The Toronto Al Quds committee has issued Ontario Premier Doug Ford with a cease and desist after he allegedly made repeated defamatory statements about the city’s Al Quds event.

In a public address on March 13, Ford accused the event of being antisemetic and a source of violence.

“This  demonstration is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and antisemitism. It  glorifies violence. It celebrates terrorism. It has no place in Ontario. It has no place in  Canada,” Ford said.

Al Quds, which is Arabic for Jerusalem, is an annual event held worldwide on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan as a demonstration of solidarity with the Palestinian people.

The event has grown in significance in recent years since Israel’s persistent attack on the Palestinians of Gaza and growing repression in the West Bank.

Doug Ford tries to cancel Al Quds

Ford had tried to have the Toronto Al Quds event cancelled altogether by asking the Ontario Attorney General to file a court injunction against the event, a motion that was denied by a judge of Ontario’s Superior Court on the day of the event, March 14, allowing it to go ahead.

In finding that the event could go ahead, Justice Robert Centa said that there was no historical evidence of violence at the annual Toronto Al Quds day protests.

“There is no evidence in the record that  there were criminal charges arising out of last year’s Al Quds rally in Toronto, or at the rallies in  any of the prior 30 years. There is no evidence that participants at last year’s rally incited hatred  or engaged in hate speech. There is no evidence before me of any criminality arising out of this rally in the past, much less evidence that could satisfy me that there is a ‘strong case’ that there  will be criminal activity this year,” his statement reads.

The Toronto Al-Quds event this year was also peaceful, save for two men who were counter-protesting the event who were each arrested on assault charges.

Other groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) called out the premier for trying to violate the Charter Rights of Canadian citizens through his attempt to stop the Al-Quds day event.

“Seeking to shut down an entire protest before it has even begun is an extraordinary and dangerous step. It is a pre-emptive attack on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, both of which are fundamental Charter-protected freedoms in a democratic society,” a statement from the CCLA reads.

Ford asked to apologize or face further legal actions

In the notice of libel sent to Premier Ford on March 18, lawyer Stephen Ellis demanded that he retract and apologize for his statements.

“Please note that these published statements have done and continue to do serious harm to the Al Quds Committee’s reputation,” Ellis’ letter reads.

Ellis is asking Ford for the following on behalf of the Al Quds committee:

(1) The Al Quds Committee demands that you immediately remove the defamatory  video and post from all print and social media; 

(2) The Al Quds Committee demands that you immediately cease and desist from  publishing the defamatory remarks as described above. 

(3) The Al Quds Committee demands an immediate retraction and the publication of  an unequivocal apology in all media where these statements have been made, and  in a form and content that is acceptable to the Al Quds Committee. 

(4) This letter shall serve as notice for the purposes of section 5(1) of the Libel and  Slander Act. 

(5) A legal proceeding shall follow in defamation pursuant to the Libel and Slander  Act.  

Ford is being given seven days from the date of the letter to retract and apologize for his statements or risk further legal action.

The post Toronto Al Quds committee serves Doug Ford with libel notice appeared first on rabble.ca.

Workers at the Amazon warehouse in Delta B.C. have won a million dollar back pay settlement after the provincial Labour Board ruled against the company. The LabourStart report about union events. And singing: The Workers Song Community Project | The Longest Johns.

The post Amazon workers win million dollars in back wages appeared first on rabble.ca.

When Premier Danielle Smith revealed Wednesday during Question Period in the Alberta Legislature that she is seeking national security clearance from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), she put Canada’s spy agency in a potentially difficult spot.

Jousting with Opposition Leader Naheed Nenshi about the danger of foreign interference in the separation referendum she is determined to have on a ballot next fall, the premier complained that the RCMP doesn’t brief her on security matters, adding, “I’m not happy with that fact, which is why we have to go to alternative sources to get intelligence.”

“I am going through the process to be able to get a higher clearance so that I can get CSIS briefings because I would like to know if there is any foreign interference happening in our province,” she continued. 

On the face of it, though, Smith doesn’t look like a suitable person to be privy to state secrets. 

She is, after all, the leader of a political party and government caucus now openly dominated by Alberta separatists who are dedicated to the division of the Canadian state, and at best unconcerned by the possibility of its destruction. 

One of the authors of the separatist “Free Alberta Strategy,” Rob Anderson, is her chief of staff. She has been photographed dining with leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), the group leading the charge on getting enough signatures on a petition to get their separation question on the ballot. And she is known to be an unblushing supporter of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who has cast himself as an enemy of Canada – at least once he is finished disposing of all his other enemies – who vows to make our country the 51^st state, the better to plunder our resources. 

Even if Smith personally is, as she recently insisted, “clearly fighting for Canada,” the company she keeps would in normal circumstances make her ineligible to have access to state secrets. 

But we shouldn’t judge her by the company she keeps, someone is bound to say. Judging people by the company they keep, though, is one of the principal jobs of CSIS, or any state security agency.

Then there is the matter of the premier’s company aloft, and I’m not talking about Anderson in his medically necessary business-class seat. Instead, consider Smith’s recent free flight through the friendly skies of Saudi Arabia on a jet owned by the feudal monarchy of that oil-rich principality. We can likely assume that digital recorders were operative aboard. 

On the other hand, Smith is a duly elected Canadian premier, and at least one other – British Columbia’s David Eby – has been granted similar status to help him deal with security threats in his own province. 

If she is denied security clearance, Smith might very well try to spin the denial into a wedge issue to allege unfair treatment of Alberta by the Canadian government – an old song, but one that always plays well in certain quarters here in Wild Rose Country. 

