CCPA Monitor Spring 2025

Democracy

The care economy

OTTAWA OCCUPATION

Meeting the moment:

Ask the ancestors

Unequal pandemic, unequal recovery

John Cartwright / 18

Katherine Scott / 15

The pandemic wreaked havoc on hotel workers

The rise of zany conspiracy theory politics

Luke LeBrun / 22

Alice Mũrage and Michelle Travis / 21

From leader to laggard

Sheila Block earns prestigious award

We Saskatchewan public libraries. Policy-makers should too.

Sheila Block / 12

Simon Enoch / 9

Another banner year for CEO pay— and income inequality—in Canada

Free contraception a win for all Katherine Scott / 13

PARLIAMENT HILL

David Macdonald / 10

Viewpoints

WELLINGTON RIDEAU CENTRE

Niall Harney / 25

If you value democracy, stop expecting free news

Antonia Zerbisias / 25

Minimum wage workers need a raise

Canada’s failure to adequately address the Israel/Palestine crisis

Clare Mian / 39

Christine Saulnier and Jenna MacNeily / 12

How to fix Canada’s housing crisis

Democracy:

When “survival” jobs become “essential” work

The oligarchs are at the gate

Trish Hennessy / 26

Catherine Bryan and María José Yax Fraser / 27

Canada should withdraw from Safe Third Country Agreement

Kirsten Bernas and Shauna MacKinnon / 42

Jon Milton / 13

Bolder moves needed to tax the rich

Running on empty— the care economy / 28

What if we stop knowing what’s true from what isn’t?

Trish Hennessy / 28

A timeline: The pandemic’s impact on women in the workforce

Marc Lee and DT Cochrane / 44

Hitting a new low: Ontario well-being is lowest in Canada

Carolina Aragão / 15

source of progressive policy ideas. The CCPA began publishing the Monitor magazine in 1994 to share and promote its progressive research and ideas. The Monitor is published four times a year. The print version is mailed to all supporters who give $35 or more a year to the CCPA.

Understanding the methods of the far right in Canada

Katherine Scott / 32

Up Front

Stéphane Leman-Langlois, Aurélie Campana, and Samuel Tanner / 30

Canadian cities could raise tens of millions of dollars with one tool: a local income tax

Time to lean in to the foundational values of democracy

David Macdonald / 5

Molly McCracken / 32

Tax cuts favour men

Jess Klassen / 6

Let’s reimagine our political future, together

Chi Nguyen / 34

Faster internet as slowly as possible

Randy Robinson / 7

SECURE AREA

View of democracy from its smallest cog

Craig Pickthorne / 35

Why a capital gains tax on the rich makes sense

David Macdonald / 8

ESTABLISHED BY OTTAWA POLICE

Up Front

FEBRUARY 18, 2022

Policy innovations

Trish Hennessy / 10

CCPA BC’s Ben Parfitt retires Ben Parfitt / 11

Economic populism: A carbon copy of failed right-wing policies

Marc Lee / 5 12 radical ideas to counter Trump’s tariff wars

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood and Marc Lee / 7

HIGHWAY 417

Artist uses photography and visualization to bond with her Indigenous ancestry

Viewpoints

Emily Zarevich / 45

Interprovincial trade barriers: a convenient myth

Columns

Stuart Trew / 37

Inside trade

Stuart Trew / 38

The Omatsu Files: It’s time to end the precarity that comes with tipped work

Books

Luis Ernesto Pineda Gomez / 38

Gutting our civil service for consultants undermines democracy

The richest 10% are driving Canada’s carbon emissions

Simon Enoch / 50

Nicolas Viens and Andrew Jorgenson / 40

Corporatization of cannabis allowed profits to trump public health

Bruce Campbell / 51

Celebrating a win: Historic labour laws in Manitoba

Kevin Rebeck / 42

Summertime and the reading is easy: What we're reading this summer / 53

Books

Science fiction author coins term for online digital decay + solutions

Amanda Emms / 55

Taking the initiative to learn: My immersion in Indigenous contemporary literature

E.R. Zarevich / 46

Book review: Leadership in a time of uncertainty

From the Editor 1 / Letters 2 / New from the CCPA 3

John Cartwright / 50

Hennessy’s Index 37 / Get to know the CCPA 48 / CCPA Donor Profile 49

The good news page by Elaine Hughes 56

From the Editor 1 / Letters 2 / CCPA in the spotlight 3

Hennessy’s Index 36 / Get to know the CCPA 44 / CCPA Donor Profile 45

Cover illustration by Sébastien Thibault

The good news page by Elaine Hughes 52

Based in Matane, Quebec, Sébastien Thibault creates illustrations that provide ironic or surrealist visions of political subjects or current news. He uses graphic shapes, simplified forms, and intense color to create symbolic images for publications like the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Economist

Cover illustration by Sébastien Thibault

Centrespread design Joss Maclennan, illustrations Sébastien Thibault

Founded in 1980, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) is a registered charitable research institute and Canada’s leading source of progressive policy ideas, with offices in Ottawa, Vancouver, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto and Halifax. The CCPA founded the Monitor magazine in 1994 to share and promote its progressive research and ideas, as well as those of like-minded Canadian and international voices. The Monitor is is published four times a year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and is mailed to all supporters who give more than $35 a year to the Centre. Write us at monitor@policyalternatives.ca with feedback or if you would like to receive the Monitor

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

You can gift the Monitor to a friend or family member, view previous issues, and read more free, timely content at www.policyalternatives.ca

The opinions expressed in the Monitor are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CCPA.

ISSN 1198-497X

Canada Post Publication 40009942

The opinions expressed in the Monitor are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CCPA.

Editor: Trish Hennessy

Associate Editor: Jon Milton

ISSN 1198-497X

Canada Post Publication 40009942

Senior Designer: Tim Scarth

Layout: Susan Purtell

Editor: Trish Hennessy

Associate Editor: Jon Milton

Senior Designer: Tim Scarth

Layout: Susan Purtell

Editorial Board: Catherine Bryan, Simon Enoch, Sabreena GhaffarSiddiqui, Jon Milton, Jason Moores, Erika Shaker, Trish Hennessy

How to contact the CCPA

200 COVENTRY

Letters to the editor monitor@policyalternatives.ca

Editorial Board: Catherine Bryan, Lisa Akinyi May, Simon Enoch, Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui, Jon Milton, Jason Moores, Trish Hennessy, Erika Shaker

CCPA National Office 141 Laurier Avenue W, Suite 1000 Ottawa, ON K1P 5J3 613-563-1341

ccpa@policyalternatives.ca

CCPA National 141 Laurier Avenue W., Suite 501 Ottawa ON K1P 5J3 613-563-1341 1-844-563-1341 ccpa@policyalternatives.ca

www.policyalternatives.ca

CCPA BC Office 604-801-5121

CCPA BC ccpabc@policyalternatives.ca

ccpabc@policyalternatives.ca

CCPA Manitoba Office 204-927-3200

CCPA Manitoba 204-927-3200 ccpamb@policyalternatives.ca

HIGHWAY 417

ccpamb@policyalternatives.ca

CCPA Nova Scotia Office 902-240-0926

CCPA Nova Scotia 902-943-1513 ccpans@policyalternatives.ca

ccpans@policyalternatives.ca

COVENTRY CAMP

Based in Matane, Quebec, Sébastien Thibault creates illustrations that provide ironic or surrealist visions of political subjects or current news.

Centrespread design and illustrations by Jamileh Salek and Joss Maclennan Joss Maclennan is the creative director of Joss Maclennan Design. She combines a passion for clear, simple language with a strong visual sense. Her background is mainly in design, but includes painting, drawing and illustration as well. Decades of experience help her find the central message and the way to convey it.

Jamileh Salek is an Iranian-Canadian artist, writer and illustrator. Pattern, colour and art making was part of her childhood and life in Tabriz and Tehran. This rich Persian heritage shows in all her work. Themes of migration, culture, and the shape of women's lives are woven into her painting, textile art and books.

Joss Maclennan is the creative director of Joss Maclennan Design. She combines a passion for clear, simple language with a strong visual sense. Her background is mainly in design, but includes painting, drawing and illustration as well. Decades of experience help her find the central message and the way convey it.

CCPA Ontario ccpaon@policyalternatives.ca

CCPA Ontario Office

ccpaon@policyalternatives.ca

CCPA Saskatchewan ccpasask@sasktel.net

Located east of downtown in the Vanier neighbourhood, the Coventry camp was established by the end of the first week of the occupation. It quickly became a fortified encampment and home of the infamous saunas. It was not removed until February 20.

CCPA Saskatchewan Office 306-924-3372

ccpasask@sasktel.net

Trish Hennessy

Progressivenews,viewsandideas

Progressivenews,viewsandideas

Progressivenews,viewsandideas

Progressivenews,viewsandideas

Democracy on trial: Resist

These days, there are many reminders to hold on to this one precious thing: our democracy. Not just ticking a box at election time, but working in between elections to protect the systems in place to safeguard our democracy.

As this edition of the Monitor lays bare, our democracy is on trial. A global geopolitical shift is underway as America crumbles under the weight of tech bros, billionaires, oligarchs, and Trump himself. Leonard Cohen would say “America is the cradle of the best and the worst.”

Now it is chaotic, duplicitous, ruinous. The North American stability that we’ve enjoyed for generations is no longer something we can count on.

That stability did allow us to become complacent. Trade deals offered cheaper goods and services while governments traded the social safety net for an agenda of tax cuts that appealed to our power as consumers—not as engaged democratic people.

The hard truth—the bitter pill we must all now swallow—is that cheap is no longer a guarantee. Lettuce will cost more, if we can access it at all. California lettuce, certainly, is a thing of the past. That was inevitable. The climate emergency already guaranteed that California lettuce, oranges and other produce were never going to be as accessible in future.

We have arrived at that future. We will continue to be forced to think hard about what we consume, about where we buy, about need vs. want.

Seriously, how long has the system felt rigged to you?

Now the threats are real and the agenda of a salivating far-right has been laid bare. In the U.S., obviously, but in Canada too. Emboldened by the role billionaire tech bros like Elon Musk have played in the early days of the Trump administration, Canada has its own class of wealthy tech bros wanting to organize here too.

Recharging North America

In fact, one of our first collective acts of resistance to Trump’s destabilizing economic warfare on Canada and his reckless threats to make us the 51st state of America has been to boycott American products and buy Canadian. Consumerism.

To be honest, I held out this glimmer of hope in 2008-09, when a U.S.-led banking ponzi scheme crashed the world economy. Like many other countries, Canada fell into a sharp recession. Greece was forced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make extreme concessions to public services and supports in order to deal with the debt crisis the ponzi scheme created in that country.

Build Canada is an initiative backed by Canadian tech executives, including from Shopify and Wealthsimple. Among other things, they’re advancing a business-friendly agenda that includes deregulation and AI—an agenda that puts corporate profits ahead of Canadian well-being, consumer safety, and decent work.

SHARING IS CARING— WHY KEEP A GOOD THING TO YOURSELF?

There is power in that, yes. But the irony is not lost that it was consumerism and the cult of cheap that made us complacent in the first place. Access to cheap goods made us feel more middle class. Made us detach, decade by decade, from any sense of working class awareness and solidarity.

It seemed then that it was the jolt we needed to clearly see the hard limits of intertwined globalization and capitalism. My optimism was not rewarded by reality.

The 99% Occupy movement came and went. Banks were bailed out but the most vulnerable people weren’t. And things just returned to “normal.”

These are all variations of a neoliberal theme. None of this is about protecting our democratic rights. That job comes down to us. This issue of the Monitor examines our democracy on trial and the role that you and I can play—working together with progressive movements—to advance transformative change that puts people’s well-being first. It invites you to become an active participant in this transformation, to embrace our collective power. M Trish Hennessy is Monitor editor.

At $35, gifting the people in your life with an annual subscription to the Monitor is a win-win—we make gifting easy and you help to enlighten loved ones while supporting the CCPA. Gift the Monitor here: policyalternatives.ca/givethemonitor or contact Patrick Hoban at 1-844-563-1341 x309 or phoban@policyalternatives.ca

Remember that normal tolerates—indeed, ignores—income and wealth inequality, racism, the harmful impacts of colonialism, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, migrant workers, women and gender-diverse people, people with disabilities…

Letters

Winter 2025 Monitor

The future of food I read, with great appreciation, Darrin Qualman’s article in the Winter 2025 Monitor. The author gives a very realistic appraisal of the current Canadian perspective of the future, and the current dilemma that we find ourselves facing around food insecurity in Prairie agriculture.

The uncertainty due to climate change and economic factors is truly frightening. Along with the elements contributing to the crisis that food systems are facing, there is another, unmentioned in the article. The effects of foreign ownership of agricultural land are an important consideration in developing plans to address food security.

Loss of the agriculture land base to foreign interests continues to

erode our ability to plan and accurately assess food production. Outside of the Prairie agriculture region on which the article focuses, agricultural potential is also being eroded through urban encroachment and industrial development. Soil depletion and other factors add to the uncertainty that shadows our future prospects of food security.

While the reality of climate change is upon us, the very real consequences, such as food insecurity, have not yet been realized by many people. Please continue to raise awareness among those who listen to reason in your excellent publication, the Monitor. Robert Hunter Kamloops BC

The January 2025 Monitor edition focusing on food is appreciated but sends mixed messages about food access. If the goal is to provide a platform for diverse views, it succeeds. However, as a discussion of social justice and food as a citizen right, it is confusing. Some articles advocate for transformative changes to the food system, while others support minor adjustments to the status quo. The CCPA’s stance on food access remains unclear.

The articles highlight the tension between food security and food sovereignty. Food security, rooted in market-driven systems, views food access as a privilege based on ability to pay. In contrast, food sovereignty emphasizes local control

of food production and distribution, viewing food as a human right. Articles by Oickle and Yanful, as well as Hennessy, align with the latter, stressing the need for community-driven decision-making and municipal involvement.

Qualman warns of climate-related threats to food systems. He calls for fundamental change. He notes this will take courage. Research shows that prioritizing food as a commodity benefits corporations and perpetuates inequalities, while food sovereignty challenges these structures, advocating for food as a public good.

