s large family faces devastation in Lebanon, and he receives horrific news daily. He is aware of many civilians who have been killed or seriously injured by airstrikes on their homes and buildings.

“My elderly parents were displaced from their home in southern Lebanon, along with many of my immediate family members. We’ve been in touch with them daily, and we are fortunate to have people who can help them,” he said.

This concern is compounded by Lebanon’s ongoing struggles with economic collapse, political instability, and the aftermath of the 2020 Beirut explosion.

Lebanon has a traumatic history of Israeli invasions, with major incursions occurring in 1978, 1982, and 2006. The 1982 invasion was particularly devastating, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties and the notorious Sabra and Shatila massacres, where between 2,000 and 3,500 people, mostly Palestinian refugees and Lebanese civilians, were killed. This tragedy reshaped Lebanon’s political landscape and left a deep scar on the nation.

Nay Azar, a Lebanese-Canadian living in Vancouver, is deeply worried that the war in the Middle East won’t end anytime soon. Although she’s thousands of miles away from her home country, her thoughts remain fixed on Lebanon—constantly envisioning herself sitting with her family, just comforting one another in the living room.

“What worries me is the lack of reaction on the matter… Day by day, we think we’ve reached the worst possible scenario, only to wake up to something even worse,” she said. “I see a lot of similarities between Gaza and Lebanon, which leaves me feeling hopeless and helpless.”

Azar shares that the attacks have affected her family in many ways, particularly emotionally, as no one in Lebanon feels safe anymore. 

“A lot of Lebanese were affected much worse—many lost their families, their loved ones, and their homes. The closest airstrike to my family was just a few days ago, 15 minutes away by car from where they live. Many civilians were harmed and killed,” said Azar.

Azar speaks to her family every day but remains uncertain about their safety. The constant sound of warplanes overhead, and the sight of airstrikes—whether on TV or from the balcony—makes it impossible to feel secure. Watching these humanitarian crimes unfold while the world does nothing only deepens her despair.

Dany H. Assaf, a Lebanese writer and journalist, is devastated by the destruction of his country while the world remains silent. He argues that recent history has proven that another prolonged war will ultimately solve nothing. 

“The world needs to make it clear that there is no justification in the modern world for any nation to destroy another nation,” he said. “Lebanon, with its rich history, represents so much beauty, and the Lebanese people are not an enemy of humanity to be eliminated.”

Israel’s attacks on Lebanon are seen as part of its broader strategic agenda. Even before last year’s assaults on Gaza began, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his vision for the Middle East during a United Nations meeting, notably excluding a Palestinian state. His proposed map, tied to the Abraham Accords, reflects a larger ambition to reshape the region’s dynamics while sidelining Palestinian aspirations.

Canada’s responsibility in the war in Lebanon

In the face of the ongoing turmoil in Lebanon, Azar feels a profound sense of helplessness, struggling to navigate her life as if the world around her remains unaffected. Despite her active support for Lebanese communities and advocacy for their integration into Canadian society, she longs for Canada to take meaningful action. Azar hopes that Canada will assist these communities in reconnecting with their loved ones, just as she strives to do for her own family.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the fundamental rights essential for a free and democratic society. In light of the Lebanese crisis, Canada has a vital opportunity to uphold these principles by advocating for humanitarian aid and pursuing diplomatic solutions. By doing so, Canada reinforces its commitment to human rights and stability, asserting its role on the global stage.

Eehor passionately calls for Canada to reassess its support for the current government in Lebanon, urging the country to adhere to its values of human rights and justice. 

“As a Canadian citizen, I vehemently oppose using my tax money to fund wars by another nation, let alone an occupying force committing genocide,” Eehor said. This sentiment echoes a broader call for Canada to align its foreign policy with its democratic principles.

To address the urgent situation in Lebanon, Assaf proposes several necessary actions: Canada should host an international conference of the friends of Lebanon to forge a strong diplomatic path forward. Additionally, Canada must reaffirm its commitment to protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Increasing support for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon would also help restore Canada’s position as a major player in promoting global security and peace. By leveraging its strengths as a middle power, Canada can not only honour its history but also remain relevant in an increasingly fractured world.

The post Lebanese-Canadians fear Lebanon faces same fate as Gaza appeared first on rabble.ca.

Artificial Intelligence is changing workplaces with some benefits and many risks. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has produced an AI guide for unionists. An interview with CUPE Senior Researcher Sarah Ryan.

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 Artificial vs worker Intelligence appeared first on rabble.ca.

Last year, the big headline to come out of the COP28 conference held in Dubai, was the news that an agreement had been made amongst participating countries to transition away from fossil fuels.

With Canada being the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, where does this leave us? And what are we expecting to see come out of the upcoming COP29 conference in November?

Today, Andréanne Brazeau from the David Suzuki Foundation sits down with rabble editor Nick Seebruch to talk about COP29, the work the foundation does to research and report on climate progress (and regress), and how Canadians can participate in climate action.

About our guest and the David Suzuki Foundation

The David Suzuki Foundation is a national, bilingual non-profit organization headquartered in Vancouver, with offices in Toronto and Montreal. Through evidence-based research, education and policy analysis, the Foundation works to conserve and protect the natural environment and help create a sustainable Canada.

Andréanne Brazeau is a senior policy analyst based in Québec. Her expertise is in climate governance in Quebec, Canada and internationally; public policy related to the environment, climate, energy and consumption; sustainable transportation; international climate negotiations and the just transition.

Brazeau has held various positions in policy analysis, government relations, communications, research and advocacy before joining the David Suzuki Foundation. She has worked for Équiterre, the UNESCO Chair in the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Extremism at the Université de Sherbrooke, ENvironnement JEUnesse, the Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes and the Young Diplomats of Canada.

To read material from the David Suzuki Foundation, visit their website here or catch up on the latest from the foundation on rabble here.

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 Looking ahead to COP29 with the David Suzuki Foundation appeared first on rabble.ca.

I do not think, in my 40-plus years on this planet, there has been a Democratic presidential candidate who has so openly appealed to the right while so blatantly ignoring potential voters like myself, by which I mean leftists who willingly hold our noses and vote for Democrats to stop right-wing extremists—like Donald Trump—as I did in the last two presidential elections.

This election is different—most importantly because of Harris’s commitment to funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza (not to mention the branching out of the massacre to Lebanon and The Occupied West Bank) but also—and the two are certainly related—the Harris campaign’s courting of support from neoconservative warhawks.

When it comes to the genocide of Palestinians, the Harris campaign has sought to silence if not antagonize anti-genocide voters—even Democrats and Democrat-friendly activists. Probably the most notable example of this was refusing to have a Democrat Palestinian-American speaker at this past August’s Democratic National Convention, even though several anti-Trump Republicans spoke at the convention. 