Writing yesterday in his National Security and Intelligence Newsletter on Substack, historian and security-intelligence expert Wesley Wark called Smith’s comments in the Legislature “both naïve and an admission.” 

Naïve because the foreign interference, from the United States and possibly other foreign bad actors, is so obvious. An admission because the premier’s request to CSIS “is a clear acknowledgement that provincial bodies have no capacity to understand the prospects of foreign interference targeting Alberta.”

This is a sharp point. That the RCMP may have been reluctant to pass information on to Smith makes sense, Dr. Wark explained, because “you can’t share classified information with a person or office that does not have the requisite security clearance.”

So, he asks, will giving Smith access to state secrets solve the problem? Probably not. Remember, “a Premier wholly unversed in intelligence and with no expertise to backstop her within her own government structures will not be in a good position to understand what she is being told. …” 

Moreover, he said, the Alberta Government “may lack the apparatus for storing classified intelligence, so she may find herself, at least for a time, restricted to oral briefings. … Such are the demands of secret information but they are not popular with politicians.”

Even if her briefings are entirely spoken, those of us here in Alberta know Smith well enough to be confident she will soon blurt out a state secret or two on her Saturday morning radio program, unless Corus Radio is prepared to give CSIS access to a bleep-out button.

Dr. Wark also cites CSIS’s legislated need to steer clear of political controversy and act in a politically non-partisan manner. We all understand that Smith is not capable of such restraint. 

What’s more – as is the stated reason for federal Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre’s refusal to get a security clearance – having learned about politically advantageous intelligence tidbits in confidential briefings would tie Smith’s hands, theoretically preventing her from using them. Again, sooner or later Smith’s blabbermouth could be expected to become a liability for CSIS.

The obvious origin of the foreign-funded misinformation and disinformation emanating from the United States raises another possibility about the kind of intelligence Smith is hoping to find, however. 

Cast your minds back to the days after the UCP formed government in 2019 and then premier Jason Kenney’s claim that “for over a decade, a well-funded foreign campaign has defamed Alberta’s energy industry and sought to land-lock our oil.”

This soon led to the fatuous “Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns” led by Calgary accountant Steve Allan, not to mention the so-called “Energy War Room.” At one point, the inquiry paid for a “research paper” that claimed groups of journalists covering climate change were conspiring “to coordinate and effectively distribute propagandized climate change issues in their reporting.”

But Kenney’s paranoid obsession didn’t come out of thin air. The fantasy of a foreign-funded conspiracy to replace good ole Alberta capitalism with a dystopic ecotopia became a virtual moral panic in the C-suites of the Calgary oil industry after the election of Rachel Notley’s NDP in 2015. 

So what do you want to bet that Smith, who obviously thinks there’s nothing wrong with American “influencers” trying to sway Canadian voters, is really looking for evidence of foreign environmentalists paying attention to UCP plans for the Athabasca oilsands that could re-spin the illusion of anti-Alberta energy campaigns into an anti-NDP vote getter?

The post Danielle Smith is seeking a national security clearance appeared first on rabble.ca.

This week on rabble radio, author Jowita Bydlowska joins rabble publisher Sarah Sahagian in the rabble book lounge to discuss her latest memoir Unshaming, and reflect on how her 2014 memoir Drunk Mom transformed her life.

About our guest

Jowita Bydlowska is the author of Unshaming (March 2026). She is also the author of Monster(September 2024),  Possessed, the best-selling memoir Drunk Mom, and the best-selling novel GUY. She’s also a prolific short-story writer, journalist and a mentor. She divides her time between Tkaronto and Treaty-9. She is obsessed with her chihuahua.

​Learn more about Bydlowska on her website here.

If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube and now: subscribe to rabble on Patreon to hear exclusive bonus episodes of rabble radio. 

The post Jowita Bydlowska on ‘Drunk Mom’ and ‘Unshaming’ appeared first on rabble.ca.

The post Doug Ford shows why we need a wealth tax appeared first on rabble.ca.

Bill C-12, an act that has been criticized by human rights groups for attacking migrants passed third reading in the Senate last week. This development was described as “devastating” by Amnesty International. 

The bill contains a section which would give the government power to block new immigration applications, suspend the processing of existing ones or terminate applications if it is in the “public interest.” The Canadian Council for Refugees criticized the wording of this as being too broad and without any safeguards which could open certain groups up to discrimination. These new powers could impact all sorts of immigration applications, including work permits. 

Ontario childcare worker Mehak Kapoor, president of local 5575 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE 5575), is calling out how cuts to immigration are hurting the workforce. An immigrant herself, Kapoor has been put in a position where she had to quit her job and prepare to leave Canada after her work permit expired on March 16.

Even before Bill C-12, immigrants were forced into uncertainty in 2024 when the government announced an Immigration Levels Plan that aimed to reduce the population of immigrants. 

The union is calling out the government’s past changes to immigration policy for creating conditions where many people have had to leave jobs where they perform valued labour. Kapoor’s workplace, the Learning Enrichment Foundation in Toronto, is one example of how immigration uncertainty affects child care. CUPE said about 20 per cent of the workforce at the foundation are migrant workers on temporary work permits that expire this year. The union also highlighted that the child care sector across Canada relies on migrant labour. 

Child care in Canada has allowed more parents, and specifically mothers, to participate in the workforce. But now, child care centres are seeing their workforce wither. 

CUPE 2484 President Jess Tomas highlighted that qualified child care workers are being forced to leave due to changes in Canada’s immigration policy. 

“We’re so low-staffed. We’re not able to take sick days. We’re not able to take vacation days. And yet these qualified folks who have come here are being sent back,” Tomas said. “And guess what? In five years, they’re going to lure another cohort over here. And we will have another invisible immigrant and migrant workforce that has been used up and spit back out.”