Achieving transformative change will require municipal policy reforms, education on local food systems, and public engagement. However, corporate influence and resistance to change can be expected to present significant hurdles. The Monitor articles show that advancing food justice and climate resilience will require overcoming entrenched “conventional” thinking if access to food is prioritized as a right, not a privilege.

Murray Hidlebaugh Saskatoon, SK

Thanks for the timely articles on where food comes from and what it really costs us, our kids, and the planet.

Qualman (“Breadbasket no more”) chose to clarify causes of food grain problems rather than discussing solutions. That gives me a chance to alert readers to truly

revolutionary work done in the last 40 years by The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. Starting with native Prairie grasses that have annual tops and deep-rooted perennial bottoms, they developed a commercially viable grain called Kernza. To the land, that means no yearly bare-soil exposure, little erosion, no irrigation infrastructure, and no artificial fertilizer inputs. To farmers, it means that 1,000 acres can yield the same net income as 100,000 acres under machine-dominated farming methods. Low capital costs and little debt give farmers the flexibility under ever-changing Prairie climates to find niches for small holdings where now-outdated “modern” methods haven’t a chance.

The myth of cheap and plentiful grains brought us stumbling on the brink of disaster. Groceries were never cheap and plentiful to everyone, despite our conscious choice to ignore human enslavement and costs to Gaia. And then there was the “trickle down” myth…

Oickle and Yanful assert (“Building a just food system in Canada”) that “Food justice is a human right, not a commodity. Surely such a right exists only when human consumption leaves enough for the health of all the other life that makes human existence (we are Earth’s most voracious predator!) possible. Otherwise these rights will be the death of us.

Bob Weeden Salt Spring Island, BC

In the spotlight

The

latest research from the CCPA

Bring back CERB and make it permanent

“Economic uncertainty is here to stay,” as CCPA Senior Researcher Ricardo Tranjan, who is based in Ontario, wrote in the Toronto Star. Whether it’s U.S. economic warfare, climate change, AI, new viruses (like the bird flu), there are plenty of sources for destabilization in Canada. “Meanwhile, the two pillars of Canada’s social safety net are a federal Employment Insurance (EI) program that fails most workers and provincial social assistance programs that sentence

families to deep poverty,” writes Tranjan. “We must do better, and we know how.”

Early into the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government quickly replaced EI with CERB. Among the advantages of CERB over EI:

• Lower eligibility requirements.

• Higher benefits.

• Streamlined application process.

• No two-week waiting period before applying.

• Self-employed workers were included.

• It was generally more accessible to low-wage and precarious workers.

Tranjan’s bottom line: The federal government must permanently change EI, bringing back many of the CERB features while learning from some of the shortcomings of the pandemic-era benefit.

“While external factors are driving economic uncertainty, it is up to Canadian governments to strengthen our safety net,” Tranjan says.

Social emergencies for First Nations in Manitoba: rooted in colonial conditions

As part of their Manitoba Research Alliance research project, Mapping Colonial Harms: Social emergencies in northern Manitoba First Nations, Jonathan Meikle and Elizabeth Comack conclude social emergencies aren’t unforeseen—they’re predictable.

“Social emergencies relating to deaths caused by suicide, violence, drug misuse/poisoning, community fires, and/or health-care services have been declared in northern First Nations in Manitoba and, in some communities, multiple times,” Meikle and Comack write.

That’s not accidental.

“They are rooted in colonial conditions that have left many First Nations in dire straits,” the co-authors write. “Social emergencies are a clear sign that the myriad harms generated by colonialism—impoverished living conditions, disconnection from Indigenous cultural traditions and ways of being, the impacts of forced relocations, and historical and intergenerational trauma—have reached a breaking point.”

The mapping problem makes clear the roots of colonialism in social emergencies. As the authors write: “Without that understanding, responses on the part of governments will fall short and social emergencies—and the tragedies that prompt them—will only continue to occur…provincial and

federal governments—and all settlers—have a responsibility to ensure the success of this decolonizing process.”

The CCPA Manitoba Office is a part of the Manitoba Research Alliance.

B.C. must maintain its climate policies, tariffs or not

“British Columbia’s exports to the United States, in particular natural resource exports, are at risk,” writes CCPA Senior Economist Marc Lee, who is based in B.C.

“There will be a time when Trump is no longer in office,” Lee writes. “As climate change related crises get worse, the world must not lose the momentum towards clean sources of energy. One bright light in recent years is that renewables have become much more competitive on the margin relative to fossil fuels, and that advantage will only increase over time.

“The fight against the Trump tariffs must be balanced with an industrial policy aimed at decarbonization. Digging deeper into fossil fuel expansion and simply seeking alternative markets than the United States is not a long-term win for Canada—or the world.”

Child poverty in Nova Scotia dramatically worse

Nova Scotia has recorded its highest single-year increase in child poverty in the 35 years since the federal promise to eradicate child poverty.

The 2024 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Nova Scotia: Swift Action is Needed for Child and Family Wellbeing—a report by CCPA Nova Scotia Office—shows the child poverty rate in Nova Scotia increased from 20.5 per cent in 2021 to 23.8 per cent in 2022, an increase of 16 per cent.

Nova Scotia still has the highest child poverty rate in Atlantic Canada and the fifth highest in Canada (third highest among provinces).

“Child poverty was swiftly and dramatically reduced in 2020 because of income security benefits sufficient to bring families over the poverty line,” says Dr. Lesley Frank, Tier II Canada Research Chair in Food, Health, and Social Justice at Acadia University, co-author of the report and research associate with the CCPA-Nova Scotia. “The choice to return to insufficient support by 2022 negated all progress—meaning the rise in child poverty was by design and predictable.”

Dr. Christine Saulnier, co-author of the report and director of the CCPA-Nova Scotia says: “We know what changes in policies and systems work. The current approach only softens the blow of poverty and props up community charity. We applaud the government for indexing income assistance rates to inflation, and we urge them to go further and raise the base rates ensuring that these families have enough

income to provide for what their children need.”

What are the roots of rural resentment?

The rise of right-wing populism throughout the western world has been linked to the idea of “rural resentment.” CCPA Senior Researcher Simon Enoch, based in Saskatchewan, presented a talk as part of the University of Saskatchewan’s Political Studies Speaker Series focusing on this issue.

While many see the growth of rural resentment and right-wing populism as a recent phenomenon, the political history of Saskatchewan over the past 40 years is replete with examples of politicians attempting to stoke these kinds of resentments for political gain, says Enoch.

“Indeed, the shifting politics of the province, from social democratic to conservative, as well as the success of the Saskatchewan Party and demise of the NDP, can best be explained through the lens of rural resentment and the use and abuse of populist themes from the 1980s to the present,” says Enoch.

Fast-rail project should be in public hands

The federal government announced on February 19 that it will pursue an electrified high-speed rail project from Toronto to Quebec City.

A national infrastructure project of this size will have numerous economic, social and environmental benefits that has the

potential to profoundly improve transportation patterns in Canada’s most populous region, Simon Enoch and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood write in their analysis of the proposal.

“Unfortunately, the government’s decision to pursue a public-private partnership (P3) to design, build, finance, operate and maintain this vital service could jeopardize the ability to realize many public benefits,” they write.

Building high speed rail in the Toronto to Quebec City corridor will profoundly transform the region. Cutting travel times between Canada’s two largest cities to three hours will likely drastically reduce short-haul airline flights and trips by car and their associated carbon emissions. Evidence from other countries show demonstrable reductions in fossil-fueled based travel when high-speed rail is an option.

The Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail line opened in 2008, passenger volume for rail increased by 1,380,000 people in the first year of operation—and by

more than 500,000 in the second year. Air transport between the two cities, on the other hand, lost 800,000 passengers in the first year and more than 1 million in the second year. Similarly, for auto travel, California’s high-speed rail system estimates that, if and when it is finally built, it will reduce vehicle miles of travel in the state by 10 million miles each day.

To maximize these benefits, the high-speed rail system must be able to sustain high ridership through affordable fares to entice travellers to make the switch to rail.

“Passenger rail is a notoriously unprofitable enterprise,” write Enoch and Mertins-Kirkwood.

“Allowing the private provider to set fare rates will no doubt price-out a large segment of the population that would otherwise be predisposed to choose rail over other travel options.”

While there is no doubt that the high-speed rail line can be a public good, the only way to ensure it remains a public good is if it is in the hands of the public. M

Marc Lee

Economic populism

A carbon copy of failed right-wing policies

With a federal election in the offing, eyes are on federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who managed to rise in popularity as Justin Trudeau’s popularity tanked.

Much of Poilievre’s commentary has been centred around trash talking Canada and blaming everything on Trudeau and the federal Liberals. While that makes for good populist politics, it’s far from clear what he actually stands

for and what Canadians can expect should he become the next prime minister.

We can read the tea leaves of Poilievre’s statements to the media and in interviews. His hour-and-ahalf interview with the controversial Jordan Peterson outlines his takes and positions on a number of issues.

Beyond capitalizing on the unpopularity of Trudeau, there is not much that is new in Poilievre’s

small-government, free-market rhetoric. Ideologically, he cites the hard-right economist Milton Friedman as his inspiration. He claims his views have changed very little since he was a young man who wrote an essay about what he would do as prime minister.

That type of ideological rigidity should be cause for alarm, given how much the world has changed in the more than two decades since. Moreover, for someone who so worships the free market, he has spent his adult life working as a politician. Despite targeting his message to disaffected youth and the working class, he remains among the elite, including time as a cabinet minister in the final years of the Harper Conservative government.

Pierre Poilievre / Reuters:

The Poilievre economic agenda is mostly to double down on the same old conservative policies of deregulation, cutting taxes and public services. This, we are told, will unleash the power of the private sector, leading to surging new growth and closing the productivity gap between Canada and the United States. That, plus a house you can afford, clean streets and getting on Donald Trump’s good side—or so he says.

Canadians have already been there and seen the disastrous results. Tax cuts, deregulation and free trade have all been invoked by past federal governments to close Canada’s productivity gap with the U.S.. There is no reason to believe that cutting taxes for the wealthy or large corporations will stimulate broad-based economic growth. If anything, the benefit of these tax cuts will flow to the wealthiest Canadians while households struggling to get by will be faced with the burden of public spending cuts needed to pay for upper-income tax cuts.

Affordability politics

The bait-and-switch on affordability is illustrated by Poilievre’s attacks on federal carbon pricing. It has taken several years for the federal minimum carbon price to rise beyond symbolic levels and now (at about 18 cents per litre at the pump) they are contentious.

But a key plank of the federal policy has been to flow all carbon tax revenues back to households and small businesses through the Canada Carbon Rebate. The upshot is a vast majority of households get back more from federal carbon rebate than they pay in carbon taxes. Cutting this system will make people worse off, not better.

Abandoning carbon pricing abrogates our responsibility to do our part to cut the flow of greenhouse gas emissions that are now tearing the planet asunder with flame and flood. Worse, it would

Bringing in tax cuts and growing military expenditures while balancing the budget imply massive federal spending cuts

Missing: a plan to address overarching challenges

in Canada

Ultimately, Poilievre’s smallgovernment mindset fails to address the overarching challenges facing Canadians. The reason the Liberals won in 2015 and subsequent elections is that they spoke to important issues facing the nation, like climate change, the soaring cost of housing, homelessness and stagnant wage increases for ordinary households.

These issues remain top of mind because, in classic Liberal fashion, the Trudeau government was big on election talk, and slow on action. Our book, The Trudeau Record, looks at the failed promises of the Trudeau era in a number of areas and finds that reality has failed to live up to the hype.

boost the fortunes of the oil and gas sector, which shattered its previous all-time profitability records during the inflation of 2022 and 2023.

If the Trudeau Liberals deserve heat on affordability, it’s for failing to tax these excess profits back then, not for its carbon pricing.

Poilievre positions the Trudeau Liberals as the enemy of Alberta and the oil and gas industry. Certainly, any action to reduce emissions must include the oil and gas industry that is causing the problem of climate change in the first place. The extraction and processing of oil and gas accounts for more than 30 per cent of Canada’s emissions (and much more if we count the carbon embodied in fossil fuel exports).

Capping oil and gas emissions is a necessary step, but one that has been too slow in implementation. Since the Liberals took power in 2015, the production of oil and gas has surged (oil up 27 per cent in 2023 compared to 2015 and gas up 14 per cent). To help the industry, the feds bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline to the B.C. coast and spent $34 billion to triple its capacity, all for export.

The Poilievre campaign puts the blame on Trudeau Liberals for the wrong reasons and promises that our pressing problems will be solved by doing even less.

Consider housing, where Poilievre has been keen to position the Conservatives as beneficiaries of the Liberals’ failure to dent unaffordable ownership and rental housing. But rather than bolstering the National Housing Strategy, Poilievre would withdraw the limited funds that have been put towards providing genuinely affordable housing.

In terms of solutions, so far all Poilievre has to offer is a cut in the GST on new housing (rental housing and student residences are already exempt) and to push municipalities to approve more housing supply (which the federal Liberals have already done through the Housing Accelerator program).

In the face of big challenges, we need a strong public sector to reduce extreme inequality and ensure we have the infrastructure and public services that share the wealth and provide a base for sustainable economic development.

Big military spending could be on the way

Poilievre’s hard-right conservatism can be seen in verbal attacks on “socialists” who “want free stuff for everyone” and a massive state. A big plank of his economic agenda is aimed at cutting back the size of the federal government. One important exception is that he would support a major increase in military spending. It’s not at all clear how Poilievre will make the fiscal math work since he also decries Ottawa’s budget deficit. Bringing in tax cuts and growing military expenditures and balancing the budget together imply massive cuts in federal spending.

What would Poilievre cut? Most federal spending is for transfers to individuals (such as seniors’ and children’s benefits) and to provinces/territories (to support health care, post-secondary education and social services). Discretionary spending by federal departments is a fairly small part of federal revenue. Defunding the CBC would save little but would be very unpopular and undermine an already weak media sector.

Putting away the broadsides, social-democratic programs are popular in Canada and are built into our social safety net, from income support programs to public health care and education, and other public services, Crown corporations and infrastructure. All of these collective enterprises are key parts of a dynamic mixed economy.

If anything, the federal Liberals have done too little to deepen public services and invest in areas where the market is not delivering. Public dental care and the beginnings of a national pharmacare system are sensible directions and, if anything, the government has not gone nearly far enough.