Since Harris accepted the nomination to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, she has made it clear she will continue to arm Israel while framing the daily massacre as the nation’s “right to defend itself.” The anti-genocide movement has further had to have our intelligence insulted by Harris surrogates that she is—with zero evidence to support this claim—working behind the scenes for a ceasefire (in Gaza). More recently the Biden-Harris administration has stated that if Israel does not allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, they will cease supplying weapons–in thirty days. In other words, two weeks after the election. Given that Israel has also crossed every “redline” that Biden claimed would be cause for pulling military support, this threat rings quite hollow. Harris has said and done nothing to show she would actually hold Israel to any more accountability than her predecessor. 

Harris’s response to voters who demand a genuine commitment to a permanent and just ceasefire has been, in one form or another, what she said, a couple of months ago to Salma Hamamy and Zainab Hakim, two young Pro-Palestinian activists who disrupted a rally: “(shut-up), I’m speaking.”

In the last few weeks of the campaign, Harris has focused almost exclusively on gathering support from the right. The campaign has touted that they have received the endorsement of over 200 Republicans, including very openly embracing the support of one of the most despised figures to hold political office in recent American history: former vice president and one of the central architects of the Iraq war Dick Cheney. 

Campaigning with Cheney’s daughter, Republican and former congress member Liz Cheney, Harris publicly thanked Dick Cheney for “his support and what he has done to serve this country”—signaling to neoconservatives warmongers—disenchanted with the isolationist rhetoric of Trump—they have a new home in the Democratic party. Notably, Harris has also received and touted the endorsement of another George W. Bush administration alumnus: former attorney general and torture apologist Alberto Gonzales. And last week she announced she would, as president, have a bipartisan committee (Democrats and Republicans) advising her on policy. 

Notably, Harris is not just accepting anti-Trump Republican endorsements, she is actually positioning herself if not to the right of Trump on immigration than close to it. 

The Harris campaign lately reminds me of Biden’s 2019-2020 Democratic Primary campaign on acid. Biden, back then, suggested his strong relationships with Republicans over his decades-long senate career showed he could “reach across the aisle” to get things done. Harris is saying, it seems, there isn’t much need to reach across the aisle to Republicans if you become them. 

It is difficult to parse out how much this courting of Republicans represents Harris’s ideology or how much is merely an electoral strategy. There is an argument to be made for a kind of “popular front” against Trump, who I believe does pose a real threat to seriously undermine what little democracy is truly left in America—and certainly there is much to be worried about in terms of, among many other progressive concerns, reproductive rights and the rights of LGBTQ+ folks.

While it is true that there are some disaffected suburban independents and Republicans—whose votes are up for grabs—it is also the case that few Americans, historically, tend to vote on foreign policy. In other words, committing to not funding Israel as long as it commits war crimes—for instance—may lose Harris the endorsement of Dick Cheney, but not most centre-right voters. It is additionally difficult to see how touting endorsements of former cabinet members of one of the most unpopular White Houses in modern American history is a good strategy rather than indicative of, at least when it comes to foreign policy, of an ever rightward shifting Democratic Party that has the hubris to be so unapologetically hawkish—at home and abroad—while having the audacity to believe they can count on their progressive base to turn out in big enough numbers for them to win. 

At some point the progressive and liberal Democratic base will have to reckon with the fact that they care more about beating Trump than their own party.

A popular front strategy, if it were genuine—that is, if the Dems thought Trump must be beaten at all costs to defend the republic—would denounce Israel’s many violations of international law and cut funding off because of them. That would not be enough for someone as far left as me, but quite possibly is enough for traditionally Democrat Muslim-American voters in the must win rustbelt swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In those states, anti-genocide Green Party candidate Jill Stein is, according to polls resoundingly outperforming Harris among Muslim-Americans. The Harris campaign’s response, rather than acknowledge these voters and address their concerns, was to invest in television attack ads against Stein. I would not say that was the last straw, but it only strengthened my resolve to vote for her over Harris.

Jill Stein is far from a perfect candidate and of course has a zero percent chance of winning the election, but in a significant way, voting for her is a vote to keep the Democratic Party from sliding completely into the neocon abyss, or at least a refusal to reward them for doing so. 

More importantly this election—though the Harris campaign has had every opportunity to avoid this—is now, in large part, a referendum on genocide. As Stein is the only anti-genocide candidate who is on the ballot in the majority of states, a vote for her is the best/only way to register a “no” to genocide vote. To state, as liberal Democrat supporters tend to do, that Trump will be worse when it comes to Gaza, obfuscates this point. 

And while my vote in Ohio, because it is a red state, only matters symbolically (and may not be counted as Stein is currently in a legal battle over this due to an attempt, based on a technicality, to disenfranchise everyone who has already voted for her), I want to be clear about this: I would vote for Stein in a swing state if I could. A campaign to withhold votes on genocide can only succeed, in the long-run, if you follow through with the threat.

I don’t think losing this election will change the Democratic Party’s approach to Palestine (though it might have some impact), but there is a principle here that is more important than this or any election: and that is civilization hinges on the agreement that there is no greater crime than genocide. And each generation that is confronted with genocide owes it, not only to the victims of it, but to history (including in honouring the victims of the Holocaust) to never condone or excuse it. I think American society, in the long term, is headed in a disastrous direction (one even worse than what a Trump presidency can bring) if there is an exception to this.

The post Kamala Harris told me not to vote for her, so I’m not going to (and why that isn’t just a protest vote) appeared first on rabble.ca.

Unions representing federal employees are calling on the House of Commons to investigate a new mandate requiring workers to be in the office three days a week.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers, federal and otherwise, were moved from in-person offices and spaces to remote work settings.

Some employees were hired with the understanding that they could work remotely. Others took the opportunity to move away from the city to rural areas, for a number of reasons – not the least of which was a more affordable cost of living.

Over the past year, the Treasury Board, which manages federal employees, has been slowly trying to reintroduce in-office requirements for some federal employees.

In September of this year, a new mandate came into effect requiring some federal employees, notably those working in Ottawa, to be in the office three days a week.

Evidence doesn’t support return to office

Earlier this month, through an Access to Information request, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) learned that the Treasury Board’s own research did not conclusively support a return to office mandate.

READ MORE: PSAC angered by internal Treasury Board documents on telework

According to the Treasury Board’s own research remote work can improve job satisfaction, work-life balance, general well being and efficiency. Remote work also has benefits for employers who can reduce input costs by reducing the need for offices while also expanding the pool of potential employees.

“This government once had a vision to build a modern, productive, and inclusive public service, but they’ve thrown it all away for no valid reason,” said Sharon DeSousa, PSAC national president.

Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe welcomed the return to office for federal workers, citing the support it would bring to local businesses.

“The federal government’s the major employer in Ottawa, and so, they have a responsibility to the city and Canada’s capital to make sure we don’t have a hollowed out downtown core with a lot of boarded up storefronts,” Sutcliffe said in an interview with the CBC.

Return to office botched: says unions

Both PSAC and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE), which also represents federal workers, are calling on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to investigate the Treasury Board’s three-day a week in office mandate and how that was implemented.

A statement from CAPE reads:

“CAPE’s members and other federal public sector workers have reported widespread failures in this mandate affecting their productivity and ability to do their jobs. This includes, but is not limited to, insufficient workspaces; inadequate equipment; insufficient lockers; limited meeting and collaboration spaces; health and safety violations; noisy office environments; privacy concerns from unprecedented surveillance measures; impact on stress and anxiety; work-life balance; and employee morale.”