LISTEN: Gabriel Allahdua on Canada’s migrant rights track record 

Beyond the impact on the workload for the people left behind, Kapoor said the immigration uncertainty will have an impact on the children who build relationships with childcare providers. 

“When you work with children, relationships matter. Children trust their educator. Families trust the people caring for their children,” she said. “It’s so heartbreaking because I don’t want to leave my kids. It’s them saying their first words, them taking their first steps, or them learning my name and calling my name, or when they come in and see me and run for a hug.”

As Bill C-12 inches closer to becoming law, the impact on migrants is sure to compound with the effects of the Immigration Levels Plan. At CUPE Ontario’s annual conference for social service workers, Kapoor and Tomas urged their colleagues in the union to step up for migrant workers. Kapoor said the union was important for her because it provided support and a voice. She added that the work to build solidarity with migrant workers must continue. 

“We need to recognize that the people who are working on temporary permit are workers first. Labour rights, workplace protection, and dignity should never depend on somebody’s immigration status,” she said. “We need clear and fair pathways to permanent residency, especially for workers in essential sectors like child care or social services. If someone studies here, works here, and contributes to the community, they should have real opportunity to stay.”

The post Bill C-12 passed Senate, and migrant workers are left in the dust appeared first on rabble.ca.

As the cost of living continues its meteoric rise, more households struggle to make ends meet. And, those households increasingly include working families as well as single folks. For over 30 years Food for Life, a registered, non-profit charity, has been rescuing and redistributing surplus food to communities throughout Halton and Hamilton.

Since 1995, Food for Life has rescued over 35 million pounds of food valued at more than $113 million from local farms, grocery stores and businesses. They supported 5,000 households a week (2025) through nearly 100 low-barrier programs including market-style distributions, fresh food fridges and lockers as well as seniors’ pop-ups that are grounded in dignity, accessibility and connection.

“Food is about so much more than nourishment,” Karen Randell, Executive Director of Food for Life, told rabble.ca via email. “It’s about dignity, choice, and knowing that you matter. When neighbours have access to fresh, healthy food in a welcoming, respectful environment, it eases stress, protects health, and helps people feel connected to their community.”

To ensure connectivity, Food for Life conducts annual Neighbour Impact Surveys. The 2025 survey provided valuable information that will help staff improve services during 2026.

The breakdown of racial identity of people accessing Food for Life programs was 67 per cent identify as white; six per cent identify as a person of colour; five per cent identify as Black and three per cent identify as Indigenous. English was the preferred language for 85 per cent of respondents with Arabic, Russian, Spanish, and Ukrainian making up additional languages.

Financial pressure on vulnerable communities grows

While rental housing continues to be increasingly commodified across the province, the government of Ontario premier Doug Ford has removed the last vestiges of rent controls making it impossible for many individuals and families to find accommodations that cost 30 per cent of their gross income.

A small one-bedroom condo or apartment in Halton rents for $2,000 plus utilities. That requires a gross monthly income of $6,667. Based on a 35-hour work week, someone earning a living wage of $27.20 per hour has a gross income of $3,808 per month. Minimum wage earners making $17.60 per hour are looking at $2,464 gross per month. That makes the cost of rental housing the single greatest driving force behind the increase in folks accessing food supports for the first time.

A breakdown of respondents’ incomes reveals deeply inadequate incomes:

• 28 per cent rely on Canada Pension Plan (CPP) that averages $803.76/month
• 24 per cent rely on Old Age Security (OAS) ranging from $667.41 to $1,108.74
• 16 per cent rely on Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) payments of $1,400 per month
• 16 per cent rely on Ontario Works that provides $733 per month
• 15 per cent rely on wages and salaries from full-time work

Fifty-two per cent of the folks who have been accessing Food for Life programs for a year or less are either employed or seeking opportunities. The fact that employment no longer protects folks against food insecurity is a marked change from the past and reflects the dearth of full-time positions paying a standard of living that lets folks thrive. Instead, employers increasingly rely on gig and part-time positions that are not only precarious, but pay unlivable wages, no benefits and offer little in terms of job advancement. 

Wage theft also factors into increased food bank visits. Over the past decade far more than $200 million have been stolen from Ontario workers by employers. We know the actual dollar amount is much higher due to under reporting. Then there’s the high cost of childcare and transportation to factor into this equation. 

“I read and review every survey response we receive, and what stays with me most is the mix of strain and hope,” Dianna Williams, Manager of Research at Food for Life told rabble.ca via email.

“Neighbours are doing everything they can to get by under the weight of rising costs, and access to fresh food offers real relief — not just for today, but for their health and wellbeing over time. Everyone in our community deserves access to food that is suitable for them and helps them stay healthy. Caring for the health of our community is a collective responsibility we all share,” she added. 

The positive impacts of access to healthy food

Food for Life tracks the benefits of a healthy diet and found 91 per cent of neighbours reported positive impacts to their overall health; 56 per cent said their diets improved; 22 per cent reported improvements in both physical and mental health; while 48 per cent experienced reduced stress.

These outcomes align with findings from PROOF Food Insecurity Policy Research that showed improved food security reduces emergency healthcare use and chronic disease risk while contributing to stronger long-term health outcomes and overall wellbeing. 

Food for Life programs fill crucial gap

In 2025, Food for Life programs contributed to $166,715 in local healthcare savings based on the households who responded and experienced improvements to their food insecurity status since accessing these programs.