New public investments in child care have greatly reduced out-of-pocket costs for families with young children, and have generally been supported by pro-business groups. The case for public support can be made in terms of advancing women’s ability to participate in the labour market along with benefits to young children. Again, we need more public investment, not less.

While Poilievre is clearly tapping into a general malaise that the Canadian economy is not delivering for everyone, his small-government approach to economics suggests he won’t be the standard bearer of working Canadians. It’s just a recipe to funnel even more income to those at the top. 

Marc Lee is a senior economist at the CCPA, based in B.C.

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood and Marc Lee

12 radical ideas to counter Trump’s tariff wars

The belief that economic integration with the United States—epitomized by the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement and finally the Trump-led 2016 CanadaU.S.-Mexico Agreement—would protect Canadian commercial interests from arbitrary political interference has been exposed for the myth that it always was. Here are 12 measures Canada could take to respond forcefully to this existential threat.

1 / Impose an export tax on energy products of at least 15 per cent. An export tax would force U.S. consumers and businesses to shoulder the full cost of Trump’s measures while generating Canadian public revenues for emergency social support.

2 / Implement export quotas and bans for strategic resources. The U.S. counts on Canada for its supply of many critical resources, including oil, potash, uranium and various metals. Canada should prepare limits on the volume of resources that may be sent south of the border—and consider outright bans.

3 / Repatriate U.S.-owned assets, especially in the resource industry. As long as Trump wages economic war against Canada, American assets here should be considered forfeited. Simply freezing those assets as a first step would send alarm bells ringing across corporate America. Going one step further and taking U.S. companies and capital under public control would mark a powerful turn toward independence.

4 / Curtail U.S. patents and copyrights. Restricting U.S. patents in Canada through compulsory licensing and other policy tools would hurt large U.S. companies and make Canadian companies in those industries more competitive.

5 / Target U.S. oligarchs and Trump enablers. The billionaires cheerleading Trump’s musings about Manifest Destiny cannot be permitted to operate and propagandize in Canada. American companies tied to Trump’s inner circle, such as Elon Musk’s X, Starlink and Tesla, should be blocked, frozen or punitively taxed, as appropriate. Imposing heavy financial penalties or outright bans on X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, in particular, would serve the dual purpose of hitting Trump’s allies directly while insulating our media environment from obvious foreign interference.

6 / Enact “Buy Canadian” procurement rules and consumer programs. Wherever possible, Canadians and Canadian governments should be buying goods and services that are made in Canada. That goes double for governments, which should immediately halt procurement contracts with American firms wherever feasible and prioritize Canadian options moving forward. Canceling defense contracts with U.S. arms companies is especially important—Canada has imported more than US$1 billion in U.S.-made weapons in the past decade.

7 / Review and tax new foreign investments in Canada. As the Canadian dollar falls against the U.S. dollar, there is a risk that investors from the U.S. and elsewhere try to sweep in and buy up Canadian companies at fire sale prices. Triggering more reviews would allow Canadian governments to keep U.S. investors from controlling strategic sectors.

8 / Deepen economic ties with non-U.S. trading partners. Canada has existing trade relationships with the UK, the EU, Japan and other countries that will also be affected by Trump’s rampaging on the world stage. A common front to deepen trade linkages away from the U.S. would be in everyone’s interest. Mexico remains a vital ally that Canada cannot throw under the bus.

9 / Make the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) permanent. Reviving and making permanent the CERB program could mitigate the human cost of the “Trump Bust” that will be concentrated in tradeexposed sectors and regions.

10 / Enact price controls on essentials. Price controls need not be permanent, but, in the short term, they can blunt the effect of Trump’s aggression on Canadian consumers. These measures could include an expansion of Canada’s supply-managed agricultural sectors, such as dairy and eggs, to ensure domestic production for the Canadian market.

11 / Strengthen domestic media and cultural industries. Canada requires a reinvigorated public voice, which could be achieved through a combination of regulations, such as CanCon, and investments in the CBC, independent local media and the arts.

12 / Develop and implement an aggressive green industrial strategy. The federal and provincial governments must aggressively support a state-led expansion of strategic green industries that reduces Canadian dependence on U.S. trade and the volatile fossil fuel industry more broadly. Such a strategy could build on several of the measures outlined above, such as the repatriation of parts of the oil industry.

Nobody wins a trade war. The preceding measures are ambitious and not without their costs, but they would resist U.S. imperialism, insulate Canadian workers, households and communities from the worst of the economic consequences, and set up the economy for a long-term pivot toward independence. The future of Canada may depend on them.

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood is a senior researcher at the CCPA, based in Ottawa. Marc Lee is a senior economist at the CCPA, based in B.C.

Simon Enoch

We Saskatchewan public libraries. Policy-makers should too.

Public libraries continue to be a treasured public space and resource for residents of Regina and Saskatoon.

Far too often, policy-makers who may not actually frequent public libraries view them as an anachronism—thinking of them as mere repositories of books, ignorant of the vast array of services and programming that modern libraries currently offer.

Recall the government’s justification for the proposed elimination of library funding in 2017 when then Education Minister Don Morgan cited drops in items checked out as the rationale for making multi-million dollar cuts to public libraries across the province. Public

outrage and protests over the cuts ultimately forced the government to back down, with Premier Brad Wall admitting the proposed cuts had been a “mistake.”

Let’s compare public library usage to attendance at major sporting events in Saskatchewan. The numbers don’t lie—Regina and Saskatoon libraries are significantly more popular than some of the province’s biggest sporting events. The chart below demonstrates the continued value of a public library system that often must beg and plead for public funding versus sports stadiums and event centres that are often showered with public money even when public support for these projects is muted, at best.

Regina residents endured a dedicated mill rate increase of 0.45 every year for 10 consecutive years to pay for a new Mosaic stadium that many simply cannot access due to the rising cost of ticket prices. Despite these public subsidies, the stadium continues to be a perennial money loser for the city.

Seeing the disparity between public usage of libraries versus stadiums and arenas might make us contemplate what kinds of public venues are most deserving of taxpayer support.

Some will argue that such a comparison is faulty because libraries are free while sporting events are not. This is obviously true—sports events cost money to attend and are not accessible for most of the year as libraries are. However, this argument misses the point.

If sports venues were entirely financed with private money, we wouldn’t be having this debate. But these venues suck up significant amounts of public money that could go to other priorities—and they are often of dubious economic value.

Indeed, if there is anything like a consensus in the economic profession, it is that public funding of arenas and stadiums is a poor economic development strategy and that franchises, stadiums, and arenas may be harmful rather than beneficial to the local community,” according to a 2015 study.

The economic impact of libraries, on the other hand, is undeniable, but in ways that may escape those that are unfamiliar with the services and programming available in a modern library system.

Libraries are central to our communities

Obviously, libraries continue to play a vital role in fostering early literacy and childhood development. But libraries are also vital hubs for job-seekers, with many libraries providing job information, technology training and other career services. They are vital to new immigrants, offering English language courses, tax filing information sessions and adult literacy programs to help newcomers navigate their adopted country. Many libraries also host small business programs to support local entrepreneurs. No other venue can generate the kind of foot-traffic that public libraries can, directly benefitting local business in the area.

We need to appreciate the economic, social and cultural impact that public libraries bring to our communities so that they receive the same kinds of enthusiasm for public investment that sports arenas and stadiums do. 

Simon Enoch is a senior researcher with the CCPA and is based in Saskatchewan.

David Macdonald

Another banner year for CEO pay— and income inequality— in Canada

At 10:54 a.m. on January 2—the first work day of the working year—the 100 top CEOs in Canada had already made the salary of the average Canadian worker of $62,661.

In 2023, the top 100 CEOs in Canada took home an average of $13.2 million in total compensation. This equates to 210 times the salary of the average worker.

Workers have been fighting back this year, seeing a wage gain of seven per cent over last year. One solution to rapidly rising prices is to get a raise so you can afford those higher prices. On the other hand, a tear will be shed in corporate boardrooms now that inflation has come back to normal. They may never again be able to raise prices like they did in 2022-23 and reap

the bonuses that resulted from those profits.

Certainly CEOs have always made more than the average worker, but the gap has grown tremendously. In the 1980s, CEOs made 50 times the average worker. By the late 1990s, it was 100 times and now we’re solidly over 200 times.

CEOs would have you believe they got the CEO position after intense international competition. But the reality is much more mundane: 76 per cent of the top CEOs in Canada were hired into a lower position and worked their way up. On average, they’d been with the company 21 years, or half their career. They’re company men—yes 97 per cent are men—whose value is in knowing a particular company. Corporate Canada prefers internal hires.

In the 1980s, CEOs made 50 times more than the average worker in Canada. Now they make 210 times more.

What does it say about Canada that the benefits of economic growth are distributed so unevenly? As record-breaking numbers of people are living in the street and food banks are being pushed to their absolute limits by increased need, a small class of corporate executives is living like kings.

We’ve made a number of small wins in the past few years that have helped cap growth on out-ofcontrol CEO pay. In 2021, the federal government capped tax deduction for those paid in stock options, a common form of bonuses for CEOs. This led to a substantial fall in stock option use by CEOs.

And as of June 2024, people who make massive annual profits

on stocks and real estate—over $250,000—now pay a tax rate slightly closer to what workers pay. Incredibly only five CEOs on our list owe over $800 million more in taxes due to this one change. This shows not only how concentrated wealth is in Canada, but also how concentrated the impact is of the June change.

That said, they won’t pay that tax until they sell their shares, so they’ll likely just hold out for a friendlier government to cancel the change. This speaks to the need for a wealth tax that charges these amounts annually and attacks entrenched wealth hoarding head on.

These measures are obviously welcome, as is anything that attempts to make the CEO class pay something closer to their fair share. But there’s still a lot of work to be done to address the growing wealth gap in Canada.

It’s time we ask many of the people who have profited the most from the various crises Canada is living through—the climate, affordability, and housing crises, U.S. economic warfare—to start financing solutions. Why shouldn’t real estate barons have to help finance a massive public housing construction program, and why shouldn’t fossil fuel magnates have to finance transition to a green economy?

This article will take the average reader about two minutes to read. By the time you’ve finished reading it, the top CEOs will have about $105 more than they had when you started. 

David Macdonald is a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Christine Saulnier and Jenna MacNeily

Minimum wage workers need a raise

Minimum wage workers in Nova Scotia can expect a 50-cent increase as of April 1, 2025 (to $15.70), followed by another increase of 80 cents in October 2025 (to $16.50), representing an increase of about 8.5 per cent. These are undoubtedly welcome increases for these lowwage workers. However, this is still not enough.

These minimum wage increases hardly begin to bridge the gap between the minimum wage and the living wages calculated by CCPA Nova Scotia. The 2024 living wage report indicates that this minimum wage falls significantly short of what is necessary to make ends meet across the province. The highest living wage in 2024 was in Halifax, at $28.30. Even the lowest rate—$24.00 in Cape Breton—is considerably higher than the provincial minimum wage. The weighted average for the province was $26.53, with living wages in the Annapolis Valley, Northern, and Southern regions at $26.20, $24.90, and $25.20, respectively.

Those who oppose significant increases to the minimum wage

argue that this work is primarily done by young people with few expenses and lots of family support. However, the reality is that teenagers are far from the only ones working in low-wage jobs. As highlighted by CCPA-NS, data from Statistics Canada showed that 35 per cent of workers in Nova Scotia earn $20/hour or less. Furthermore, the data show that 85 per cent of these low-wage workers were over the age of 20, 82 per cent were not students, and the majority were in full-time, permanent positions. We also should not overlook that young people and their families face considerable costs. With Nova Scotia university tuition coming close to the $10,000 mark this year, and student debt averaging $39,100 (2020), they also deserve a living wage. To be clear, everyone deserves to earn at least a living wage.

How did the government determine the amount for the minimum wage increases? The first increase follows the Nova Scotia Minimum Wage Order, which states: “Effective on and after every April 1, beginning in 2025, the current hourly minimum

wage rate for employees will be adjusted by the percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for the calendar year immediately preceding the year in which the adjustment occurs, plus an additional 1%, and rounded to the nearest $0.05.” The average CPI annual increase in 2024 was 2.4 per cent across Canada; plus one per cent is a 3.4 per cent increase by April 1.

According to the government, the second increase is to help these workers with the cost of living. The formula should factor in real-time costs in the province more carefully. For example, rent rose 7.9 per cent in Nova Scotia in 2024 compared to 2023; rent takes up the most significant portion of low-wage workers’ budgets, and for some of these workers, these increases will be swallowed already.

Bridging the gap between the cost of living and low-wage employment requires government action on both sides of the equation. One solution is to increase the minimum wage to $20. Making life more affordable also requires substantial public investment to lower people’s out-of-pocket costs for essentials. This includes expanding access to key universal public services, like child care and health care, and increasing the amount directed to non-market affordable housing, public transportation, post-secondary education and food security.

With a provincial budget around the corner, we draw your attention to the alternative budgetary choices the government could make to build a green, diversified economy and just society. We look forward to hearing more about the new government’s plans and urge it to be transparent about them, as respecting democracy requires. 

Jenna MacNeily is a graduate student at Dalhousie University, completing her Master of Social Work and Dr. Christine Saulnier is the Nova Scotia director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Jon Milton

Canada should withdraw from Safe Third Country Agreement

On his first day in office, U.S. President Donald Trump declared war on migrants. That might seem like hyperbole, but it’s barely an exaggeration—in one of the many anti-immigrant executive orders he signed on day one, he officially declared that irregular migration to the U.S. is an “invasion” and assumed wartime presidential powers to stop it, including the unprecedented move of deploying the military on U.S. soil to “secure complete operational control” of the border.

Trump plans to build a massive machine of surveillance and repression in the United States to root out migrants, including stripping migrants of legally acquired citizenship. He plans to send millions of U.S. residents to countries across the world, some of whom have not seen “their” country since they were children, in order to fulfill his campaign promise of mass deportations.

The situation is bleak, and Canada has responsibilities—both moral and legal—to act. The first thing it should do is immediately withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.

The Safe Third Country Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada, which was signed in 2002 and went into effect in 2004. It regulates refugee claims between the two countries. According to the terms of the agreement, a migrant applying for refugee status must do so in the first “safe” country that they arrive in.