In a letter to Marc-Olivier Girard, clerk for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, PSAC said that not only did the return to office mandate contradict the federal government’s plan to reduce its office footprint by 50 per cent by 2034, but that also it contradicted the Treasury Board’s own research on the matter.

“While claiming to prioritize ‘fairness,’ the government has imposed a one-size-fits-none

mandate on the entire public service, even though their own research acknowledges

that this approach is ineffective,” the PSAC letter reads.

The post Calls to investigate federal government’s office mandate for workers appeared first on rabble.ca.

Encouraging people – particularly young people – to play an active role in electoral politics may seem challenging. Canadians are struggling to come to terms with a world which is battling climate crisis after climate crisis, growing inequality and more; and to engage with politics at a time like this can become discouraging. People may feel disenchanted from the entire political system. 

In this clip NDP Member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski Niki Ashton acknowledges the political burnout Canadians are facing and explains that, despite this, becoming involved is the key for real change. 

This is a clip from rabble’s most recent live politics panel: Off the Hill: Catching up on US and Canadian politics. Guests this month included NDP Member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski Niki Ashton, policy analyst Chuka Ejeckam, poet and activist El Jones and rabble’s own parliamentary reporter Karl Nerenberg. Co-hosted by Robin Browne and Libby Davies. 

Off the Hill is a fast-paced live panel on current issues of national significance, hosted by Robin Browne and Libby Davies. This series focuses on the impact politics and policy have on people and on ways to mobilize to bring about progressive change in national politics — on and off the hill. To support Off the Hill, visit rabble.ca/donate.

The post NDP MP Niki Ashton: Public pressure leads to meaningful policy changes appeared first on rabble.ca.

“Premier Smith says she’s waiting on Nenshi to call Lethbridge-West by-election,” said the headline yesterday on the MyLethbridgeNow.com website. 

I’m going to give the good folks at the Southern Alberta news site the benefit of the doubt and assume someone there is having a little fun with Danielle Smith, the occupant of the top political job in Alberta, who is acting as if she doesn’t understand who gets to call by-elections in the Westminster Parliamentary system. (Hint: It’s not the unelected leader of an opposition party.)

In addition to being a premier, Smith is the beneficiary of a first-class public post-secondary education at the University of Calgary – a leading Canadian institution of higher learning, surely – which presumably involved passing a political science course or two. 

So I’m sure she understood as well as the rest of us do that when a vacancy is created in the Legislature, as occurred in the Lethbridge-West Riding last Canada Day when former NDP MLA Shannon Phillips’ resignation took effect, it is the lieutenant-governor who sets the date of the election on the “advice” of the premier. 

Since in our Parliamentary system the advice of the premier is really a command, it is therefore Smith who gets to set the date of the by-election – within a limit of six months from the day the vacancy was created, no general election pending. 

Nevertheless, as the MLN story put it more accurately than the headline, whenSmith was in Lethbridge Monday to campaign for the United Conservative Party candidate in the by-election that she has not yet called, she told reporters “she is holding off on calling an election in the riding to see where NDP leader Naheed Nenshi will be running for a legislative seat in the province.”

It would be fair to describe this as mischievous, or sophomoric, but either way it is nonsense. 

What it illustrates above all else is that the UCP since Smith took over as premier sees itself, and often acts, as if it were the Opposition. That is a job, of course, in which the premier has some experience. 

Without a doubt, she and her advisers have a childish desire to needle Nenshi for being in no hurry to set foot inside the Chamber of the Legislature, his non-member status bestowing certain political advantages on him in the short term, among them freedom to campaign full-time and no need to ask a sitting member of his party to give up a seat. 

“I’m kind of waiting for the Leader of the official Opposition,” the premier told the reporters. 

Of course, for the time being, the leader of the official Opposition is Edmonton-Mill Woods MLA Christina Gray, which should only be slightly confusing to a premier even though Nenshi is nevertheless the leader of the Opposition party. Readers of this blog, who follow politics closely, will instinctively grasp the difference. 

For his part, Nenshi responded by advising the premier to fire one of her cabinet ministers to open a seat in Calgary for him to run in, a suggestion that is genuinely amusing.

The MLN story, which followed the outline of the Canadian Press account of the same event with a little local colour tossed in, continued: “Smith says for the interest of taxpayers it would be nice to hold both by-elections at the same time and with Nenshi having been elected leader of the party back in June she thought by now one of his caucus members would have stepped down for him.”

She argued, The CP reported, that it would be “in the best interests of taxpayers to have both byelections at the same time.”

Readers with longish memories will recall that in October 2022 Smith took a completely opposite position when it was convenient to her, refusing to call a by election in the Calgary-Elbow riding, which was known to be leaning toward the NDP after the resignation of MLA Doug Schweitzer, when she wanted to a safe seat in the Legislature for herself.

In the event, she induced a rural MLA to step aside and ran in Brooks-Medicine Hat without calling an election in Calgary-Elbow. Smith’s justification for that outrageous and fundamentally undemocratic plan to treat voters in different locations in dramatically different ways was, in her own words, that it would cost too much to hold two by-elections!

“I think it’s important for me to be there to introduce my legislation and so we’re going to try to limit the expense by having it, the only one by-election,” she told the CBC at the time.

I wasn’t making that up two years ago, and I’m not making it up now!

“Hypocrisy, thy name is Danielle,” Nenshi, Calgary’s former mayor, commented Monday. 

Well, as has been noted in this space before, Alberta’s premier, like Oscar Wilde, believes consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. 

The Irish playwright and poet, possibly the greatest wit of the 19th Century, was kidding. It’s not clear Smith is, though.

The post AB Premier playing chicken with Nenshi in Lethbridge appeared first on rabble.ca.

In a recent newsletter, The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), informed its network of a global independent media investigation uncovering a “massive international corporate operation of undercover activities” that downplays the risks of pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and designed to discredit environmentalists in Africa, Europe and North America.

CBAN members include farmer associations, environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalitions of grassroots groups. It brings together 15 groups to research, monitor and raise awareness about issues relating to food security and sustainability and genetic engineering in food and farming. So the revelation of undercover activities by corporate interests trying to downplay the risks of pesticides and genetically modified organisms struck home.

In late September several investigative reports were published in media outlets around the world detailing how the US government funded a US-based international public relations firm to gather and provide information on thousands of individuals in an effort to counteract global resistance to pesticides. This funding by the US government and corporate clients of the public relations firm helped to create an underground social network created to weaken global environmental efforts.

It would likely be naive in this day and age to think that the global corporate pesticide lobby would not actively engage in methods and strategies to discredit environmental and organic farming movements. But it is stunning to read that these efforts were in part funded by the United States government to profile its own citizens, to influence legislation and anti-pesticide policies in other countries, and to create misleading if not deliberate misinformation, related to the dangers of pesticide use.