Survey results also show that Food for Life programs play a critical role in easing financial strain. Neighbours reported saving an average of $74 per week on groceries or nearly $300 per month. That money was redirected to pay rent, utilities, medications and other essentials. It also helped neighbours avoid borrowing money from high interest payday loan lenders charging upwards of 365 per cent interest to make ends meet.

Seventy-seven per cent of respondents reported having less than $200 left for food after paying essential bills. “Without this, I would not have any food. I don’t even have enough money for rent and utilities. I’m financially in deep trouble, but I at least have food.” – Food for Life Neighbour. 

Neighbours who access Food for Life’s programs not only report living healthier lives, they also say they’re less isolated. One in four neighbours said accessing programs helped them connect with others in their community with over 20 per cent reporting increased trust and social interaction with local service providers.

The 11 weekly pop-up markets in subsidized housing communities across Halton serve about 500 seniors each week offering good food and much needed human interactions that help seniors stay healthy.

And, it’s important to acknowledge about 40 per cent of those experiencing food insecurity in Halton region are children whose physical and cognitive growth will be affected by undernourishment as well as malnourishment. Their emotional growth can also be impacted when it becomes obvious to teachers and classmates that they don’t have a lunch or snacks every day. 

Key to fulfilling its mandate of feeding people is the low-barrier, no proof of poverty approach that allows neighbours to access programs as soon as they begin experiencing food insecurity. Research has overwhelmingly proven that effective intervention at this stage improves outcomes by helping households experiencing marginal food insecurity from progressing to moderate and eventually severe food security that leads to skipping meals, malnutrition and long-term health consequences.

Listening to neighbours and learning from their lived experience is central to how Food for Life designs and delivers programs. Neighbour feedback directly informs how food is sourced, how programs operate, and how services evolve to reflect the needs and cultures of the communities served.

“At Food for Life we recognize that true food security goes far beyond the redistribution of food – it means having reliable access to all the food you want and need for a healthy and active life without having to rely on coping strategies like accessing food programs. That means addressing the social determinants of health through policy change – ensuring a minimum income floor, affordable housing, accessible childcare, universal healthcare, healthy environments to live and play, and supports that enable everyone in our communities to thrive. We also support approaches to food sovereignty that affirm Indigenous Peoples’ rights to procure food in culturally meaningful and ecologically sound ways – because food security must also honour self-determination and culture,” stated Williams.

A volunteer supported initiative

In terms of volunteers who are also neighbours accessing food, Williams explained that Food for Life intentionally manages their volunteer network and neighbours in completely separate systems. They don’t track whether someone who volunteers also accesses their programs. 

“We’ve made this choice on purpose, as we never want anyone to feel that they need to give their time in order to receive food – especially knowing that not everyone has the capacity to volunteer for various reasons. That said, anecdotally, we do know that many volunteers are deeply connected to the issue of food insecurity – through lived experience, family, friends, or their broader community. Volunteering often becomes a meaningful way for people to give back, feel connected, and support one another, reflecting the strong sense of mutual care and community that underpins our work,” said Williams.

As an added benefit, Food for Life provides essential environmental services by operating the region’s largest food rescue hub sourcing fresh produce, meat and plant-based proteins, dairy, baked goods and non-perishable produce. Over the past 30 years, Food for Life has redistributed 35 million pounds of good food, valued at $113 million. They effectively prevented the equivalent of 50 million kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions from being released into the atmosphere. 

Food for Life reduces its own carbon footprint by composting, using reusable crates and repurposed rainwater. Food for Life provides responsive, equitable food security informed by strong research and data rooted in community while also being ethical environmental stewards. 

The post Food for Life, ‘turning surplus food into hope’ appeared first on rabble.ca.

In the latest episode of the Courage My Friends series, we welcome organizer with the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network Kara Anderson and welcome back Canada organizer for World Beyond War and coordinator of the Arms Embargo Now Campaign, Rachel Small. We discuss Canada’s radical turn toward militarism and its ramping up of defence spending, the many and deep connections between militarism and mining in the mining capital of the world and solidarity organizing against the march to war.

Reflecting on Canada’s increased defence spending, Small says:

“ Canadian military spending had already doubled from $20 billion to over $40 billion over the past decade … And then last June, Carney gave it an extra $9 billion overnight and then committed to doubling it again over the next decade. So … the number that’s kind of being floated around is that the new defence spending would amount to $150 billion per year in the next decade … It’s vastly more than the federal government spends on all health and social transfers to all the provinces and territories combined. It’s an enormous flow of funding that’s pretty unprecedented in Canada since at least World War II. This is an enormous gift to Trump. It’s Canada literally doing precisely what Trump demanded Canada do.”

On the link between militarism and mining, Anderson says:

“The playbook for mining is the ways in which colonization itself has perpetuated itself … What is the premise for going into other countries? It’s to get resources. And how do you do that? You do that through violence. Like the OG colonial ways. But I think that just reinforces why it’s so important to shut things down, like mining … mining is so central to a lot of the violence, the militarization that we see in the world today… You go in, you use violence to take the land, .. and then you use that to make weapons. And then these weapons, again end up in opposite parts of the world, blowing things up … these weapons also end up back in the same communities from which they were mined and they’re used to further suppress these communities. ”

About today’s guests:

Kara Anderson is an organizer with the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network, as well as a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto working on food justice.

Rachel Small works as the Canada Organizer for World BEYOND War, a global grassroots organisation and network working to abolish war and the military industrial complex, is a founding member of the Jews Say No to Genocide Coalition, and coordinates the Arms Embargo Now Campaign. She has done grassroots organizing within local and international social/environmental justice movements for nearly two decades, with a special focus on working in solidarity with communities harmed by Canadian extractive industry projects.

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

Image: Kara Anderson, Rachel Small / Used with permission.