That means, for example, a migrant arriving from Haiti via Mexico cannot cross through the

United States and then apply for asylum in Canada. Because the hypothetical migrant arrived in the United States first—and the U.S. is designated as a “safe country” by the terms of the agreement—they must apply for refugee status in the United States. The same would apply to a migrant who arrives in Canada first—they cannot then apply for refugee status in the U.S.

The initial agreement only covered official points of entry, such as land border crossings, airports, and marine ports. It did not cover the vast majority of the U.S.-Canada border. So when Trump first took office in 2017 and began to implement his anti-immigrant vision, migrants began fleeing to Canada through irregular crossing points.

The most famous of those crossings was at Roxham Road.

Located between Champlain, New York, and Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec, Roxham Road became the site where migrants fleeing deportation in the U.S. would arrive and cross into Canada. Because Roxham was not an official point of entry, it allowed migrants to legally apply for refugee status in Canada despite having previously been in the “safe country”—the U.S.

Between 2017 and 2023, around 100,000 people crossed the border at Roxham Road to apply for asylum—over 90 per cent of the total of irregular crossings into Canada.

In 2023, during then U.S. President Joe Biden’s first official visit to Canada, he and Trudeau announced that they had renegotiated the Safe Third Country Agreement. Now it would apply to the entire border, not just official points of entry. Roxham Road was closed—and so was a key

legal path to asylum in Canada for migrants fleeing the U.S.

Back in 2007, a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement triggered by Amnesty International, the Canadian Council of Refugees, and other human rights groups— found that the agreement was unconstitutional and failed to live up to Canada’s obligations under international law to protect the rights of refugees. It found, in short, that the United States could not reasonably be considered a “safe country” for refugees due to its non-compliance

with the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture.

The decision was overturned by an appeals court on procedural grounds—but even in the overturning decision, the court did not find that the U.S. was a “safe country.”

That was 2008, years before Trump became the dominant figure in American politics by stoking anti-immigrant hate. Today, the immigration environment in the United States is significantly worse.

to section 208 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which allows for asylum claims.

A family disembarks from a taxi at the end of Roxham Road just south of the US-Canadian border near Champlain, NY, despite signs prohibiting crossing it here, and request asylum in Canada. / Wikimedia, Daniel Case

One of Trump’s day-one decrees was to completely suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the program through which all refugee claimants must pass to enter the United States, for 90 days “pending review.” If the program comes back at all, it will likely be significantly more restrictive. Trump also suspended access

It appears that, for now, there is essentially no way to make a legal refugee claim in the United States of America. The idea that such a place can be considered a “safe country” for refugees in this context is completely and obviously absurd. Canada, though, continues to maintain this fiction as a signatory to the Safe Third Country Agreement. Pretending that the U.S. is a safe country means that Canada continues to lock out asylum seekers who have legitimate fears of persecution in their home country—and, increasingly, in the United States itself.

America’s Department of Homeland Security has been given a mandate to use “all legally available

resources” to construct detention centres for migrants, and America’s federal government is setting up task forces in every state to manage the mass deportation of millions of people. The president of the United States has expressed plans—some of which are blatantly unconstitutional—to strip legally acquired citizenships. It would be reasonable to interpret the U.S.’ war on migrants as a form of persecution in itself.

If Trump actually does even half the things he has promised to do to migrants in the United States, it will trigger a humanitarian crisis—and Canada has the responsibility to act to protect people fleeing persecution.

When governments attempt to close migration routes, migration doesn’t stop—it just moves to more dangerous areas. When the U.S.

“closed” the border with Mexico in the 1990s, more migrants moved into the dangerous terrain of the southwest desert. When Europe “closed” land migration routes coming from Turkey and elsewhere, more migrants chose to take the perilous journey across the Mediterranean in small and crowded boats.

In the past 10 years, over 31,000 migrants have “gone missing” in the Mediterranean while attempting to cross into Europe. Another 10,000 are “missing” along migration routes in the Americas during that same period, with the majority of those deaths being in the desert along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Canada has largely been insulated from these waves due to geography. It only shares a single land border with a country that it designates as a “safe country” for refugees, justifying a blanket refusal of asylum claims. But what happens when that country is no longer safe?

Like most countries, Canada is a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, an international agreement that outlines the legal responsibilities signatories carry towards asylum seekers. The convention is clear—refugees have a right to asylum from persecution, and they have the right to access such asylum even if they enter a country irregularly.

But the most important arguments in favour of scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement aren’t legal—they’re moral. Do we, as a country, want to bear the weight of thousands more migrants dying while searching for lives of dignity?

During the Holocaust, a high-level Canadian government official—likely either Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King or his immigration minister—was asked how many Jews Canada should admit to the country as they fled Nazi persecution. They responded by saying that “none is too many.”

Let’s not say the same thing to refugees today. 

Jon Milton is associate editor of the Monitor.

Carolina

Aragão

Hitting a new low: Ontario wellbeing is lowest in Canada

Recent estimates of life satisfaction from Statistics Canada reveal a troubling reality about the well-being of Ontario residents. Compared to all other Canadian provinces, Ontario ranks lowest in reported levels of life satisfaction, in a stark contrast to neighbouring Quebec, where 58.4 per cent of residents report high levels of life satisfaction, compared to 45.4 per cent of Ontarians.

While several aspects can influence life satisfaction, including cultural and individual characteristics, a closer examination shows that Ontarians don’t have many reasons to be joyful. Additional estimates from Statistics Canada show that, compared to the national average, Ontario residents are more likely to report financial strain, express distrust in their education system, and report poor mental health—portraying complex combinations that systematically erode quality of life.

Indeed, paying the bills has become a challenge for many Ontarians. Housing costs in Ontario are among the highest in Canada, prompting an increase in the number of individuals experiencing housing instability and homelessness. The growing cost of keeping a roof over one’s head has also intensified a food insecurity crisis, leading over one million Ontarians to seek the assistance of food banks between 2023-24.

Times are getting tough, and the public safety net is not there

Share reporting high levels of life satisfaction

By province

Individuals reporting high life satisfaction rank their life satisfaction 8 or higher on 1-10 scale

Selected indicators of quality of life

to support the population. As the CCPA has systematically documented, the chronic underfunding of public services in Ontario is a structural issue. Despite boasting a substantial $1.05 trillion GDP, Ontario falls $3,863 behind the national average per capita spending, allocating about 75 cents for every dollar invested in public programs by other provinces.

There are also no indications that the provincial government is doing anything to change this scenario. The spring 2024 provincial budget ignored this troubling trend, seemingly indifferent to mounting social challenges inflicting the population. The budget included explicit cuts to areas such as post-secondary education and justice spending. In addition, while the nominal budget for areas such as education, health care, and social services increased, our estimates show that when inflation and population growth are accounted for, we see a decline in provincial public spending.

Cuts to social programs have been systematic in Ontario. In education, the government has employed strategic accounting techniques to mask significant cuts to classroom resources, such as the “planning provision”, which comprises 4.85 per cent of core education funding and cannot be spent at school boards’ discretion. As a result, the province effectively reduced per-student funding by $1,500 between 2018-19 and 2024-25. Changes to the funding system have consequences: classrooms across Ontario have 4,990 fewer educators than they would have if these cuts had not been implemented.

Proposed changes to Ontario’s health care system are also not making things better. Ontario’s plan to expand publicly funded surgeries in for-profit facilities poses significant risks to public health care, with the potential to compromise patient safety, create financial conflicts of interest in medical decision-making, and entice private investors to permanently alter Ontario’s health care infrastructure.

It’s no surprise Ontarians are gloomy. As the province continues to systematically underinvest in its people, the human cost becomes impossible to ignore. 

Carolina Aragão is a researcher with the CCPA, based in Ontario.

Democracy on trial—

Illustration by Sébastien Thibault

John Cartwright

Meeting the moment

Ask the ancestors

The election of Donald Trump on November 5, 2025 shocked people across Canada and the world. Americans chose him as their 47th president and rewarded Republicans with effective control over all levels of the federal government. Analysis of the Democratic defeat and the role of culture wars and billionaires will fill media platforms for months to come, but it comes down to this: faced with a choice of someone who represents the status quo and a system that many feel is letting them down, or a life-long scrapper who promises to shake up that system, a clear majority voted for change.

The entire world is watching as things unfold. Mass deportations, tax cuts for the wealthiest people on the planet, slashing environmental standards and public services, Ukraine’s independence, the Middle East condemned to relentless violence, and so much more...

As we learned immediately, the consequences for Canada are deeply troubling. While Trump threatens

massive tariffs and speaks of the 51st state, influential figures in corporate Canada feel emboldened to dismantle any previous consensus on climate action, social programs or human rights for refugees, all while demanding increased military spending and integration with the U.S. economy. The “Premier of Petroleum,” Danielle Smith, took her show to the U.S. to deliberately sabotage any sense of Canadian unity in the face of Trump’s aggression.

Conservative politicians are awash with funds from Bay Street financiers, mining magnates, land speculators and Alberta oil barons. Pierre Poilievre was taking the right-wing playbook written by Steve Bannon for Trump and riding a wave of discontent towards certain victory. And then Donald Trump swept to power, and, as Naomi Klein noted in the title of one of her books, This Changes Everything. What does this moment mean for the rest of us? People want answers they believe will make a difference in their lives. For those who are despairing or

Caesar Chavez / Wikimedia

feeling hopeless, an answer can be found by using our heart to inform our hands. In Steven Spielberg’s movie Amistad, the most powerful words came from the leader of the enslaved Africans who rose up to take the ship from their captors. The American lawyer who was at the Supreme Court arguing for their freedom faced certain defeat in his legal case. He asked his clients for advice and received eternal wisdom: “we ask our ancestors.”

We can look back on our own history and “ask the ancestors.” Not simply the fathers of Confederation, but people like Louis-Joseph Papineau, Louis Riel, T. Buck Suzuki, Agnes McPhail, Viola Desmond, Gerry Gallagher, Charan Gill, Art Manuel, Carol Wall, and Murray Sinclair. Not all these names are well known, but they deserve to be. How did these heroes and so many others harness the energy and spirit to succeed against overwhelming odds? How did they project a vision of a more just society while building the power necessary to challenge the economic and political elites of the day?

I was blessed by learning at the feet of incredible leaders of the working-class movement, most of whom were never profiled in the history books. They were natural leaders who were thrown into struggle by the events of their day and helped forge mass movements—for racial justice, affordable housing, environmental action, women’s equality, gay rights, and for respect at work and in society. I heard women who had sustained a peace movement through the cold war expressing their joy at a 1970s rally that “the young people are joining us to carry on the message of peace.” I marched beside Cesar Chavez and Marshall Ganz in their effort to win dignity and a union for California farm workers. I will never forget the humble dignity of that movement that could force the

most powerful opponents to yield. I saw the same sense of purpose in the disarming smile of Pura Velasco as she led the fight for migrant domestic workers.

I think of Italian and Portuguese immigrants fighting the Compensation Board to win benefits for their injured bodies. Of the brave African Canadian leaders like Daniel Hill and Bromley Armstong who fought tenaciously to dismantle systemic racism before that was a phrase in our vocabulary. Of Cape Breton miners, or Winnipeg strikers, tenants fighting for rent controls and affordable housing, of young South Asians who organized to resist physical violence by racist thugs, and women from every background struggling against endemic sexual harassment or domestic violence.

There is a monument in Toronto to the 14,000 Chinese Railroad workers who came from Guangdong in the1880s to blast through the Rockies and complete the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hundreds died at work and many more were injured. A century later, their descendants and community allies forced the government to apologize for the infamous Head Tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act that followed. The Japanese Canadian community sought reparations for the savage internment program of the Second World War and decided that the money should be used to create the Canadian Race Relations Foundation—to help educate young Canadians about the impact of xenophobia and bigotry.

There are many lessons from intense struggles for justice, but there is also much to be learned from other kinds of community building that is also necessary for a caring and inclusive society. Those who volunteer for charitable causes are also essential for the social solidarity we need. From the United Way to newcomer settlement agencies, to seniors’ services and mental health networks. The people in churches, mosques and

synagogues who offer shelter to those in distress, and the countless others who sponsor refugees fleeing famine and war.

There is a beautiful statue in Toronto’s Regent Park of Pam McConnell, a community activist who used her role at city council to spur a massive investment in decent housing and urban renewal. Arms outstretched, she invites us to “look at all we have done.” Not just the physical space of fine buildings and community amenities, but the tapestry of people from diverse origins and backgrounds who have come together to create a better future. If only we made sure that, as working-class Canadians, our stories and achievements are being chronicled and shared.

But here is the reality. “Power concedes nothing with demand. It never has, and never will.” Those words of African American abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass in his visits to Canada in the 1840s are as true today as they were at that time. How do we build power today in the time of global corporate empires, billionaire funders of

Louis Riel / Wikimedia

fascism, and a wave of disinformation that dominates every screen? If we ask our ancestors, what do they tell us?

Marshall Ganz, the fellow I met through the Scarborough grape boycott committee 50 years ago, has become one of the foremost social justice educators in the world. He recently published a summary of his life’s work entitled People Power Change. It describes using the power of narrative to help ordinary people discover their own inner strength and build deep relationships with others. His “five practices of democracy” are: building relationships, storytelling, strategizing, acting and structuring. It’s not about finding “kumbaya” moments, it’s about intentional relationships that become the basis of organization and mobilization.

Ganz provides a unique but powerful definition: “Leadership is the ability to allow others to act in common purpose in a time of uncertainty.” It’s quite a different approach to the strong man politics that is sweeping our world today, or the strong leader culture that informs many of our movements. But it is what we will rely on to get us through the dark days ahead. There is another aspect of his craft. He often reminds the reader that every faith tradition is rooted in the questions of how we discover and affirm our common humanity. It is done through storytelling that paints a

picture of a people committed to each other. Someone once referred to that as “the vision thing.” It is what holds people together in times of distress, of endurance and when asked to take risks.