These independent international media investigations outline how v-Fluence, a PR firm based in Missouri which prides itself on strategies that promote reputational and risk management, worked to create online content and “profile” scientists, lawyers, environments, and activists in any way critical of the agro-chemical industry. The public relations firm actively worked to provide “intelligence” to discourage governments from adopting policies to ban pesticides. The campaign worked to encourage, for example, the use of paraquat in Kenya, and worked to derail legislation and conferences that could provide alternatives to the use of pesticides across Europe, Africa, and North America.  In the process thousands of individuals were profiled and personal information shared with corporate clients and individuals working in government, for example the department of agriculture in the US.

It is indeed eye-opening to have the impact of this corporate misinformation campaign chronicled in such great detail by major well-respected international news outlets. In fact, the collection of data on thousands of individuals around the world includes scientists, journalists, lawyers, United Nations employees, as well as individuals such US food writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, and the Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey, among others.

The collection of this data, both personal and public, breaches privacy laws in many countries, according to the report, and at the very least is unethical and suspect in many others. The data on individuals was distributed via a private social network managed by an entity called Bonus Eventus. Bonus Eventus is an offspring of the public relations firm v-Fluence, which denies reports of any wrongdoing in the methods used to provide “stakeholder intelligence” to its clients.

The website, launched in 2014, is the brainchild of former Monsanto director of corporate communications Jay Byrne, and provides a media-monitoring service for chemical company executives and chemical lobby groups. But its darker side is the collection of “dirt files” on thousands of individuals who have been critical of agro-chemical products.

A Canadian professor and researcher interviewed by The Guardian had this to say: “Collecting personal information about individuals who oppose the industry goes way beyond regular lobbying efforts,” said Dan Antonowicz, an associate professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, who researches and lectures about corporate conduct. “There is a lot to be concerned about here.”

The article in the The Guardian (US) provides detail on the impact of this covert campaign. The Guardian article also includes information on a lawsuit filed in the US against the public relations firm v-Fluence and the transnational Syngenta, alleging collusion to purposefully cover-up the links between Parkinson’s disease and the use of the pesticide Paraquat.

The hub of this investigation is Lighthouse Reports, a pioneer in collaborative journalism that works with leading media organizations to “deliver deeply rooted public interest investigations”. This particular investigation was a result of  collaboration with The Guardian US, Africa Uncensored, Le Monde, the New Lede, The New Humanitarian, The Continent, ABC News Australia, and the Wire.

This article provides links to the exposés published by newspapers around the world, highlighting activities in the different countries: https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/poison-pr/

You can also link to these published reports for more information.

 Co-publications from this investigation

• The Guardian: Revealed: the US government-funded ‘private social network’ attacking pesticide critics
• Le Monde: Revelations on the large-scale profiling of personalities embarrassing the agrochemical industry
• The New Lede: “Defend or be damned” – How a US company uses government funds to suppress pesticide opposition around the world
• ABC News: Former Monsanto exec’s invite-only social network reveals the dark tactics of the pro-chemical lobby
• The New Humanitarian: How the US agrochemical lobby is meddling in the future of Kenyan farming
• Le Monde: Diving into the black box of global pesticide propaganda
• The Wire: How a US-Based PR Firm Is Profiling Activists, Scientists Opposing Pesticides and GMO
• Le Monde: How Trump’s administration tried to torpedo the EU Green Deal using influence and misinformation campaigns
• Africa Uncensored: The Secret Network Keeping Harmful Herbicides On Sale – Part 1
• Africa Uncensored: The Secret Network Keeping Harmful Herbicides On Sale – Part 2

The post Corporate surveillance and online spooks appeared first on rabble.ca.

Almost every home in Canada has been impacted by the affordability crisis. Many of us are struggling to keep a roof over our heads and food on our tables. And while the world insists on moving on, some of us have never recovered from the pandemic, and too many remain uncertain about the future. 

We learned two major lessons from the pandemic. First – we found that even in hard times, corporations will not hesitate to take wealth and well-being from our communities to increase their profits. Second – we found that we can keep each other healthy when we take care together, we can save jobs and business through targeted public spending, and we can win public programs like dental care and pharmacare when we set goals together. Our collective effort in a time of crisis showed that this country is far from “broken.” 

But conservative politicians want you to believe otherwise. They offer empty promises and seek to distract us by creating “enemies.” Instead of solving people’s real problems, they want to divide our communities, undermine our democracy and weaken the public services that we rely on. Instead of long-term solutions, they offer tax cuts. But tax cuts won’t shorten the wait times in the emergency room, won’t help kids succeed in school, and won’t help care for an aging parent. Tax cuts will only enrich the wealthiest one per cent while undermining our hard-won public services. 

Canadians have a better alternative – built on a vision of shared values and prosperity for all. 

We can choose to build Canada’s future on a foundation of good-paying jobs and strong public services – that support every family and every community. We can ensure that everyone has access to primary medical care; take steps to stop price gouging on rents or food; build resilient communities that can withstand extreme weather events; and repair the social safety net that helps those in need. 

For everyone who is struggling to put a roof over their heads, we can apply measures from the past that acted to curb speculation and outlaw rent-gouging, and boldly re-create the programs that built permanently affordable non-market housing. For those who are aging, we can make sure there are long-term care options run for people’s needs, not for profit. For young families, we can invest in affordable, quality childcare and early child education in every community. 

For workers in any sector of the economy, we can make it easier to gain a collective voice at work and bring in rules to make sure people aren’t exploited or disrespected. We can insist our country commit to global efforts for peace and human rights and assert our right to credible news and information so we can make informed decisions. We can protect clean water as a human right; and embrace equality and reconciliation as essential steps in our journey together. 

We can have public transit that provides dependable service for every community. We can adopt industrial strategies that ensure young workers will have good careers producing sustainable goods and services. We can dramatically expand clean energy and energy efficiency programs while ending subsidies to fossil fuel monopolies. We can prepare Canada to succeed in the high-tech and sustainable economy of the future, while tackling climate change. We can make these choices now, because failing to take action now means we will pay much more later. 

If the wealthy paid their fair share in taxes, there would be more than enough money for all of this and more. But it’s not just about money. It’s also about how they influence political decision-making at all levels of government. When conservative politicians rage about taxes and public spending, it’s because their corporate donors want to take more profits, regardless of the consequences for the rest of us. 

It’s time to take this on. Canadians can’t afford to leave the political terrain open to U.S. style campaigns riding on destructive anger. The crisis in living standards won’t be overcome by austerity or tax cuts – it can only be solved with investment, inclusion, and community. It’s time to rebuild trust in each other and our society, and our capacity to work together for a better world. Let’s all step up and be part of shaping the future we want.

The post The crisis in living standards won’t be overcome by austerity or tax cuts appeared first on rabble.ca.

War is insane. Humans spend enormous amounts of money, consume massive resources, develop jaw-dropping technologies, destroy infrastructure and natural areas and kill millions of people, including many non-combatants, often just to stroke the egos of petty power-seeking men.