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

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

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

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

Host: Resh Budhu.

The post Mining, militarism and organizing against the march to war appeared first on rabble.ca.

Canada is among the world’s most resource-rich countries. Forty per cent of its land is covered in forests. It holds 20 per cent of the world’s freshwater reserves. It’s the fourth-largest crude oil exporter. It produces more than 60 minerals and metals and ranks in the top five for 14 of them — critical to the global clean energy transition.

Our natural resources sector is important to communities throughout the country, and to the national economy. Beyond economics, nature provides essential ecosystem services, including climate regulation, carbon storage, flood mitigation, air filtering and biodiversity support.

But who owns the sector, and why aren’t we talking about it more?

There’s been more talk about how organizations trying to protect and restore these valuable life-supporting necessities — including the David Suzuki Foundation — are “foreign-funded.” The (false) accusation is that environmental groups are undermining sovereignty and putting outside interests first. These allegations are unfounded but not surprising.

What is surprising is the lack of scrutiny around foreign ownership of this country’s natural resources. Who owns and controls Canada’s natural wealth has implications far beyond a balance sheet. It affects who benefits and who bears the risk in an increasingly volatile world.

The share of foreign-controlled assets outside the financial sector sits at 22.9 per cent. In the oil and gas industry, that rises to 33 per cent. In forestry and logging, foreign-controlled enterprises have been reported as accounting for up to 40 per cent of revenues, though lack of transparent reporting makes accountability difficult.

It’s hard to notice ownership structures when companies have deceptive names such as “LNG Canada,” which has no Canadian ownership but is a massive joint venture between five multinational corporations, some state-owned, including PetroChina and Korea Gas Corporation.

This is not an argument for xenophobia or economic isolation. Canada’s participation in global markets is vital to its economy, while foreign companies bring capital and expertise and employ countless people who live here.

Ownership matters, as does the long-term accountability that follows.

Companies not headquartered here direct more profit out of the country with little concern or accountability for the ecological consequences of their actions.

With climate change intensifying wildfires and floods, people here are stuck with the bill. Climate impacts are estimated to be slowing Canada’s economic growth by $25 billion per year. Last year, extreme weather–related losses surpassed $2.4 billion. That doesn’t include the cost of cleaning up industrial events like oil spills, air pollution and abandoned wells — which live on long after corporations leave.

On top of that, habitat loss and fragmentation from industrial activity threaten at-risk species. More than half of wildlife species in this country are currently declining, mainly because of human activity. Industrial activity alters ecosystems in ways that communities in Canada — not the home countries of the companies involved — must live with for generations.

Where does this leave Indigenous nations, whose territories are home to most of Canada’s natural resources? When we prioritize multinational corporations over Indigenous stewardship models rooted in ecological responsibility and community benefits, we undermine reconciliation and the potential for a sustainable future.

A leadership candidate in British Columbia recently claimed Coastal First Nations is a foreign-funded advocacy group and suggested he would ban foreign-funded organizations seen to influence B.C. politics. Silencing Indigenous nations under the guise of sovereignty while allowing multinational corporations to actively reshape policy decisions and entire ecosystems is hypocritical and far more concerning. Indigenous sovereignty is itself critical because their relationship with nature is built around reciprocity.

Most Canadians want limits on foreign ownership. A recent survey found almost 60 per cent believed outside possession of Canada’s critical minerals was a greater threat than “missing out on development and jobs because of a lack of investment.”

Where are the loud warnings? Where are the critics?

If industry supporters see supposed foreign funding of environmental organizations as a threat to sovereignty, why doesn’t foreign ownership of Canada’s natural resources ring alarm bells? Do those working to protect ecosystems actually pose a greater risk than the multinational companies working to extract and profit from them?

Sovereignty can’t matter in one context and be dismissed in another.

We should all be asking the important questions: Who makes decisions around Canada’s natural wealth? Who benefits? And who is left holding the bag?

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Stefanie Carmichael.

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.

The post There is a lack of scrutiny on foreign ownership of Canada’s natural resources appeared first on rabble.ca.

We the undersigned arts and cultural producers strongly and unequivocally condemn the US-Israel attacks on Iran. We condemn the targeting of Iran’s schools, hospitals, factories and other civilian infrastructures. We demand an unconditional end to the war that has been devastating the entire region.

We firmly support the people of Iran in their courageous movements for democratic change in their country, and believe that they can only accomplish that without foreign intervention and the devastation of illegal war and sanctions.

We condemn Israel’s continued genocide in Gaza, and in the whole of Palestine, and its attacks on Lebanon.

We demand that, as the representative of the people of Canada, your government call for sanctions against Israel for its refusal to abide by international law.

We demand that the government of Canada take a position in all international fora against the expansionist and warmongering actions of the US and Israel and their stated plan for regime change through massive “death and destruction” in Iran.

We demand the immediate withdrawal of all Canadian military assisting the US and Israel in their war on Iran. 

We demand that your government insist on adhering to international law by condemning the US and Israel who started the aggression.

Add your name here.