The California farm workers told a story rooted in the traditions of Mexican culture, Catholicism, the Mexican revolution and everyday life of people in the fields. At the same time, we in Canada were grappling with our relations with the United States, our sovereignty (either in Canada or Quebec, or for Indigenous Peoples) and resistance to being drawn even closer into the American empire. A wave of nationalism sparked the move for a clearer Canadian identity, arts and culture, and a reckoning with the dynamics of a branch-plant economy. The Council of Canadians became the standard-bearer for the widespread yearning for an independent Canada.

If progressive Canadians are clear about what we stand for today, we all have a much better chance of defending what we have won in the past. And in the face of the adversity to come, our commitment to building a stronger future together must be seen and believed by Canadians from all walks of life, in every part of this country.

But there is something missing today. We don’t have a coherent progressive movement. We have lots of good organizations doing good work on their individual issues. Lots of volunteers—from the youth of the Fridays for Future and Black Lives Matter to the veterans of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and Seniors for Climate Action.

Compared to the ascendant conservative movement, whose inspiration comes from the Tea Party and whose energy was sparked by the Freedom Convoy, the progressive movement has no shared “playbook” in the way that Steve Bannon created for Donald Trump, and leading conservative operatives translated into Canadian. Ontario Proud was funded by the development industry furious with the Liberals for the Greenbelt policies. Together, they helped create a momentum that wiped out the “natural governing party” of Canada’s largest province. In British Columbia, John Rustad’s Conservatives came within a hair’s breadth of taking office—with a party that had barely existed a few years before.

These guys have a playbook, and we don’t. Sure, some folks want to aspire to “strategic voting” as a solution. But that lasts about as long as the first debate between party leaders as each seeks to find advantage in the other’s weakness. And frankly, the Liberal Party in both Ontario and Canada is scurrying back to the centre to try to repair their relations with Bay Street and the Rideau elites. The NDP are unlikely to form a government east of the Manitoba border without a mass movement to propel them there. And there is no mass movement today that is building power for the 99 per cent.

Viola Desmond / Wikimedia

I always smiled at a cheeky poster that my Guyanese friends brought from back home to explain this issue in the clearest terms: mobilization without organization is like bark without bite. So, my friends, how does our side do organization?

Think back to another group of ancestors, across the ocean. Nelson Mandela, Moses Kotane, Soe Slovo and Ruth First, Desmond Tutu. How did they and millions of South Africans sustain a struggle over decades against the ruthless apartheid state backed by the wealth and weapons of the UK, the U.S. and Israel? They built unity by creating the Freedom Charter that could serve as a common vision for many disparate groups, and then coordinated mass actions through a network of inspiring leaders. In his 1999 book Developing Organizational Capacity, Alan Kaplan drew the lessons of this long journey.

His approach was summarized by Rob Fairley for the Toronto & York Region Labour Council as it sought to build its own capacity at the start of this century. There are two aspects outlined: first, how to identify an organization with capacity, and second, what steps to follow to build such an organization (see sidebar).

Kaplan speaks of how to build a single organization, but surely the same concepts can apply to the entire progressive movement. It’s time for us to get our act together and start building the kind of power that once forced capital to accede to demands in the past: public health care, public pensions, unemployment insurance and social benefits, non-market social housing, pay equity, women’s and queer rights. The list is truly impressive when you count up all that previous generations of Canadians have won through political bargaining—and add on a national pharmacare program secured in the last year.

They made tough decisions to build solidarity that was never easy. I would say that, in 2025, we are all called to replicate their determination and vision. In the words of one of those ancestors, we should dream no small dreams— and then commit to each other to model the spirit of Marge Piercy’s immortal poem “To Be of Use.” M

To Be of Use

I love people who harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart, who pull like water buffalo, with massive patience, who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward, who do what has to be done, again and again. I want to be with people who submerge in the task, who go into the fields to harvest and work in a row and pass the bags along, who stand in the line and haul in their places, who are not parlor generals and field deserters but move in a common rhythm when the food must come in or the fire be put out. —Marge Piercy

John Cartwright is the chairperson of the Council of Canadians and former president of the Toronto & York Region Labour Council.

An organization with capacity...

• Is an autonomous, self-aware entity that defines its own sources of inspiration, focus and direction

• Is able to learn from its experience

• Is able to respond with flexibility, innovation and adaptability to changing circumstances

• Has a strategic outlook that enables it to act decisively to impact and change its circumstances and social context

• Motivates, inspires and develops its members

• Concentrates on developing a robust capability

• Is sustainable—organized for the long haul, rather than for the capacity to perform a particular task at a specific time

The following steps, in sequence, build an organization with capacity

• Create a shared assessment, a shared conceptual framework of the organization’s situation in the world

• Develop an organizational “attitude” (stance) and identity (sense of itself) which enables the organization to act confidently and effectively on the world

• Create a vision, an understanding of what the organization intends to do, by exploring internal and external constraints and possibilities

• Develop a strategy—the “how” by which the organization intends to realize its vision

• Nurture an organizational culture with norms and values which are self-critical and self-reflective

• Structure the organization to suit its culture, implement its strategy and achieve its goals

• Take the time to develop the organization’s members and organizers—it is not enough to train them

• When the organization faces a scarcity of material resources, harness organizational ‘attitude’ to overcome the scarcity

iStock.com/tupungato

Luke LeBrun

The rise of zany conspiracy theory politics

British Columbia has long had a reputation as Canada’s most progressive province.

But on the morning after the 2024 provincial election, British Columbians woke up to the bizarro reality that a far-right party, previously relegated to the fringes of B.C. politics, had elected a slate of extreme candidates and came within a whisker of forming government.

In the blink of an eye, legislation on the future of the province’s health and education systems would now be debated and voted on by people who subscribe to conspiratorial ideas about vaccines, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic or nefarious international plots to force children to change their gender and eat bugs. Meanwhile, conservative political leaders across Canada

are pandering to conspiratorial segments of their base. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has floated conspiracies about the Pentagon spraying chemtrails over the Prairies while Conservative MPs have been running conspiratorial petitions calling for Canada to withdraw from the United Nations. In fact, in the lead up to the federal election, Poilievre has been receiving glowing endorsements

from InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones—Jones insists Poilievre is “saying the same things as me.”

What on earth is happening to Canada?

I’ve been reporting on right-wing politics over the last decade for PressProgress and have gone deep into the weeds on Canada’s online far-right. We are not simply seeing a rise in “conspiracies” and “misinformation” per se, I think we are witnessing tectonic shifts inside Canada’s conservative movement.

A decade or two ago, this was a movement that revolved around ideas about free markets, small government and reactionary social values. That’s all still there, but for a growing segment of the right, these ideas have been increasingly displaced by a sprawling, conspiratorial metanarrative that imagines an evil global cabal is using technocratic climate policies, authoritarian public health rules and gender-inclusive educational materials to control the world and keep ordinary people in their place—and yes, it is every bit as unhinged as that sounds.

In fact, I’m no longer sure the word “conspiracy” fully captures what’s really happening here.

The first thing you need to understand is that we can draw a direct line connecting the weirdness of B.C.’s 2024 election with the wave of anti-2SLGBTQ+ protests in 2023, the 2022 Freedom Convoy and the anti-public health protests throughout the COVID19 pandemic. These are all symptoms of the same problem.

This phenomenon is driven by the collapse of traditional media and the rise of digital platforms. Across Canada, including B.C., newsrooms are being decimated by layoffs, local newspapers are shutting down and what remains of our stripped-down media ecosystem is concentrated in the hands of a small number of corporations and wealthy individuals. At the same time, our public discourse is being shaped by mysterious, unregulated social media algorithms that are distorting our democracy in ways nobody seems to fully understand.

Of course, it’s a cliche to blame everything that’s wrong with society on newfangled technological gizmos, but let me point to a concrete example: In 2018, Facebook announced it was tweaking its algorithms to promote “meaningful social interactions”—ostensibly a well-intentioned change to reduce clickbait links and spammy posts from brands.

One way they did this was by prioritizing posts from Facebook Groups, online communities where like-minded people connect around common interests. These groups are mostly benign when people share local neighbourhood news or zesty lo-cal cooking recipes. But this change also had the unintended effect of making it easier for people who believe in fringy ideas to connect with one another, share content that riles them up and eggs each other on.

My reporting in the early days of the pandemic suggests Facebook Groups played a big role in the emergence of anti-lockdown protests and the radicalization of a segment of our population.

On April 25, 2020, a month after Ontario’s government ordered its first COVID-19 lockdown, dozens of people displaying signs with QAnon slogans or claims that the World Health Organization was involved in “mind control” experiments flouted public health rules and marched on Queen’s Park. Ontario Premier Doug Ford would later call these people a “bunch of yahoos.”

I was curious how these “yahoos” were organizing. My investigation sent me to weird corners of Facebook where I discovered the main organizer was operating under multiple fake names and recruiting people by promoting the march in Facebook Groups associated with far-right politics, anti-vaccine activism, one-world government conspiracies and the idea 5G cell phone towers spread COVID-19 (I still have no clue who this person is or if they even live in Canada).

Over the next several months, these fringy online communities grew and started talking to one another. Anti-lockdown protests were turning into a ragtag coalition of anti-vaxxers, QAnon believers, flat-earth truthers, anti-immigrant white supremacists, People’s Party of Canada supporters. Extreme and conspiratorial online communities were introducing themselves to one another, sharing content in one another’s Facebook Groups and starting to merge.

Opposition to public health orders also mobilized spiritual communities. Not only evangelicals, particularly in Alberta, who were defiant over authorities cancelling gatherings in churches. We began to see vaccine-hesitant people involved in New Age spiritual practices, alternative health, wellness and fitness communities unexpectedly join forces with white supremacists and anti-government ideologically motivated extremists.

While some were already prone to conspiratorial thinking, others faced a perfect storm during the pandemic lockdowns. Estranged family members of people who went down conspiracy rabbit holes would repeatedly describe scenarios where their loved ones had experienced some kind of personal trauma and found themselves suddenly isolated without social support networks or access to mental health services. They made sense of their life situation through content they were encountering online while stuck at home during the darkest nights of the pandemic.

Whether protesting outside the homes of politicians or public health officials, outside hospitals or vaccine clinics or occupying downtown Ottawa for three weeks, these protests often functioned more as IRL (“In Real Life”) meet-ups for weird and lonely people from the Internet looking for a sense of community

more than as an expression of a coherent political agenda.

The Freedom Convoy, perhaps the biggest IRL meet-up during the pandemic, was supposedly about “vaccine mandates,” but everyone in Ottawa would have seen signs referencing every random online conspiracy about vaccines, QAnon, the World Economic Forum or calls to hold Nuremberg-style COVID19 trials to prosecute politicians, doctors and others involved in pandemic lockdowns for “crimes against humanity.”

Two years later, B.C. Conservative leader John Rustad found himself on a video call organized by anti-vaccine groups who were hyperactive in Facebook Groups when he was asked if he supports “Nuremberg 2.0”?

Rustad, in a stuttering response, assured them he would be open to

joining other jurisdictions in legal proceedings inspired by the trials that prosecuted Nazi leaders after the Second World War. After these comments were first reported by PressProgress, Rustad walked them back, insisting he “misunderstood the question”.

Yet when speaking to his base, the B.C. Conservative leader would reference conspiracies about the United Nations forcing children to eat bugs and stood behind candidates posting on Facebook about conspiracies relating to chemtrails, the 2020 U.S. election, the January 6 insurrection, 15-minute cities, elite Hollywood pedophile rings, United Nations takeovers of municipal governments and plots to use climate policies to depopulate the planet of humans.

At a time when traditional media outlets are in decline and

journalists struggle to vet candidates for public office, we keep seeing people from these obscure Facebook Groups and other strange corners of the Internet self-organizing, building political power and running for public office.

Working out solutions to these problems will be difficult and complicated, but one thing I can tell you is that policy-makers don’t seem to understand what they are dealing with or recognize that this is becoming a real threat to our democracy. M

Luke LeBrun is editor of PressProgress

Chem trail conspiracies iStock.com/David Butler

Antonia Zerbisias

If you value democracy, stop expecting free news

Last January’s panic over Meta overlord Mark Zuckerberg’s firing of Facebook fact checkers once again revealed a sense of entitlement among many Canadian users who sanctimoniously posted that they were jumping ship.

That sense first arose in 2023, when Ottawa demanded that Meta compensate our media for profiteering from their content. Refusing to pay, Zuckerberg banned news links posted north of the 49th. That sparked outrage—misdirected outrage—against Justin Trudeau. How dare he kill our news source?

To a disturbing number of Facebookers, it seemed that news should be free, journalists should work for nothing, and paywalls were censorship because news should be free, and journalists should work for nothing.

But, just days after Zuckerberg announced that misinformation would go unchecked, Canadians finally clued into what he really was after: a place on Donald Trump’s billionaire tech bros team. He was bowing down to the U.S. president, who accused Facebook of a leftwing bias.

Rather than confront the actual problem—our collapsing corporate media after decades of concentration, consolidation and convergence—Facebook users were gonna stick it to the Meta Man by flouncing. There was little talk of standing up for Canadian news providers. So, again, many blamed the Canadian government for preventing freebie access to journalism.

A news junkie long before I joined the Toronto Star in 1989 as

media columnist, I have long been monitoring North America’s broadcasting and publishing industries, watching them shrink in number, grow narrower in perspective and scope, offer more infotainment and less investigation, while presenting the illusion of choice with the proliferation of cable news channels.

Alarmed by rapidly sinking audiences and ad revenues, they also grew even more heavy handed in their gatekeeping. Discuss climate change? That would anger the automotive and travel industries, which pay the rent with truck and vacation package advertising. Worker issues? Can’t upset business and government with money for commercials. So labour activists became “union bosses”— as if “CEOs” were democratically selected and workplace organizers were mobsters.

It’s time to fight for journalism But there’s more, much more, out there than the Globe and Mail, owned by Canada’s richest family, whose interests are antithetical to most Canadians, or Postmedia, controlled by a Republican-aligned U.S. hedge fund, or news channels taken over by distribution monopolies that serve shareholders ahead of the public interest.

That’s why Canadians must fight for CBC and TVO, subscribe to liberal papers, such as the Star, UK’s Guardian and Israel’s Haaretz, under fire by the Netanyahu regime. We should prop up our indie media: Tyee, Rabble.ca, The Maple, The Breach, Canadian Dimension, National Observer, Narwhal, Ricochet. We must follow

progressive, fact-based podcasters and Substackers, many of them journalists whose jobs were eliminated.