Our killing technologies may have advanced tremendously, but our mindsets haven’t evolved much from 3,000 years ago when Homer wrote his epic story The Iliad, about a bloody battle over perceived loss of “honour” when Paris, prince of Troy, absconded with Spartan king Menelaus’s wife Helen. Wars have since become far costlier, in lives, resources and money, but their justifications seem no less absurd.

We often hear how expensive it is to address the climate change and biodiversity loss crises, but it’s a pittance compared to spending on weapons and destruction — and addressing environmental crises is necessary and offers numerous benefits. Wars rarely do any good other than to enrich weapons manufacturers and, now, the fossil fuel industry.

That’s not to say that military and defence spending isn’t sometimes needed. In a world rife with conflicting ideologies and power-hungry leaders, people sometimes have to fight back against those who threaten freedom, democracy and human rights, or who engage in genocidal actions. And militaries often help out in times of disaster, such as hurricanes and other extreme weather–related events. But the overall concept of war is suicidal. It’s a testament to how little our thinking has evolved that we still don’t have better ways to settle differences.

Not only do wars prevent us from resolving serious, survival-threatening emergencies such as climate change and biodiversity loss — by sucking up money and resources and prioritizing destruction over problem-solving — they also contribute greatly to those problems.

A recent study by researchers in the U.S. and U.K. found greenhouse gas emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza — more than 99 per cent from Israel’s devastating retaliation for Hamas’s brutal October 7 attacks — were greater than the annual emissions of more than 20 of the nations most vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Those figures are a significant underestimate, as they’re based on just a few carbon-intensive activities. They include emissions from warplanes, tanks and other vehicles, building and using bombs, artillery and rockets and flying weapons and equipment from the United States to Israel. Other studies show the numbers could be as much as eight times higher if emissions from the entire supply chain were included.

Considering these conservative estimates are from just the first two months of a conflict that has escalated over more than a year, one can only imagine the current toll with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the many other conflicts worldwide added.

Although military emissions contribute significantly to global heating, reporting on them is voluntary. They’re mostly kept secret and aren’t included in United Nations climate negotiations. According to the Guardian, “Even without comprehensive data, one recent study found that militaries account for almost 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions annually — more than the aviation and shipping industries combined.”

The U.S. is one of the largest contributors to overall military emissions, about 20 per cent from protecting oil and gas interests in the Persian Gulf region — which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the inhabited world.

Beyond their emissions, military actions and war create a lot of other toxic pollutants. And, the UN reports, “while conflict exacerbates the effects of climate change, climate change, at least indirectly, drives conflict.”

David Boyd, UN special rapporteur for human rights and the environment (who has done work for the David Suzuki Foundation), told the Guardian, “This research helps us understand the immense magnitude of military emissions — from preparing for war, carrying out war and rebuilding after war. Armed conflict pushes humanity even closer to the precipice of climate catastrophe, and is an idiotic way to spend our shrinking carbon budget.”

Millions of people in the Middle East, Ukraine and around the world are being killed, maimed, orphaned, displaced and starved as a result of war and climate change. Imagine what we could accomplish if all the resources used to kill and destroy went into solving the existential threats we’ve created.

We’d better come to our senses before it’s too late.

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 War and climate change fuel a survival-threatening cycle appeared first on rabble.ca.

What can I tell you about my cherished friend Stan Persky, who died on Oct. 15, in Berlin? Born to working-class Jewish parents in Chicago in 1941, he knew early on that he wanted to be a writer and as a teenager he reached out to Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg to invite mentoring. This was a typically nervy move by the young Persky, who had, even then, as family members commented, “such a mouth on him.”

Stan soon joined the U.S. navy and served in Italy and San Francisco. It was in that California city that he studied with the poet Jack Spicer and developed the impeccable writing style that distinguished all his work thereafter. He moved to Vancouver with his then partner, the poet Robin Blaser, in 1966, and studied at the University of British Columbia, where he was a prominent student activist. He had already published a book of poetry in the United States, and both his long residence in Canada and his final years in Berlin were marked by tireless writing and publishing, eventually producing over 20 books and innumerable columns, reviews and articles.

He wrote for The Tyee as well as the Georgia Straight; the Globe and Mail; the Vancouver Sun; the website Dooneyscafe, which he co-founded with his friend and lifelong writing partner Brian Fawcett; the Los Angeles Review of Books and many other publications.

He taught generations of students, with most of his academic work done at what is now Capilano University. His students, both in formal classrooms and in informal gatherings of writers, were challenged to think hard and write clearly. He encouraged many aspiring writers. Many took up the sometimes thankless task of public intellectual work because of his encouragement.

Stan was an early voice for gay liberation and an activist on a broad range of social justice issues. He was a long-serving member of the board of directors of the BC Civil Liberties Association and a fearless social critic, equally at home critiquing the sexism, misogyny and mean-spiritedness of the right and the sometimes tiresome virtue signalling of the left. He truly was Canadian writing’s man for all seasons.

Stan’s last years were spent in Berlin, where his friends Thomas Marquard and Nadya al-Wakeel informally adopted him as a beloved and honorary family member. He settled into a long-term and affectionate connection there with his partner Damian. In an email to me this year he wrote: “When, many years hence (I hope ‘many’ years), the obit writers come around to collect reflections, you can assure them that my period of semi-retirement, featuring a 20-year or so relationship, was a happy ending.”

So, Stan will be remembered for his public-facing work as an author and activist, as well he should be. But he should also be remembered for his remarkable capacity for faithful, nourishing friendship. On that point, when I was invited to contribute to a 2018 anthology celebrating Stan’s work, here is some of what I wrote:

“Stan is not only a writer of shapely sentences and engaging narratives, although he is certainly that. He has made friendship the centrepiece of his intimate life, and for those of us lucky enough to be his friends, he has again and again illustrated the large and generous definition he gives to the concept. Persky is a master practitioner of the art of friendship.

“One telling example occurred decades ago, when I appeared at his door in the wake of a horrific call from the Sacramento police. The abiding mystery that had surrounded my sister Candy’s disappearance there a few years before had been solved by the discovery of her remains outside the California capital, and dental records confirmed her identity. For two years my family had been searching for her and hoping against hope that she might be found alive. The call from the police extinguished those already very dim hopes.

“When I fell through Stan’s front door on that horrible day, my heart scoured with grief and rage, he first made me a cup of coffee and then immediately offered me all the money I would need to go south and deal with taking my sister home and burying her. We were at his bank within the half-hour, and I suspect Stan emptied out his account entirely to provide me with the money I needed. I personally know of several other such acts of financial generosity by Stan over the years, gifts, and no-interest loans to folks who, like me in those days, would never have been mistaken for a good credit risk.

“The day they found my sister’s body was the most dramatic instance of my turning to Stan for support, but certainly not the only one. Over and over again, when my personal life was beset with heartbreaks and tumult, I could always count on Stan for a ready, sympathetic ear and innumerable cups of his reliably vile instant coffee at the kitchen table in the old house on York Street.