Signatures:

1. Gita Hashemi, artist/curator/writer, Toronto
2. Jayce Salloum, artist/filmmaker, Vancouver
3. Sarah Abusarar, storyteller, Mississauga
4. Rehab Nazzal, artist, Montreal
5. Babak Salari, artist, Montreal
6. Irwin Oostindie, artist/producer, Vancouver
7. b.h.Yael, artist/professor, Toronto
8. John Greyson, film/video artist, Toronto
9. David Wall, musician, Toronto
10. Richard Fung, artist, Toronto
11. Rana Nazzal Hamadeh, artist, Ottawa
12. Krys Verrall, artist, educator, Toronto
13. Min Sook Lee, filmmaker/professor, Toronto
14. Mieke Van Geest, artist, Kingston
15. Cathy Gulkin, filmmaker, Toronto
16. Abir Dabbour, artist, Toronto
17. Rebecca Garrett, artist/filmmaker, Toronto
18. John Kameel Farah, composer, Toronto
19. Kevin Barrett, musician/producer
20. Luis Jacob, artist, Toronto
21. Roya Akbari, artist/educator, Toronto, Vancouver
22. Pip Day, curator, London
23. Roula Said, multidisciplinary artist, Toronto
24. Alexis O’Hara, artist/cultural worker, Montreal
25. Dina Al-Kassim, writer/professor, Vancouver
26. Sajad Yazdi, writer/educator, Vancouver
27. Alexandra Gelis, artist/researcher, Toronto
28. Sarah Shamash, filmmaker/educator, Vancouver
29. Fabrizio Galanti, architect,/independent curator, Montreal
30. Helen Lee, filmmaker, Toronto
31. Tannis Nielsen, Red-River Metis, artist/professor, Toronto
32. Judy Rebic, writer, Toronto
33. Jonathan Middleton, artist/curator, Vancouver/Toronto
34. Jenie Gao, artist/curator, Vancouver
35. Kathy Wazana, filmmaker, Toronto
36. Yakov M. Rabkin, professor, Montreal
37. Liz Marshall, Filmmaker, Vancouver/Toronto
38. Ali Kazimi, filmmaker/author, Toronto
39. Allyson Adley, art worker, Toronto
40. David Hlynsky, photographer/writer, Toronto
41. Jody Berland, writer, Toronto
42. Firoza Elavia, educator, Toronto
43. Kyo Maclear, writer, Toronto
44. Rita Wong, poet-scholar, unceded Coast Salish lands
45. Karl Beveridge, artist, Toronto
46. Adam Lauder, art worker, Toronto
47. Carrie Perreault, artist, Toronto
48. Dot Tuer, writer, Toronto
49. Maureen FitzGerald, professor, Toronto
50. Sarah Butterfield, Vancouver
51. Peter Hasek, musician, Toronto
52. Jamie Ly, artist and educator
53. Ann Verrall, filmmaker, Halifax
54. Roilui Sin, scholar/educator, Toronto
55. Patrick Evans, architect/professor, Montreal 
56. Paul Schedlich, educator/musician, Toronto
57. Tammy Yiu Coyne, arts worker/online gallerist, Simcoe County
58. Shannon Griffiths, artist/designer, Toronto
59. Sue Shon, arts organizer/professor, Vancouver
60. Faten Nastas Mitwasi, artist/curator, Toronto
61. Susan Barratt, Halifax
62. Paul Schwartzentruberm, Halifax
63. A Jamali Rad, writer, Windsor
64. Tegan L Smith, artist, Toronto
65. Thomas McKechnie, playwright
66. Emily Jung, artist/arts worker, Toronto
67. Jin-me Yoon, artist, Vancouver
68. Jane Shi, writer, Vancouver
69. Tina Zafreen Alam, poet, Toronto
70. Adam Kuplowsky, Translator
71. Natalie Wee, writer/editor, Toronto
72. Whess Harman, artist/curator/writer, Vancouver
73. Yilin Wang, author/literary translator, Vancouver
74. Kathryn Lennon, writer/editor, Edmonton

The post OPEN LETTER: Prime Minister Carney: No war. Period. appeared first on rabble.ca.

In the 2018 provincial election Ontario Premier Doug Ford promised to lower hydro rates by 12 per cent. Ford has not lowered hydro rates by even one per cent. What Ford did do was hide and protect the problem with his electricity rebate program subsidy. 

The Financial Accountability Office (FAO) has reported this has cost the public treasury from between $6 and $7 billion per year. It gets worse. On November 1 the Ontario Energy Board raised electricity rates by 29 per cent. This was done, as it has been done every November 1 and April 1 since June 2002 to pay the rates the deregulated electricity market charged. Knowing this would not be good optics for him, Ford increased the electricity rebate program from 13 to 23.5 per cent hiding the increase. Ford never talks about his 2018 promise anymore.

A great concern is the FAO report of February 11 of this year . Just doing the math on $6.9 billion a year shows that the number to be reported should be around $8.52 billion. That figure does not include the November 1 increase to 29 per cent of the rebate. 

Why does the FAO report show numbers nowhere near that number? It begs the question: did Ford intervene in the FAO’s reporting? Where are the billions of the 23.5 per cent subsidy buried in Ontario’s finances? Taxpayers deserve an answer.

Hard to believe it has been 28 years since Mike Harris who brought in his legislation in 1998 to deregulate hydro and create a deregulated electricity market in Ontario. Critics said it was impossible to have a market for something you can’t store or stockpile. It still is. Critics also predicted soaring rates.

Ontario’s electricity market was nothing more than an ideological con job. Ford is not the first to socialize with corporate CEO’s. Premier Mike Harris went fishing with Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, who went to jail for the biggest corporate fraud in history. Then, despite spectacular Enron market failures in California and around the world, Harris had Enron and a who’s who of the banking and investment community design Ontario’s electricity market.

Despite a massive ad campaign promising “lower rates” and promising “nothing will go wrong,” it went wrong. By 2007 rates doubled, by 2010 tripled and by the time Ford was elected in 2018, rates had quadrupled. 

It is important to note that Alberta also fell for this deregulated electricity market scheme and is also hiding high rates with subsidies. In the US, deregulated electricity markets are causing major affordability problems there as well. 