They now provide much of the information needed to fact check the X-bots. They also counter the BroCasters who amplify racism, misogyny, and homophobia.

Being free is costly. It takes millions to do what a daily or newscast can do. Indie media boldly go where business advertisers and political groups don’t want their ad dollars to go. That’s why we must bet on them, on the future, on democracy.

Note that fascists first come for the journalists. Juntas take over the media along with the government. Trump attacks those who don’t back down, like Jim Acosta, late of CNN. The apple-munching Pierre Poilievre casually bullies reporters. Israel slaughters Palestinian journalists.

But emojis aren’t enlightening. Liking isn’t thinking. Retweeting isn’t engaging.

Facebook gives us space to expose lies and corruption, to organize, even to resist. It connects us. It’s community.

But to be effective, we must support the truth tellers with our own dollars, promote and point to them. There are workarounds for Meta’s news link ban.

Don’t abandon ship. Turn it around. M

Antonia Zerbisias is a former columnist with the Toronto Star and host of CBC News’s Inside Media.

O democracy, how my heart aches for you in these dangerous times.

The oligarchs are at the gates. They are coming for us. For our democracy, our independence, our sovereignty, and that double-edged word: freedom.

In the current political context, the word freedom has become contorted. It became the rallying cry of a MAGA movement that, in Canada, morphed into a convoy uprising. And now, the ugly spectre of fascism rises like a phoenix from the ashes.

Not so long ago, we were shocked by the events of January 6—the attempted insurrection at America’s Capitol building; the rejection of a fair and square democratic election. January 6 was supposed to live in infamy; its leader relegated to the gates of hell.

RESIST

But Donald Trump would not go lightly. He refused to stand for democracy—he stands, after all, only for himself. He demands fealty. And the grovelling, the grifters comply. They fall to their knees at Mar-a-Largo, that den of iniquity.

THE OLIGARCHS ARE AT THE GATES

Some factions here in our own country are trying to convince us that “Canada is broken”. It is not, though it is due for repairs.

Democracies do not run on autopilot. They must be fought for, protected and renewed. That comes down to us.

Propagandists will take advantage of the chaotic Trumpian year that 2025 promises to be.

“The Purpose of Propaganda,” Aldous Huxley wrote, “is to make one set of people forget that other sets of people are human.”

This year, the propagandists will be emboldened. They will twist the truth. They will bend the rules, even break them. It falls to us to hold them to account and, for ourselves, to hold fast to a gentler, kinder, more humane vision of our future.

We must resist. And unite.

Resist the temptation to yield to those who lie, to those who will use the many in pursuit of their own power.

Trump, with his cast of billionaires, shysters, conspiracy theorists and sycophants, threatens women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, migrant workers, immigrants, political opponents, and now us. Canada’s own sovereignty.

Trump taunts Canada as the 51st state of America. This is not a drill.

Our sense of who we are as Canadians—our

Resist the divisive forces of polarization. We are more resilient and powerful than we might think. There is power in finding common cause, in reaching across our differences.

It’s time to unite, to join forces with as many allies as we can. We hold that power.

Words by Trish Hennessy | Illustration by Sébastien Thibault Design by Joss Maclennan

BONJOUR! I AM

THE BEAVER

It’s good to gnaw you.

I may not be the biggest rodent in the world, but you can’t resist my toothy grin.

I am not only a good looker, I am resourceful.

I can build my own fortress with meager supplies—branches, vegetation, rocks and mud.

When I sense a nearby threat, I slap my tail on the water to alert my family.

I use my tools to my advantage.

I am not only a hard worker: I am fiercely loyal to my colony.

Since the 1600s, I have been the symbol of Canadian trade.

Threaten my independence and I will chew … right … through … you. Press me and I will resist.

I will remain standing long after a certain orange-haired mammal loses his additional 15 minutes of infamy.

I AM BEAVER. I AM CANADIAN.

Trish Hennessy

What if we stop knowing what’s true from what isn’t?

Afriend asked me at a party: is it true that Jordan Peterson spouts conspiracy theories?

For those who don’t know about Jordan Peterson, he’s a controversial retired Canadian professor who is infamous for stoking culture wars—and twisting the truth.

I said as much to my friend and asked why he wanted to know. Someone else at the party had told him the same thing, but he couldn’t believe it. He’d watched one YouTube video of Peterson and what he heard resonated with him. He was shocked to learn there was more to the story.

In fact, the Ontario College of Psychologists deemed Peterson’s public comments to be so controversial, it ordered Peterson to take a mandatory rehabilitation program or risk losing his license to practice. He challenged the order in court, lost, and moved to the U.S.

As I explained some of this history to my friend, I saw a confused look on his face: that cross between I’m not sure what to believe and you’re someone whose opinion I trust (cognitive dissonance: “psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs…held simultaneously,” Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Perhaps you’ve found yourself in a similar situation.

We are bombarded with online misinformation—much of which is no longer subject to basic fact checking. Elon Musk started that trend when he bought Twitter, renamed it X, and drove that social media channel into a hellish dystopian descent.

Mark Zuckerberg followed suit by announcing Meta (Facebook/ Instagram) will no longer be fact checking posts on those channels. This after Facebook banned Canadian news from its feed in retaliation for a federal law that

A Harvard/Kennedy School study that examines the comment section of COVID-19 news videos found that conspiracy theories flourished on YouTube during the pandemic— especially in the comments section. The study said conspiracy theories ranged from the usual ‘Bill Gates is billionaire with a hidden agenda’ all the way to how 5G cell towers can be used to activate the vaccine to do harm. iStock.com/smartboy10

would compel Meta to pay a fee that would go to Canadian legacy media outlets struggling in the face of social media. (To its credit, Google is doing its part under this new law, paying $100 million in funds to Canadian journalism). Reader, be warned: our social media news feeds aren’t reliable. Algorithms are used to bombard people with outlandish far-right misinformation—maybe you’ve noticed weird videos popping up on YouTube.

Misinformation is polarizing us

Propaganda has always been with us. From the “snake oil salesman” who would gallop on horseback into town in the wild west era, to the rise of sensationalism (known as yellow journalism) in the late 19th century, to outright falsehoods polluting our social media news feeds.

But is social media disconnecting us from reality? From our own ability to spot fact from fiction?

On January 20, 2025—the day Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the U.S.—Elon Musk gave a speech that ended with a passionate pounding of the chest and an extension of his arm; a gesture historically known as the Nazi salute, used by white supremacists.

Within minutes, the video of Musk was making the rounds on social media, with people sowing seeds of doubt: did Musk really mean it as a Nazi salute? They cited his alleged autism, his alleged record of speaking out on behalf of Jewish people, his alleged calls for free speech. Maybe he didn’t mean it this way, many claimed.

Musk himself dismissed critics as using “dirty tricks”.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”—George Orwell, 1984.

It was surreal to watch this unfold in real time. And it reminded me of an important and eye-opening 2024 report, Disruptions on the Horizon, by Policy Horizons Canada. It identified 35 potential disruptions to Canadian stability.

Number one among the top potential disruptions: People cannot tell what is true and what is not.

Top 10 disruptions

1. People cannot tell what is true and what is not.

2. Lost biodiversity and ecosystem collapse.

3. Overwhelmed emergency response.

4. Cyberattacks disable critical infrastructure.

5. Billionaires run the world.

6. Artificial intelligence runs wild.

7. Vital natural resources become scarce.

8. Downward social mobility becomes the norm.

9. Health care systems collapse.

10. Democratic systems break down.

In 2025, those predictions are at once prescient and frightening. How can we live in a world where people can no longer tell what is true and what is not?

The report warns:

“More powerful generative AI tools, declining trust in traditional knowledge sources, and algorithms

designed for emotional engagement rather than factual reporting could increase distrust and social fragmentation.

“More people may live in separate realities shaped by their personalized media and information ecosystems. These realities could become hotbeds of disinformation, be characterized by incompatible and competing narratives, and form the basis of fault lines in society.”

You might be experiencing the polarizing effects of social media conspiracy theories in your own life. A friend told me former acquaintances message her on social media with alt-right videos—raging rants about conspiracy theories on social media. She doesn’t respond. It feels too weighty. Like too much work for someone she barely knows.

What can we do? Do we exit social media altogether? Leaving X/Twitter has certainly been a relief. I metaphorically lost 10 pounds the day I left my account.

Paris Marx, who is based in Canada, has been criticizing the tech bros in his blog Disconnect. In January, Marx declared 2025 the year of the luddite:

“I want us to make 2025 a year when the luddite ethos is resurgent,” Marx wrote. “Technology and the industry behind it is not inherently positive or progressive—and we need to be ready to challenge tech that doesn’t serve the collective interest.”

If we disconnect, though, how will we get the news of the world? How will we make informed decisions?

Do we go back to legacy media outlets? Many of them are now owned by right-wing corporate interests, so we still need to be critical of what we read, see and hear. CBC still fills a void, but a Conservative Pierre Poilievre government promises to defund it. That would only worsen the news desert crisis in Canada, where entire communities no longer have local media outlets. Especially as the private broadcasting market is collapsing, we should be investing in more public broadcasting services. It’s essential to democracy.

Last, but not least, we need to educate ourselves and each other. In Finland, students are being taught how to spot fake news, fake social media profiles, half truths, and manipulated videos and images.

As CNN reported, “Finland has faced down Kremlin-backed propaganda campaigns ever since it declared independence from Russia 101 years ago. But in 2014, after Moscow annexed Crimea and backed rebels in eastern Ukraine, it became obvious that the battlefield had shifted: information warfare was moving online.”

Now Finland’s education system emphasizes critical thinking. Canada should move quickly to do the same. Without it, our very democracy is at risk. M

Trish Hennessy is editor of the Monitor

Stéphane Leman-Langlois, Aurélie Campana, and Samuel Tanner

Understanding the methods of the far right in Canada

In early 2022, thousands of Canadians descended on Ottawa as part of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in protest of the government’s pandemic-related restrictions. Many were opposed to the government’s power to impose lockdowns, masking and vaccine mandates.

Wittingly or not, they were also taking part in a vast communications effort from various groups and individuals on the far right.

Our new book on the far right in Canada, The Great Right North, shows that events like the Freedom Convoy are representative of where the far right is going, how it is recruiting, how it is communicating internally and with Canadians at large, and how it is progressing in the national political discourse.

Historically, Canada has always had a few active far-right groups, including the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and Nazis and fascists before the Second World War.

It also saw various semi-successful attempts at federating smaller formations during the 1980s and, in the 1990s, under the umbrella of the Heritage Front, which turned out to be co-founded and led by a CSIS operative.

But that was then. Now, the far right has a different strategy.

Inspired by the widespread Islamophobia that followed the 9/11 attacks, old and new groups, influencers and ideologues have started blending their narratives into broader popular concerns.

New and growing far-right groups have emerged: Pegida Canada, La Meute and others, with tens of thousands of followers. Alongside ordinary Canadians

preoccupied with national security, identity and the country’s ability to effectively welcome an influx of immigrants, far-right propagandists were weaving their white-supremacist, anti-government and yes, their old hate for Jewish people, who are accused of being behind it all.

Today, these views are often spread through a relatively sanitized discourse, leaving behind the symbols and the language of the previous generation of extremists and adopting a new populist, average-Joe appearance.

The COVID-19 pandemic further served as a platform to peddle globalist conspiracy theories and cultivate contempt for governments, news media, science, racialized people and any form of speech that might contradict the white supremacist discourse of the far right.

The broad appeal of hard-working truckers, “freedom” and pandemic anxiety was successfully mobilized into a mass movement that inspired far-right groups around the world.

This inspiration is propagated online by ordinary people who like and share snippets of information without necessarily realizing their deeper meaning or their links to extremist groups. Some of the main sources of that inspiration are hyperactive, notorious influencers who carefully cultivate their status as far-right influencers. Others are old-school ideologues, often curating entire online libraries of hate literature.

Usually hidden under a more palatable discourse, sometimes in the form of apparently benign memes, their worldviews are

making inroads in our political culture via massive dissemination. The continuous flow of propaganda makes few, if any, direct victims. However, it provides far more traction in public debates on issues such as immigration, security and identity.

Far-right progression is taking place in broad daylight, against a backdrop where the far right is happily riding the wave of populism, geopolitical crises, economic uncertainty and the feeling of neglect that pervades the middle classes in most western countries.

As part of our research, we have interviewed active, deliberate recruiters seeking like-minded people in various sympathetic venues, who told us they approach likely candidates directly, unpack their ideological wares and wait for reactions. But this is not the most worrying form of recruitment; it is high in effort and low in results.

In our research, we found that today “recruitment” is not so much about adding members to groups. It’s about adding adherents to a worldview. Individuals who go from one political problem to the next, in an infinitely changing galaxy of groups, ideas, controversies and people constantly re-inventing themselves with new ideological nuances, special focus on sometimes arcane matters, and adapting as best they can to current events.

Within the general chaos, some overarching, common beliefs can be found. That the state and its institutions, as well as the democratic foundations of western societies, are corrupt, weak or desperately vulnerable to

mismanagement. That white Canadians are threatened by replacement and disappearance by scheming elites.

Consequently, cultural, ethnic and social polarization are constantly underlined, and presented in a manner that justifies the repression of various populations deemed to be dangerous. Though very few will engage in physical violence, it is constantly legitimized, and often praised, when described, suggested or committed as the key to achieve political objectives.

Anyone searching online for information on almost any social or political topic is likely to come across multiple rabbit holes leading to the self-sufficient, airtight bubble of the far-right infosphere. This is the realm of incels, white supremacists, neo-nazis, Christian nationalists and the like.

Beside their far-right views, these entities have almost nothing in common, other than the conviction that accessing various public forums is a powerful way to attract public attention and, eventually, approval of their worldview.

This far-right infosphere is a massive supermarket of support groups, and is a powerful infrastructure of organic recruitment. It is led by gurus and influencers but also by ordinary individuals in discussion groups and chat rooms. It is propelled by digital platforms whose operating logic is not to favour quality information but rather content that is better at provoking engagement. One prime driver of engagement is controversy, a far-right specialty.