“And quite apart from the emotional first aid and patient listening he provided whenever I appeared, Stan has brought his keen intelligence and sardonic wit to the decades-long chain of arguments, political disagreements and book talk that we have shared at Friday lunches that have gone on now for the better part of my (more or less!) adult life. Those talks, conducted over the lunch table, at the bar or walking along Kits Beach, have enriched my life with engaged intellectual challenge, fresh information, obscure reading recommendations and flashing wit.

“I know this has been true for others lucky enough to count Stan as a friend. A word about Stan’s relationship to other writers is in order as well. Persky is one of the only writers in the known galaxy who does not hold to Gore Vidal’s resolute motto, ‘It is not only necessary that I succeed. Others must fail.’ Canadian bookshelves are well stocked with books that would not have made it to press, or been half as good without Stan’s encouragement and insightful criticism. He takes genuine delight in supporting emerging writers and in encouraging those, both young and old, who are still interested in the dying art of the book.

“In both the private realm of friendship and out in the public square, Stan has been hard at work extending the possibilities for intelligent, humane, friendly connections among people. All his work as a public intellectual, ranging from poetry to political commentary to experimental non-fiction, reflects a vision of a better world, one in which we all treat each other with the exquisite respect and intelligence that Stan brings to his treatment of his friends. As noted, he has been a heroic source of micro-loans and outright gifts for those he loves, and he has always been equally generous in sharing his enthusiasms for newly discovered writers and books. One of the many books I first heard about from Stan and later learned to love is the American philosopher Richard Rorty’s luminous text Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.

“I found myself thinking of Rorty’s wonderful meditations as I was preparing to write about Stan and his heroic practice of friendship. We are all subject to the blind, brute contingency of life in a world without final certainties. This circumstance is made more bearable by the intellectual virtue of irony and the intentional/emotional virtue of solidarity, virtues that Stan has embodied repeatedly in his life.

“Friendship may be the supreme democratic relationship, the even-handed, unselfish affection that is felt and exercised without the spur of erotic or romantic desire. Stan and I both came of age in a time of utopian hope for a transformed social order and have lived to see that hope nuanced and diminished by the rough workings of 20th-century history. And yet, even in the face of such disappointments, it is possible to hope for genuine friendship in the private sphere and a more amiable, respectful, even friendly tone in public life. Persky has done his part to promote both, and his city, his nation and his friends have all been enriched by his efforts.”

Today, remembering Stan with love, admiration and sorrow, one final thought occurs to me in the long rain shadow of grief his death demands. Obituaries often conclude with a list of things people are encouraged to do in memory of the loved one lost to death. This seems to me a useful practice, so here goes.

To honour Stan, read his books and share them with the young. Critically examine everything you believe and be willing to change your opinions when you learn new data. Challenge the cruel machinery of social power that does so much to crush our best possibilities, and every day find something to laugh at and an injustice to confront. Be kind to your friends.

This article was originally published in The Tyee.

The post Remembering activist Stan Persky appeared first on rabble.ca.

In May 2024, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institution’s (OSFI) released its Annual Risk Outlook — Fiscal Year 2024 – 2025 that showed “high impact” cyber attacks against banks nearly tripled between 2022 and 2023 increasing from ten to 28 respectively. These high impact attacks can lead to service disruptions and/or data leaks.

The OSFI, an independent agency of the Government of Canada that reports to the Minister of Finance, is intended to improve public confidence in the Canadian financial system. Financial institutions are expected to report cyber incidents to the OSFI within 24 hours.

ISA Cybersecurity, a leading Canadian cybersecurity-focused solutions and services provider, commissioned Angus Reid to conduct a nationwide survey in English and French. A total of 1,519 Angus Reid Forum members took part answering questions about banking and cyber security.

The data

For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

That survey revealed 78 per cent of Canadians are concerned about online banking cyber crime. Further analysis showed 76 per cent of respondents were concerned about possible data breaches at their financial institutions, while 22 per cent were extremely concerned.

“The survey results signal an opportunity for financial institutions to boost their efforts to protect and reassure clients at a time when cyber crime against banks is increasing in frequency and complexity and Canadians are concerned about the potential for service disruptions or data leaks,” said Kevin Dawson, President and CEO of ISA Cybersecurity.

The survey also found that over half (53 per cent) of respondents are likely to switch to a different financial institution if their current financial institution had a data breach.

Almost three quarters (73 per cent) of those surveyed said they consider a financial institution’s cybersecurity measures when thinking about switching or staying with their current financial institution.

Nearly one-quarter of respondents (23 per cent) aren’t confident that their financial institution can protect their personal information from cyber threats.

Canadians are open to doing their part to help banks safeguard their data with 95 per cent of survey participants willing to use extra security measures including multi-factor authentication or phone text codes.

Only 54 per cent of survey participants have adopted the use of biometrics to access their financial accounts, with half expressing concern about scammers mimicking their biometrics data.

Of the 46 per cent of participants who have not used biometric authentication to access financial accounts, a full 58 per cent say they are unlikely to consider using it.

One-in-five (21 per cent) of those surveyed would be willing to pay a small fee to get enhanced cybersecurity protection for their accounts and personal information provided by their financial institution.

“Surprisingly, despite increased investments in cybersecurity by Canadian banks in recent years, 62 per cent of those surveyed reported that they rarely, or never, hear from their financial institution regarding cybersecurity practices,” stated Dawson.

“This presents an excellent opportunity for banks to show leadership in educating their customers about how financial institutions protect them – and how customers can better protect themselves,” Dawson added.

The cost

ISA Cybersecurity partners with IBM to help protect financial institutions from cyber threats. Dawson points to IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024 that shows Canadian financial service organizations experience some of the costliest breaches, paying an average $9.28 million per breach. The report also found that organizations using extensive security AI and automation reported paying $2.84 million less per breach.  

Security AI and automation also reduced the average 277 days it takes to detect and contain a data breach by 54 days.

These findings highlight the importance of integrating AI and automation into the cybersecurity programs of financial institutions in order to reduce both the financial impact and business disruption cyber breaches impose.

There are also steps folks doing online banking can take to safeguard themselves from being hacked including using strong passwords that include a mix of letters, numbers and special characters.

Never use the same password across accounts or services and consider using a reputable password manager to securely keep track of your credentials.

Activate a multi-factor authentication (MFA) like short message service (SMS) codes or authenticator apps on all banking and financial accounts.

Cyber criminals use AI and other tools to create convincing phishing, vishing, and smishing attacks. Check the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre website to find out about the latest scams.

Secure all of your devices by regularly updating your computer and mobile device software to patch security vulnerabilities and only install anti-malware programs from trusted providers.

Then, there’s steps the federal government is taking in the form of Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, that had its first Parliamentary reading in June 2022 and is currently progressing through its second Senate reading.

Bill C-26 would require companies within the financial, telecommunications, energy and transportation sectors to strengthen protections against attacks including establishing cyber security programs to detect serious incidents. Failing to do so would mean facing financial penalties with the possibility imprisonment.

The bill would allow the federal government to direct how private companies in critical industries respond to potential cyber attacks, but that information would not be made public because the bill also prohibits organizations from revealing orders from Ottawa to correct their systems.