On top of all of that Ontario Power Generation has applied for a 72.6 per cent increase in rates to prepay for massive new nuclear plants. That’s like being forced to pay for an expensive meal and tip at a restaurant that won’t be built for years. 

One of the biggest concerns on Ford’s very expensive nuclear plans is the Public Private Partnership (P3) funding that will pay for it. P3’s are the most insidious form of privatization. Made to sound good but it’s where the public pays and the private profits. P3’s have a dismal record worldwide.

Ford intends to spend hundreds of billions on new nuclear plants and on unproven experimental Small Modular Reactors SMR’s. 

Ford, in another massive ad campaign, is spending millions more of public money on a propaganda ad campaign, claiming “that’s how we protect Ontario,” All this, while at the same time continuing to spend billions more artificially lowering artificially high hydro rates, by taking funding away from healthcare and education to pay for his hydro subsidy. 

The fact of the matter is many in both the public and small business could not afford their hydro bill without Ford’s electricity rebate program. But they and their children are suffering from a lack of access to quality healthcare and a quickly deteriorating quality of education.  It is very clear that the benefits of Ford’s nuclear plan are only going to flow one way, upwards to the wealthiest one per cent.

Electricity is central to both the climate and affordability crisis. We must get on the green energy pathway that 10 other countries are on. Investing in renewable green energy is far less expensive and far more sustainable than nuclear. 

Let’s take a quick look at the political situation. The Conservatives believed and still believe in unregulated free markets and will fight tooth and nail to protect the deregulated electricity market. There is a very strong case to be made that the

Liberals were partners with the Conservatives on hydro deregulation and the record shows they supported and voted for all the deregulation legislation as well as selling Hydro One. The Liberals were thrown out of office for that sale and high hydro rates. 

The NDP ran their entire 2003 provincial campaign on Public Power and getting rid of hydro deregulation. The Liberals took the NDP’s main campaign plank, promised a return to Public Power and won a majority. The NDP said nothing about that and has said little about hydro rates ever since then. The NDP really need to take up that issue again now.

The electricity market must be closed and rates must be regulated. The deregulated electricity market is working very well for the private investors who designed it, but not for us.

In Ford’s Ontario, electricity is a great business to be in, Ford guarantees the profits and taxpayers get the bill.  

The post Rapidly rising hydro rates are unaffordable appeared first on rabble.ca.

Sabaah Khan and Asma Qureshi are two Muslim mothers in Quebec who, for years, have volunteered at their children’s schools. Khan helped with library duties and vaccination days while Quershi had been preparing food for her child’s graduation event. In March of 2026 these two women were told by the school board they could no longer continue volunteering due to the fact that they wear hijabs.

This case is the most recent in a series of incidents in which Muslim women have been barred from working in the public sector because they wear religious garments, as a result of Law 21. 

Law 21 is provincial legislation that was passed in 2019 by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) party headed by Premier François Legault. The law purports to reinforce the principle of secularism, laïcité, in public institutions by prohibiting certain public sector employees from wearing religious symbolism while on the job. This extends to: public school teachers, judges, crown prosecutors, and prison guards. The religious symbols targeted by this bill include items such as hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and large crosses.

The provincial government invoked the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, before the law could be subject to judicial review, to pass Law 21, which critics argue violates Charter rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and equality. Legislation enacted using the notwithstanding clause is subject to a five year sunset clause. Law 21 was renewed by the Quebec government in 2024.

The impact of Law 21 on the Muslim community 

Advocacy groups raising concerns about Law 21’s impact on equality rights highlight its disproportionate effect on Muslim women in Quebec. Steven Zhou, Media and Communications Lead for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told rabble.ca that since one-in-four Muslims in Canada live in Quebec, it is clear the legislation would naturally have an outsized impact on the community. 

The Association for Canadian Studies surveyed religious minorities in Quebec after the law was enacted. Seventy-eight per cent of Muslim women reported that their sense of belonging in Quebec society had worsened, and more than half said they experienced increased questioning about their religion during job interviews, compared with less than six per cent of the general population.

A study conducted by Concordia revealed that 76 per cent of women who wore a hijab reported experiencing discrimination following the law’s enactment. 

Zhou points to a study that the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) conducted in 2024 which indicated that since Law 21’s passing 73 per cent of Muslim women have considered leaving the province altogether. 

People now have to “make a choice between their identity, their freedom of expression, and their jobs… It is a really inhumane decision to ask people to make and thousands of people are now making it”, said Zhou.

The Quiet Revolution and Quebec’s history of secularism 

Law 21 is rooted in Quebec’s longstanding tradition of promoting secularism. During the 1960s Quebec underwent a “quiet revolution” where the role of the Catholic Church was greatly reduced. 

“The church influenced every aspect of public life in Quebec,” said Errol Mendes, a lawyer, author, and professor at the University of Ottawa. It had held power over areas such as education, health care, and social services. 

“The church was so conservative that it was undermining modernization in Quebec,” said Daniel Béland,  Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and James McGill Professor in the Department of Political Science at McGill University.

In response to the growing discontent over this, the provincial government in Quebec gradually took more control of those key social institutions by creating new ministries to run those sectors. 

This marked a transition from religion dominating all aspects of public life in Quebec to a policy of secularism that separates religion from the state.

Since, secularism has become a key feature of Quebec’s identity with a history of promoting secular legislation. 

In 2007 the Quebec government created the Bouchard–Taylor Commission to examine several religious practices in the province. In 2010 the Quebec Liberal government proposed Bill 94 which would have required people to show their face when giving or receiving government services. In practice, the policy would have largely affected Muslim women wearing niqabs. However, the bill was never actually passed. 