Reuters: Freedom Convoy protestors blocked Wellington Street in Ottawa

We studied at length the various processes that lead people to engage with far-right rhetoric or with a specific group, and to eventual commitment, i.e. participation in some kind of action, whether illegal or not.

We found different paths for those who spread hate propaganda and symbolic violence, and those who engage in physical violence. Both include lone actors or very small groups.

We divide the physically violent into two categories: small groups who look for trouble as entertainment, often joining together for socializing and for protection; and the explosive, desperate violence of disorganized individuals, most of whom were already vulnerable, living with intense economic, familial, social or psychological stress. The latter, locked in echo chambers, use social media to confirm beliefs that crystallize and, in some cases, lead to violence.

Far-right sentiments are constantly evolving, and appear to be growing in Canada. It is important for governments, institutions and others seeking to address extremism to understand the ways people are being drawn to the far right and its online echo chambers. M

Stéphane Leman-Langlois is at the Université Laval, Aurélie Campana Université is at the Université Laval, and Samuel Tanner is at the Université de Montréal. This article originally appeared in The Conversation.

Molly McCracken

Time to lean in to the foundational values of democracy

President Donald Trump ran on improving standards of living in the U.S., but one of his first acts in office included slashing programs that provide financial relief to millions of low-income and working-class Americans as he doled out massive tax cuts for the rich.

History in Canada shows that right-wing governments also cut social programs and implement tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. For example, the Harper government’s income tax cut changes increased after-tax income only for the top 20 per cent of families. At the same time, the poverty rate rose, particularly among the elderly.

Regardless of this track record, right-wing governments continue to rally support in the democratic system for policies that hurt working-class and low-income people. With the rise of the far-right, progressives need to lean into the foundational values of democracy and its potential to serve the needs of all people, however difficult this fight will be.

The growing gap between the rich and the rest of us is destabilizing modern constitutional democracies. Research shows that feelings of alienation develop when people do not see themselves getting ahead or being able to afford what they need. Without substantial government responses to economic threats, voters see the political system as inadequate and vote for change or disengage. Income inequality, created by capitalism’s incessant drive for the accumulation of profit, is eroding democracy.

Democracy is also shaped by corporate influence. The wealthy donate to candidates that support their policies and pay for expensive political fundraising dinners. They bankroll corporate lobbying and fund third-party entities during elections. They also support corporate-funded, right-wing think tanks pushing the interests of the wealthy. It is a vicious cycle.

Corporate interests pushed for free trade, government buy-in to globalization and neoliberal policies that removed trade barriers and good manufacturing jobs from Canada. Trade deals like NAFTA and CUSMA were written to help corporations, not the working people who produce the products.

As globalization shipped good working-class jobs away, poverty increased. The working class can’t get ahead: real median wages have barely increased since the seventies.

Fast-forward to the pandemic. During COVID-19 economic shutdowns, corporate-controlled social media fuelled misinformation. The far-right in North American capitalized on the massive jump in the cost of living that began in 2021, blaming Democrats and Liberals for high rates of inflation which were, ironically, driven by corporate greed and profits.

But don’t the people have the power in modern democracies?

Modern constitutional democracies were founded on democratic values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Over time, these values have been eroded to mainly focus on liberty and individualist freedom.

Democracy also includes freedom from poverty, true equality, and solidarity amongst all people. These values have been distorted by politicians who are motivated to serve the needs of corporations. H.P.P. Lötter, professor emeritus of the University of Johannesburg, wrote in 2008 that the existence and degree of poverty in modern democracies can be justified by various ideologies—which are perversions and distortions of reality—to suit the interests of a specific group while masquerading as universal norms to benefit everyone.

Trump won again in 2024 based on promises to improve the economic circumstances of everyday Americans at a time of high inflation, rising mortgage prices, rents and groceries. In Canada, the federal Conservative party gained support by critiquing the Liberal government’s response to the affordability crisis and their carbon tax.

The federal government responded with affordability measures that were too little, too late. The federal GST cut from mid-December to mid-February, for example, saved the average family a modest $100, approximately. If the federal government had instead targeted this benefit, it could have cut child poverty in half, according to research by CCPA Senior Economist David Macdonald.

In Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew’s main affordability measure was to eliminate the gas tax, intended as a “holiday” to last for six months but extended twice to a full year. Those who cannot afford to own a car did not benefit. Those

with bigger vehicles, using more gasoline, benefitted. The cut cost the Manitoba government $340 million in revenu—money needed to improve the abysmal patchwork of public transportation across the province and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or for income transfers to low-income families and people on social assistance.

Boutique, untargeted policies to address the affordability crisis are failing to provide help to those who need it most. Political researchers from the left and centrist parties have concluded that fighting poverty does not motivate voters, so they attempt to draw voters to the polls by focusing on “the stressed middle class.” As a result, centre and left affordability policies and income transfers become diluted to the point where they do not solve the problem they are meant to address, risking a loss of credibility.

It is possible to reduce poverty and income inequality

It must be acknowledged, however, that the federal government did make strides in helping low- and moderate-income people. Recent progress due to the Liberal-NDP Supply and Confidence Agreement resulted in new income transfers. While far from perfect, these are notable: Old Age Security (OAS) payments increased by 10 per cent for those 75 and older, the Canada Worker Benefit was expanded, $10-a-day child care was introduced, with subsidies for low-income families, and the Canadian Dental Program was introduced.

These efforts show that we can make gains for lowand moderate-income people. Living in a democracy can have a positive impact on poverty by providing a mechanism to address it.

The Nobel prize-winning Economist Amartya Sen explains that in countries with multi-party democratic systems and accountability mechanisms, there has never been a famine. Famines take place in countries with dictatorships—North Korea and Ethiopia, for example. Democracy is a protective factor.

With the rise of far-right governments that threaten to circumvent democratic values and norms, civil society must demand that all the values of our democracy be upheld—most importantly, freedom from poverty, achieving true equality, and acting in solidarity.

Civil society—people actively participating in democracy—must challenge the notion of freedom to accumulate profit without restriction. We must continue to educate people about the value of wealth and income redistribution to meet the basic human rights of the vulnerable, to support social mobility of the working and middle class, and to provide quality public services.

Civil society organizations, like the CCPA, promote community engagement in government policies and push for transformative change by providing analysis of regressive government policies and the potential of government to advance substantive equality.

In the face of far-right governments, solidarity and allyship amongst social change movements— Indigenous, civil rights, feminist, climate, labour, 2SLGBTQ+ and social justice—are needed in our democracy more than ever. It’s our role to speak truth to power and focus on people’s priorities: the ability to lead a good life and leave the planet for future generations to do the same. M Molly McCracken is the Manitoba director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives office.

Leave a legacy that reflects your lifelong convictions

Include the CCPA in your will and help bring to life the kind of world you’d like to see for future generations.

By contributing to the future financial stability of the CCPA you will enable us to continue to champion the values and issues that you care so deeply about.

If you’d like to learn more about including the CCPA in your will, call Katie Loftus at 1-844-563-1341 or 613-563-1341 extension 318, or send an email to katie@policyalternatives.ca.

Chi Nguyen

Let’s reimagine our political future, together

In 2022, I put my name on the provincial ballot as a candidate. Driven by the opportunity to reimagine and rebuild our infrastructure—particularly social infrastructure and housing—I campaigned in the condo-dense riding of Spadina Fort-York in Toronto. I knew this endeavor wasn’t a solo task; running for office requires a team. It’s not just about individual ambition—it’s about community-driven change, and that requires the support of a team committed to the idea that politics can shape our communities for the better.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of speaking with hundreds of women involved in political programs like McGill’s Women in House, Toronto Metropolitan University’s Women in the House, and the Daughters of the Vote program. These conversations have been filled with curiosity about how politics can be a tool for positive change—both for the people and communities we serve. But the questions they pose are often the same: How can I do this? What’s at risk for me and my family? Can I return to my career after stepping into a partisan role? As someone who has been politically adjacent for years, I felt it would be hypocritical to encourage others, especially those I admire, to run without doing so myself.

One of the most rewarding aspects of my campaign was the opportunity to connect with other women running for office, sharing the personal and professional challenges of the campaign trail. The pandemic and the ongoing crises made the campaign even

more difficult—many voters we spoke with were hurting, angry, and scared about the future.

Yet the most heartbreaking sentiment I encountered was the belief that political leadership no longer mattered. Many people felt that all politicians were the same— self-interested and disconnected from the struggles of everyday life.

But that sentiment overlooks a critical truth: most candidates, regardless of political affiliation, are driven by a sense of purpose. This is especially true for women and gender-diverse candidates. Whether advocating for better health care, education, or stronger social programs, these candidates are often motivated by a deep passion for serving their communities.

Running for office requires hunger and conviction. It’s not a position one takes up lightly.

In 2024, we saw significant strides in democratic participation, particularly in Canada. British Columbia’s legislature now has more than 40 per cent women, reflecting the broader trend of more diverse and inclusive representation.

These gains didn’t happen by accident. They are the result of years of community organizing,

Democracy requires more than a vote

mentorship, and tireless advocacy by those who have been pushing for change from the inside and out.

And despite the challenges faced by women and gender-diverse candidates, many leave the campaign trail with a deeper understanding of their ridings and a renewed perspective on the issues that matter most to the people they hope to represent.

In 2025, I hope Canadians will rise to the occasion. We are facing difficult political choices, and after the fatigue of the pandemic and ongoing crises, it’s easy to feel disillusioned. But we must break through our systems with new models of engagement and participation. At the heart of strong democracies are connected communities—where physical and social resources work in harmony. To make this happen, we need meaningful conversations, debate, and organizing that reflect our shared commitment to a better future. Democracy requires more than a vote; it requires active engagement in the communities we care about.

As we move forward, it’s vital that political power continues to evolve. Our country’s leadership must better reflect the diverse lives of all Canadians—especially those voices that have been historically excluded from our political institutions. We need policies that meet the challenges of today and tomorrow; and leadership that represents a truly inclusive and reflective Canada.

Let’s do this, Canada. M Chi Nguyen was a former political provincial candidate and is a long-time feminist advocate working on solutions to equity, genderviolence and building stronger communities.

Craig Pickthorne

View of democracy from its smallest cog

Since 2007, I’ve been a volunteer on seven election campaigns at the federal, provincial, and municipal level. I have done most tasks that a small progressive urban campaign would need and I’d like to share four observations about local democracy in action.

Our election agencies should get more love

After witnessing the manufactured chaos in the U.S. election system since 2020 and beyond, we should feel lucky we have election agencies that conduct our elections with uniformity, transparency, and non-partisanship. They report directly to parliament, and we should be wary of anyone that suggests any of this be curtailed. Whenever I have encountered election agencies at the local level, I experienced a totally supportive and accessible team of people who made sure every campaign got everything we needed, ensuring we knew and followed the rules. They were usually local residents themselves, working on contract.

Election signs should have more restrictions

Most everyone agrees election signs are a wasteful blight. They suck up volunteer time and require many teams to fulfill requests. A typical sign will cost $10 and up to produce, and with many thousands ordered, signs represent a large portion of the total expenditures permitted.

They are the only part of a campaign that needs a bunch of kit: stakes of all sizes, zip ties, screws, sledgehammers, mallets.

Volunteers with gassed-up cars and trucks. A shared system to collect and track requests from multiple platforms. They eat up room in small campaign offices.

After delivering them, many need maintenance and replacement due to vandalism. Even when the election is over, you’re not done. You need to go pick them up and recycle them. Despite it all, no serious local candidate can expect to win without signs so long as their opponent will deploy them.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are European democracies that heavily curtail the use of campaign signs. Visitors from Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands and elsewhere are astonished to see how we plaster our own properties and public lands with these things. Time to hit the gas on increased restrictions.

It’s not like West Wing

Some people seem to think election campaigns are a professional machine staffed by veterans whose job is to sway voters and

out-manoeuvre opposing campaigns. I’ve been lucky to be a part of sophisticated campaigns with many moving parts and talented people, but at the local level, there is little resemblance to national campaigns depicted in popular culture.

In reality, most local campaigns’ energy is focused on doing three things: get the candidate’s name and values out in the world, identify supporters, and make sure they vote.

There will be a manager under contract, and perhaps some other workers brought in as election day draws near, but most everything is done by volunteers. Many will be doing this work for the first time.

The un-glamourous and low-tech still reign: signs, door knocking, phone calling, events, and bulk emails remain the primary ways to accomplish those three objectives.

People don’t know how much they want electoral reform

After all these experiences, declining voter turnout is depressing. “Wasted vote” is a phrase that is heard by every volunteer, even in close races. People tell us their vote doesn’t matter, and in many races, they’re not totally wrong. If we want more people voting, let us build a system that doesn’t punish new candidates and hand a win to the minority of votes (ie, proportional representation).

On the positive side, the massive transfer of energy, time, talent, and money I have seen in these last 17 years makes me hopeful for our local democracy. M

Craig Pickthorne works in non-profit communications in Ottawa.

Craig Pickthorne at a municipal campaign launch, Toronto, 2018

Hennessy’s Index

Proportional representation

Trish Hennessy

100 years

In 2021, Fair Vote Canada marked the 100-year anniversary of politicians promising to move from first-past-the-post voting to proportional representation in Canada. (Dear reader: We are still waiting).

1921

That’s when Mackenzie King’s Liberal party campaigned on its 1919 resolution to endorse proportional representation—specifically, a single transferable vote/ranked choice voting. King would go on to become prime minister. Once in power,

the Liberals set up an all-party committee on proportional representation, which ended up rejecting the idea.

“We turned down proportional representation. There was only one member of that committee who tried to get the Liberal party to stand by their promise on proportional representation, and that was my humble self.”

— Abraham Albert Heaps, MP for North Winnipeg (1925-40), Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF).

1933

That’s the second time politicians promised proportional representation. Once again, it was Mackenzie King. On May 25, 1933, King said: “If we are ever returned to power a proportional representation measure will be a feature of the Liberal platform and program of legislation.”

1935

Mackenzie King’s Liberals returned to power.

1937

Another all-party committee on electoral reform was created. Again, the committee rejected the idea of proportional representation, citing a lack of evidence that it would be “conducive to good government.”

1957

John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives won parliament, but the Liberals won the popular vote with 40.5 percent vs. 38.5 percent for the PCs.