A number of civil liberties organizations and individuals made a joint submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security expressing concerns regarding civil liberties, privacy and democratic freedom infringements.

Their concerns include the fact that Bill C-26 undermines accountability and due process; opens the door to new surveillance obligations; offers no guardrails to constrain abuse; secretly undermines accountability and due process; and provides power without oversight or accountability for the Communications Security Establishment (CSE).

Recommendations include restraining ministerial powers; protecting confidential personal and business information; maximizing transparency; allowing special advocates to protect the public interest; and enhancing accountability for the CSE.

These stricter limits would allow Bill C-26 to meet its objective of improving cyber security across the financial, telecommunications, energy, legal and transportation sectors without compromising personal information including sharing information with intelligence agencies, provincial and foreign governments and organizations established by foreign states.

Dawson stresses the need for financial institutions to adopt cutting-edge AI and machine learning technologies to detect and respond to anomalies in real time while employing continuous network monitoring systems. These institutions also need to provide regular cybersecurity training for employees to ensure they recognize and respond to potential threats while maintaining a robust incident response plan that is tested on a regular basis through tabletop exercises.

The post Canadians concerned about online banking cyber crime appeared first on rabble.ca.

No political party can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the NDP!

And, as we watched in horror Saturday night, no Canadian New Democratic Party does it with the flair of the British Columbia NDP. 

It’ll be a week before we’ll know who really won a majority in the Legislature in Victoria – although not because of anything like the tall tales Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s next chief of staff Rob Anderson has been telling about voting machines to keep this province’s United Conservative Party (UCP) base wound up.

Naw, they use plain old paper ballots in BC just like we do here. The problem is only that with the BC NDP and the BC Conservative Party nearly tied in several ridings, there are going to have to be recounts, and that’s going to take a while. 

Whatever your politics are, though, and whoever you’d like to see emerge as the winner in Canada’s westernmost province, you’ve got to agree that the biggest loser in last night’s fiasco is Premier David Eby, whose government went from posting polling leads in excess of 20 per cent last fall to teetering on the edge of defeat. 

The biggest winner, you can credibly argue, is John Rustad, the climate change denying, vaccine-skeptical leader of the revivified BC Conservative Party, which seems to have unexpectedly inherited the mantle of BC’s old Social Credit coalition and appears to want to outdo the UCP for sheer nuttiness. 

Of course, this is the second time the BC NDP has hosed away a 20 per cent lead in the polls!

Then-leader Adrian Dix did the same thing in the weeks before the 2013 election – in an even more spectacular fashion than Eby, taking only a couple of months instead of a full year to fritter away his party’s seemingly insurmountable lead and lose to the BC Liberals, who were confusingly really conservatives. 

So what’s with this, you have to ask?

Well, New Democrats are afflicted almost everywhere in Canada with a crippling need to behave like the Boy Scouts of politics, shooting themselves in both feet with their earnest good sportsmanship. 

Consider Dix in 2013: No negativity would be tolerated in the face of a tsunami of dreck from the BC Liberals, so called for mysterious reasons since they were basically Social Credit 2.0. Result: a fourth term for the Liberals. 

Rachel Notley in 2023: The principal unforced error of the NDP’s 2023 campaign in Alberta was her foolish decision to tell the truth about a three per cent tax increase for the largest corporations. Result: a second term for the UCP, now led by the execrable Danielle Smith.

David Eby on Saturday: Why the hell didn’t he call an election in the fall of 2023 when he had a crushing lead in the polls and the BC Liberals hadn’t yet committed political seppuku to make way for the full-blown MAGAtry of the B.C. Cons, Social Credit 3.0? We’ll likely never know for sure, but I’d bet it was that Goodie Two-Shoes things again. Can’t do that! Someone might remind us that we have a fixed-election date in BC result: To be revealed soon. 

It doesn’t help that in almost every recent election, except perhaps Wab Kinew’s 2023 victory in Manitoba, New Democratic Parties tend to run away from their base and campaign to win the hearts of undecided conservative voters who may not even exist.

Federal leader Thomas “No Deficits” Mulcair did this in 2015, and was outflanked by Justin Trudeau on the left.

Historian Alvin Finkel writes that Notley ignored a host of progressive policies that would have won votes for the Alberta NDP as just too radical, or something, for those undecided conservative voters. 

Eby caved to the federal Conservatives’ Axe the Tax hysteria and wobbled on the province’s pioneering carbon tax. Did that drive thousands of BC’s many environmentally concerned voters into the arms of the Greens and split the progressive vote in multiple ridings? You bet it did!

It certainly didn’t help that the NDP forced the huge Vancouver-area suburb of Surrey to abandon the RCMP for a local force, an unpopular decision that flipped many NDP votes to the Cons. (This ought to give the UCP something to think about here in Alberta.) And the weather Saturday was appalling. But one suspects the NDP could have survived those lesser calamities. 

And where was John Horgan, you may wonder, the old-style New Democrat who became party leader in 2014 when nobody else seemed to want the job, and BC premier in 2017 after a similar election result led to a supply-and-confidence agreement with the Greens? After all, he won a majority in 2020 and was probably mostly responsible for the strong polls enjoyed by Eby last year.

Alas, Horgan announced he would leave politics in 2022, after a second bout with cancer, saying he couldn’t continue as leader and premier after the rigours of his treatment. He resigned in February 2023 and a month later was named Canada’s Ambassador to Germany by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

Horgan was diagnosed with a third cancer in June and on election night was being treated in a hospital in Berlin. 

Of course, yesterday’s electoral result won’t matter to a lot of die-hard New Democrats. Indeed, there will be more than a few who will be relieved if, after the dust from the recounts has settled, the party emerges as the loser. 

After all, what’s sweeter than an uncomplicated moral victory? 

But as Canada’s Conservatives adopt the extremism of the MAGA movement south of the border and ratchet up their attacks on public health care, human rights, and the environment, I’m not sure we can afford an NDP that prefers moral victories to real ones any more.

The post BC election a fiasco for NDP appeared first on rabble.ca.

Given the seemingly bottomless depths of human depravity, it’s hard to imagine that the world was ever able to come together and create something as inspired as the United Nations.

But, fresh from the horrors of the Second World War, there was a hunger for an international body that could bring the world’s nations together in pursuit of peace, create global programs to protect human rights, provide humanitarian aid and improve living standards and also help maintain a rules-based system of international law.

Sadly, the UN hasn’t fully succeeded. Still, given the difficulty of the task, it’s amazing that it’s made a difference at all. Or, in words attributed to Winston Churchill: “The UN was not designed to take us to heaven, but to prevent us from going to hell.”

By that lower yardstick, it deserves a solid B-plus.

So it’s disheartening that the world community, notably the West (including Canada), is doing so little to safeguard the UN in the face of Israel’s open hostility and scorn for the international body.

The most recent examples of Israel’s antagonism toward the UN are its repeated attacks this month on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, injuring five peacekeepers. Rather than promising to stop the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded UNIFIL leave the Lebanon border where it has had a UN mandate to keep the peace for almost five decades, but where its presence now hinders Israel’s invasion plans.