In 2013, the Parti Québécois government introduced the Quebec Charter of Values. It included the proposal to ban all public sector workers from wearing “conspicuous religious symbols.” This charter never was passed as well. 

In 2017, the Quebec liberals passed Law 62 requiring people to have their face uncovered to give or receive public services like riding a bus. Again, this mainly affected Muslim women in niqabs. However, this bill was struck down by the courts as it was argued that Law 62 violated people’s religious freedom rights. The latest iteration of secularist legislation is Law 21.

 “I don’t think the secularization that took place in the 1960s is the same we’re seeing with Bill (Law) 21,” said Béland. 

“Our understanding of secularism… that has always meant a kind of separation where the state takes no view when it comes to the various practices of its citizens unless those practices are truly damaging to public safety or just totally unreasonable and beyond decent behaviour. Bill (Law) 21 amounts to a complete kind of reversal of that framework… where the state is reaching very deeply into the lives of people and the guaranteed freedoms of people… when it comes to individual and religious expression,” said Zhou.

Quebec’s Role in the patriation process and the use of the notwithstanding clause

The belief that this type of legislation goes beyond mere secularism and violates fundamental freedoms has been supported by the lower courts in Quebec. To avoid these barriers in implementing this agenda Quebec has passed Law 21 using the notwithstanding clause to ensure courts could not strike it down on charter grounds as had been done with Bill 62.

Quebec has a unique history with the Canadian constitution leading to far more comfort in enacting the notwithstanding clause than may exist in other provinces.

During the patriation process, Quebec had several key demands for how the constitution should be reformed. These included greater provincial powers, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, a veto power over constitutional amendments, and greater limits placed on federal power. 

The federal government rejected these proposals because of concerns that increased power for Quebec specifically could create an imbalance in Canada’s federation and that even greater decentralization would diminish the ability of the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to apply uniformly and equally across the country. 

As a result of this failure to reach a compromise, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau met with nine of ten premiers, excluding the Premier of Quebec René Lévesque, to strike a deal on a domestic amending formula for the constitution and to entrench the charter of rights and freedoms. 

“There was a sense in Quebec that what happened during the patriation process was a betrayal… There is a sense that this was done against our will,” said Béland.

“This is important to understand the notwithstanding clause and why in Quebec we use it so much. After patriation until the Parti Québécois lost power they applied the notwithstanding clause to every single bill in the province to send a message we don’t agree with what happened… Although the notwithstanding clause was adopted under pressure by some premiers in western Canada, in the end it’s Quebec that started to use it,” Béland added.

The future of the notwithstanding clause

While Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have used the notwithstanding clause in unprecedented ways in recent years, its application in Quebec’s laïcité legislation is what prompted the Supreme Court of Canada to examine how the clause is used and whether any restrictions can be applied to it.

Despite Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause to shield the law from judicial scrutiny, several groups and organizations challenged the legislation in court anyways. Lower courts ruled that the law could not be struck down on Charter grounds because of the clause, prompting these groups to appeal the decisions all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Rather than examining the constitutionality of Law 21 directly, the Supreme Court is being asked to clarify the scope and limits of the notwithstanding clause, with the federal government, which is one of the interveners in the case, participating in these discussions.

On March 23, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments. Among the questions before the Court are whether judges can still rule on whether a right was violated even if they cannot strike down the law, whether invoking the clause could violate unwritten constitutional principles, and whether courts should be able to determine if repeatedly using the clause to protect a law effectively eliminates the right it is meant to override entirely.

If the court were to adopt these interpretations of the notwithstanding clause it would have lasting effects on policy throughout Canada and could, according to some, lead to heightened regional tensions. 

“Any ruling on Bill (Law) 21 that goes against provincial autonomy I think will create a strong backlash in Quebec at least among nationalists,” said Béland.

Five provincial premiers, including François Legault of Quebec and Doug Ford of Ontario, sent a letter to the federal government asking it to withdraw its submission to the Supreme Court. They argued that Ottawa is interfering with provincial authority, putting national unity at risk, and undermining the constitutional compromise that led to the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, for Mendes the upcoming Supreme Court case does not represent a potential national unity crisis but a source of optimism for the country. 

Mendes, while not being hopeful that the Supreme Court will implement restrictions on how the clause is used, believes that the case could be a catalyst to spawn a larger conversation in Canada about the constitution leading to lasting change. 

“I’d really like there to be… a grassroots movement…to start thinking about whether it is time to have a movement towards a 7/50 amendment of the constitution either to get rid of the clause itself or at minimum prevent the pre-emptive use of the clause,” said Mendes.

Mendes believes that the growing use of the clause in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec represents the “slow death of the constitution” with the flagrant and frequent violation of minority rights. 

“I think… the way to try and save the charter, which is by all public opinion polls the most important document that Canadians think is in our constitution,… is to promote this idea of a citizens movement to get citizens to talk to their politicians” and encourage them to support meaningful restrictions on how the clause is used. 

The growing use of the clause has already caused certain politicians throughout the country to champion procedural safeguards. Legislation regulating the use of the clause by the federal government has been tabled by Senator Peter Harder. Bill S‑218 proposes that if the clause is invoked it should necessitate a Supreme Court ruling on whether rights are infringed and approval by a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons. For Mendes, this bill is a positive step forward in protecting the charter of rights and freedoms. 

As Law 21 heads to the Supreme Court, its impact extends beyond Quebec, sparking a larger conversation about the limits of government power and the future of the notwithstanding clause, the protection of minority rights, and regional tensions within the Canadian federation.

The post Quebec’s Law 21 triggers new national debate over the notwithstanding clause appeared first on rabble.ca.