This flagrant disregard for international law and its institutions has been met with criticism from the West (including Canada) but no penalties, sanctions or boycotts that could apply international pressure on Israel.

In an unprecedented move earlier this month, the Netanyahu government blocked UN Secretary General António Guterres from entering Israel. This prompted a protest signed by 104 nations — including France, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland — but not Canada.

And last May, when the UN General Assembly voted to back a Palestinian bid for UN membership, Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan angrily denounced the vote and fed pages of the UN charter into a mini-shredder. He later called for the UN headquarters to be “wiped off the face of the earth.”

Israel has long been hostile toward United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the UN’s aid agency for Palestinian refugees. It has accused UNRWA of harbouring militants from Hamas, which invaded Israel last year, killing 1,200 and kidnapping 250. UNRWA fired nine employees for possible involvement in the Hamas attack, on the basis of Israeli evidence.

In response to the Hamas attack, Israel has bombed and starved Palestinians, killing more than 40,000 in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. It has also destroyed UNRWA schools and aid centres, causing the death of almost 230 UNRWA workers — by far the most UN personnel killed in a single conflict since the UN’s creation, said Guterres.

The Israeli Parliament has also given preliminary approval to a bill banning UNRWA from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which Guterres said would be a “catastrophe in what is already an unmitigated disaster.”

Israel’s open contempt for the UN and its agencies has the effect of undermining the international body’s authority. By accepting Israel’s defiance of the UN, Western nations (led by the United States, but including Canada) are failing to uphold vital principles of international law and the very notion that it applies to all nations.

Canada was among the founding members of the UN in 1945 and for decades played an active role in UN peacekeeping missions.

Washington’s endless supply of weapons has emboldened Netanyahu, leaving the rest of the international community, including Canada, as the only hope for applying sufficient pressure to restrain his government.

As Yael Berda, an Israeli professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently tweeted to the world: “Please do everything you can to stop this. We Israelis [who] oppose Netanyahu’s regime cannot stop this from within. There is no formal opposition. Help.”

This article was originally published by the Toronto Star.

The post Canada should not allow Israel’s defiance of the UN to go unchallenged appeared first on rabble.ca.

In our panel this month, we examine our neighbours’ south of the border upcoming presidential election, as well as the return of Canada’s parliament. Is an early federal election in Canada imminent too, as the NDP end their confidence agreement with the Liberals? 

This panel featured NDP MP Niki Ashton, policy analyst Chuka Ejeckam, poet and activist El Jones and rabble’s own parliamentary reporter Karl Nerenberg. We discussed the U.S. presidential election and how it will affect us in Canada as we navigate our own political shifts on Parliament Hill. 

About Off the Hill

Since 2019, Off the Hill has been rabble.ca’s live monthly 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.

Join us the third Wednesday of every month at 7:30pm ET. The live, digital show is one hour long – 45 minutes of moderated discussion followed by 15 minutes of audience participation.

Want to help projects like this going? rabble runs on reader support! Visit rabble.ca/donate today.

The post Off the Hill: Catching up on US and Canadian politics (FULL VIDEO) appeared first on rabble.ca.

Employment and Development Services Canada hosted a workforce summit this week. The event was built around the theme of building a workforce for the 21st century. 

Minister of employment, Randy Boissonault, seemed excited while delivering opening remarks at the summit on Wednesday, but others were concerned about how this summit was organized and what it means for provinces and territories. 

In a press release published on Wednesday afternoon, the Forum of Labour Market Ministers said they did not attend the summit because it was planned unilaterally without consulting the provinces or territories. The governments of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia are in caretaker mode and are not party to this release.

“Provinces and territories have unique perspectives and experiences gained from decades of impactful labour market service delivery, which would have strengthened the summit engagement process and fostered a deeper understanding of complex workforce challenges,” the press release reads. 

At the summit, Minister Boissonnault highlighted the challenges that currently face Canada’s workforce. He said problems include labour shortages in key sectors and an aging population set to retire. One solution put forward in Boissonnault’s speech is leveraging untapped labour potential of certain demographics. 

“We were at historically low unemployment levels and people said we had full employment,” he said. “The reality is that there were a million persons with disabilities not in the workforce. If they were, they were under employed.” 

Boissonnault also highlighted that Indigenous people, youth and women did not have equitable access to the labour market. 

In light of these challenges, Boissonnault announced a retraining fund for workers in exceptional situations. Boissonnault said leaders and organizations can apply to this fund until March 31. 

“Local leaders know their communities best,” Boissonnault said. “That’s why we created the Canada Retraining and Opportunities Initiative; to give local leaders what they need to support workforce planning and help displaced workers find work.” 

Boissonnault’s words indicate he is committed to strengthening the workforce, but the Forum of Labour Market Ministers said this must come with support for provinces and territories.

In their Wednesday press release, provinces and territories demanded that Ottawa increase Labour Market Transfer Agreement funding (LMTAs). The LMTAs are sent to provinces and territories to help Canadians find and keep good jobs. 

“As the majority of this funding is drawn from Employment Insurance contributions made by workers and employers, it is imperative that it be reinvested in publicly-funded and localized employment services offered by provinces and territories,” the Forum of Labour Market Ministers wrote. 

Mila Roy, a media relations officer for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), said the office had regularly shared information with provinces and territories about the department’s plan to create the Workforce Summit. Provinces and territories were invited to attend and some representatives were asked to speak on panels, she said. 

“We were pleased to welcome a representative to attend on behalf of the provinces and territories in the Forum of Labour Market Ministers to observe the discussions,” she said. 

A press release published Thursday by ESDC said Minister Boissonnault was disappointed the provinces and territories did not participate in the summit. 

The Forum of Labour Market Ministers said the provinces and territories remain committed to delivering the best workforce programs possible. They say they are urging the federal government to work in true partnership with them. 

“By failing to respect provinces and territories as key partners, the federal government has ignored the role of the Forum of Labour Market Ministers and missed an opportunity to strengthen the close federal-provincial-territorial cooperation established over 40 years ago,” they wrote.

The post Employment minister sets sights on modernizing workforce, but some feel left behind appeared first on rabble.ca.

If Donald Trump is re-elected as US president he may once again impose tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. A RadioLabour interview with USW District 6 Director Kevon Stewart. Plus the LabourStart report about union events. And singing: U N I O N.

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 Steelworkers will fight Trump’s terrible tariffs appeared first on rabble.ca.

This week on rabble radio, we feature a segment from our most recent Off the Hill political panel. This month, our theme was ‘Off the Hill: Catching up on Canadian and U.S. politics.’

Our panel featured NDP MP Niki Ashton; rabble columnist and policy analyst Chuka Ejeckam; poet and activist El Jones; and rabble’s own parliamentary reporter Karl Nerenberg.

About our guests

Niki Ashton is NDP Member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski in Manitoba.

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).

Chuka Ejeckam is a writer and policy researcher. His work focuses on inequity and inequality, drug policy, structural racism, and labour. He is also a columnist for rabble.

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

If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 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 Catching up with Canadian – and U.S. – politics appeared first on rabble.ca.