1977

The federal Task Force on Canadian Unity was established in 1977. The purpose was to recommend how to strengthen national unity. It recommended “a mixed electoral system with an element of proportional representation to ensure a broader regional representation in federal political parties.”

1980

“I would support a system of proportional representation,” former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau told CBC’s Sunday Morning show in 1980. That same year, the federal throne speech promised—wait for it—another committee “to examine the electoral system in order to ensure that the highest degree of representativeness and responsibility is achieved and that the confidence of Canadians

in parliamentary institutions is strengthened.”

1983

Electoral reform was dropped because the parties could not reach an agreement.

2015

The federal Liberals, NDP and Green parties ran on a commitment to make 2015 the last first-pastthe-post election. The NDP and Green parties promised proportional representation. The Liberal promise was “make every vote count”, which was a Fair Vote Canada slogan. (Dear reader: We are still waiting.)

2021

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals win a minority parliament with 32.6 percent of the popular vote vs. 33.7 percent for Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives.

Thanks to Fair Vote Canada for compiling the research that informs this edition’s Hennessy’s Index: https://www.fairvote. ca/100-years-of-brokenpromises/ .

Mackenzie King / Wiki Commons

Justin Trudeau / Wiki Commons

Pierre Trudeau / Wiki Commons

Stuart Trew

Interprovincial trade barriers: a convenient myth

In a much-loved Simpsons episode, Mr. Burns, who is coaching an allstar baseball team representing Springfield’s nuclear power plant, repeatedly badgers Don Mattingly to shave his sideburns. Mattingly, who does not have sideburns, protests at first but eventually tries to satisfy his coach’s delusion by shaving up the side of his head. It doesn’t work and Mattingly quits the team in frustration.

Canada is having a sideburn moment related to interprovincial trade. Almost daily, we hear some political or business leader fretting about Canada’s allegedly rampant barriers to the east-west flow of goods, investment or labour. Transportation Minister Anita Anand has said reducing these barriers would lower the cost of everything in Canada by 15 per cent while adding $200 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP).

If that sounds too good to be true, guess what? It is. These big, scary numbers are based on contested theories about how trade works and an exaggeration of the cost to business of regulatory and policy differences between the provinces. Most of these studies come from libertarian and rightwing think tanks that loathe public services, public protections, and government in general. There is an agenda at play here and Canadians are being duped.

It is simply not true that it is easier to trade internationally than it is to trade within Canada. Interprovincial trade is quite healthy and growing and, in many cases, more important to provincial GDP than comparable inter-state trade in the United States. That

is true even as provincial trade trended southward following the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of the late 1980s. Companies made the shift to maximize profits, not because of imposing barriers to trade in Canada.

There are so few policy barriers to selling Canadian goods and services across the country that you can list them on a napkin, which the provinces have done in an effort to deal with them one by one. Sensible stuff. There are problems with this process, but they are related to the lack of transparency and public participation beyond government officials and business interests in closed-door discussions.

So, what is the real reason behind the current interprovincial trade mania? As Nikolas Barry-Shaw described in a recent article for The Breach, self-interested business lobbies and libertarian think tanks have seized upon the Trump crisis to repackage radical and often dystopian proposals to remake the Canadian economy on leaner, meaner terms.

Federal ministers, panicked about appearing in control of the whole Trump tariff emergency, latched onto some of these ideas, like cutting “red tape,” “streamlining government processes,” including resource project approvals, and undermining provincial authority to regulate business activity. Minister Dominic LeBlanc claims these are “no-cost approaches” to a more nationally oriented economy.

This is wrong. There are costs to broad deregulation and removing local hiring and training conditions from government contracts, which would be the natural outcome of

the proposals on the table. But those costs would be borne by workers, the public and the environment, with the benefits going to large Canadian, U.S. and other foreign companies in the form of modestly higher profits.

A policy of broad mutual recognition of all provincial standards and regulations, as Minister Anand and the anti-government Macdonald Laurier Institute (MLI) have proposed, is a classic recipe for a race to the bottom. Low standards in any jurisdiction, however inadequate, would have to be recognized across the country. Local hiring and training conditions on government spending could be banned outright.

While there are some legitimately baffling barriers for health care, education and other professional workers hoping to sell their labour in other provinces, there is scant evidence of widespread barriers to interprovincial trade and investment.

Overheated rhetoric about removing so-called interprovincial trade barriers will not help us meet the existential threat of an autocratic U.S. administration. It will not get resource projects up and running faster or ensure there are global markets for Canada’s energy products. Like Don Mattingly in the Simpsons, it will leave Canada shorn and confused, with fewer public tools at our disposal for addressing today’s wrenching economic and environmental upheavals. M

A longer version of this article first ran in The Breach in February.

Luis Ernesto Pineda Gomez

It’s time to end the precarity that comes with tipped work

What do a 15th century servant, a 19th century freedman, and a 21st century waitress have in common? They all depend on tips.

The practice of tipping descends from servility in Europe, where nobles would give coins to domestic servants, and from slavery in North America, where freed slaves’ income depended entirely on gratuities. Today, many employers in various service industries rely on tipping to supplement the low wages they pay workers.

For consumers, tipping is ambiguous—halfway between voluntary and mandatory, partly a gift, partly a payment. For employees, it perpetuates precarity.

The main tipped jobs, such as restaurant servers, door-to-door distributors, and taxi drivers, receive an average income below the living wage—the wage a worker needs to cover basic expenses. In Quebec, tipped workers earn a salary below the general minimum wage. In fact, the gap between the minimum wage and the tipped wage has been growing since at

least 2005, making the income of tipped workers increasingly contingent. Food services have the largest concentration of part-time workers in the economy, and revenue in the gig economy is notoriously unpredictable.

Uncertainty manifests not only in income but also in access to social benefits, which vary depending on the province and employer policies. When it comes to federally administered programs like the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI), some tips, known as “controlled”

Photo iStock.com/Nikola Stojadinovic

by employers, are subject to contributions, and others, referred to as “direct tips”, are not. Therefore, restaurant owners have been promoting new software that converts all tips into “direct tips” to avoid paying social benefits on gratuities, making it even harder for tipped workers to access adequate retirement and employment insurance.

The economy of tipping: the predictable effects of precarity

If revenue and social benefits for tipped workers are uncertain, the individual and social effects of precarity are less unpredictable.

Women, immigrants, and racialized people are overrepresented in tipped jobs in Canada. In 2022, women accounted for 55 per cent of the food service industry workforce, according to Employment and Social Development Canada. Additionally, in 2023, 57.5 per cent of workers offering personal transportation and delivery services through digital apps and platforms were immigrants, many of whom have contingent status, while 70.5 per cent of platform workers were racialized, according to Statistics Canada.

These are not neutral demographic characteristics. Studies link tipping to sexual harassment and conclude that racialized workers receive fewer tips than their white counterparts, all else being equal. The dependence of workers on tips creates a context where gender inequality and racial discrimination are possible, accepted, and endured.

If we add to that the fact that most tipped workers hold jobs in the second least unionized sector—accommodation and food services—or that employers systematically misclassify them as independent contractors, we get the full picture of an economy of precarity.

Employers’ practice of externalizing salaries onto consumers—that is, having consumers pay workers’ salaries through tips—creates long-lasting negative social effects.

This creates public health consequences for workers and households, such as mental disorders and accidents. As the National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health has written, the stress of job and income insecurity contributes to the intergenerational transmission of ill health. It leads to chronic diseases and results in working while sick, which increases the risk of injury. This raises costs for the health care system and potentially affects consumers through foodborne illnesses and low-quality service.

There are also costly consequences for productivity, as businesses and the economy underuse valuable human resources due to involuntary idle time and workers do not earn enough to participate in consumption and economic growth. Poorly paid jobs also widen growing income inequality in Canada.

Job guarantee

There are some obvious legislative measures to improve protection for tipped workers—implementing universal paid sick days, banning tip theft by employers in all provinces, recognizing gig workers as employees, and abolishing sub-minimum wages nationwide. In the case of immigrant tipped workers, it is crucial to create more accessible pathways to permanent residency to enhance their status.

Work safety, social benefits, and minimum wage laws are not enough. If there is not a guarantee of decent employment, such legislation is not fully effective. As economist Pavlina Tcherneva has written, for someone who cannot secure a job, as is the case in economies with high levels of precarious work and unemployment, the potential minimum wage is, in reality, zero: no work, no income, no insurance, and so on. Without the assurance of a “right to decent work” and an accessible job option, labour legislation becomes empty words.

There is a more universal and comprehensive solution to precarity and poorly paid employment: a job guarantee program for anyone willing and able to work.

This would be a public option for jobs, guaranteed directly by the state, with a minimum living wage. It would serve as an alternative to undesirable jobs or unemployment while also improving conditions for workers in the private sector, including tipped workers. According to Tcherneva, it would function as an employment buffer or job bank, ensuring that anyone who applies at the job guarantee office is hired, just as someone can voluntarily choose a public school instead of a private one, or a public defender when they cannot afford a private lawyer.

By establishing a basic floor for wages and working conditions, the program would boost productivity through full employment and reduce income inequality, since it is a pre-distributive measure that raises wages at the bottom.

All this could be made possible through a federally funded but locally administered program, without altering the labour market in the private sector, as the wages offered would remain the lowest in the market, thereby avoiding inflationary pressure by increasing demand only in areas with lower income levels (see Garzon’s Modern Monetary Theory).

A job guarantee could end sub-minimum wages for tipped workers, transform tipped jobs into decent employment, and make tips a discretionary reward for extra service rather than an indispensable supplement to wages. In that context, Canadians would no longer associate the well-established practice of tipping with precarity. M

Luis Ernesto Pineda Gomez is an analyst for a consumer rights organization in Montreal.

iStock.com/halbergman

Nicolas Viens and Andrew Jorgenson

The richest 10% are driving Canada’s carbon emissions

Income inequality in Canada is difficult to ignore. Over the past few decades, the share of income controlled by the very few has grown significantly, leaving the rest of the population struggling with stagnant wages and rising living costs.

Recent reports from Statistics Canada paint a grim picture of inequality trends in the country.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the income of the country’s top one per cent rose by nearly 10 per cent, while the lower half of the population suffered a net decline. Earlier last year, the agency reported the largest gap in income between high and low

income households in the country since it began collecting this data in 1999.

Much has been written about the sources and consequences of inequality on health, happiness, social mobility and cohesion. But there is also a less discussed but equally pressing issue—the connection between income inequality and carbon emissions.

As part of our broader research on the social drivers of the climate crisis, we set out to examine whether the concentration of income among the wealthiest Canadians contributes to rising CO2 emissions. Using data from Statistics Canada, we analyzed

provincial-level carbon emissions and tax income data between 1997 and 2020. We accounted for various factors, including common measures of income inequality, such as the Gini coefficient and the income share of the top five and 10 per cent of income earners.

Income inequality drives carbon emissions

Our findings reveal that income inequality—especially the share of income held by the top five and 10 per cent of income earners—is a significant driver of carbon emissions across Canada. Rising inequality, in other words, increases carbon emissions.

In 2020, for instance, a one per cent increase in the income share of the top five per cent of earners would have resulted in an additional 708 kilotons (kt) of emissions across provinces in the short-term—the equivalent of nearly 154,000, gasoline-powered cars. Over the long run, that same one per cent increase would contribute to an additional 2,931 kt of emissions, or the equivalent to the annual emissions of over 637,000 cars.

We found a similar trend when looking at the income share of the top 10 per cent. A one per cent increase in their income share would lead to an increase of 885 kt of emissions in the short term and 3,504 kt in the long run. This is equivalent to over 192,000 and nearly 762,000 cars, respectively.

Broader measures of inequality, such as the commonly used Gini coefficient, showed less pronounced effects. This suggests that the concentration of income at the very top has a unique role in accelerating environmental degradation. This highlights a critical link between emissions and the power of the wealthy, not simply a higher propensity to emit based on income alone.

In other words, enabling lower-income households to become wealthier does not necessarily result in a proportional rise in consumption and emissions. Policies aimed solely at supporting lower-income earners are insufficient unless policy-makers simultaneously address the excessive concentration of income and wealth among the richest Canadians. Doing so would result in a significant reduction of carbon emissions without any change in behaviour from most Canadians, while simultaneously achieving a more equal society.

The pattern holds true across provinces and economic sectors, as well as over time—which indicates that the link between income inequality and carbon emissions is neither region-specific nor industry-bound. Even external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, had minimal impact on the relationship.

The social dimensions of the climate crisis

The climate crisis is fundamentally a social issue. While policy-makers frequently tout technological innovations such as electric vehicles (EVs), heat pumps, hydrogen fuel, and carbon capture as solutions, they cannot solve climate change if inequalities remain unaddressed. Without explicit policy direction, many of these technological fixes may actually worsen inequality in the country —particularly given the ways in which many technology-based fixes, like electric vehicles, also cause new types of environmental degradation.

Government incentives for EV purchases, for example, disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals who are more likely to afford these vehicles. Similarly, investments in high-tech solutions often divert public funds away from more equitable,

community-based approaches to sustainability, such as improving public transportation and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency.

Despite subsidies, EVs, heat pumps, and other ‘green’ technologies remain prohibitively expensive for many Canadians. Expecting most households to invest in such technologies amid rising living costs and a severe housing crisis is both unrealistic and inequitable.

Given the clear link between income inequality and carbon emissions, it is imperative that both provincial and federal governments adopt policies aimed at curbing the concentration of income and wealth at the top. Tackling the climate crisis requires more than just technological advancements. It demands a concerted effort to reduce income inequality from Canada’s top earners while ensuring that the burden of environmental action does not fall disproportionately on lower-income households.

Climate and social justice are two sides of the same coin, and any meaningful response to the climate emergency must address both.

With federal elections on the horizon, voters, parties, and policy-makers must recognize the deep interconnection between the affordability crisis and the climate crisis. These are not distinct issues; they are mutually reinforcing challenges that require coordinated, comprehensive solutions. Addressing income inequality is not only a matter of social justice. It is also a necessary step in curbing carbon emissions and protecting our environment for future generations.

The time for half-measures has long passed. Canada’s carbon emissions increased again in 2022, reaching 708 megatonnes. With only five years remaining to meet the federal government’s target of a 45 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 (approximately 342 megatonnes), the urgency for bold action has never been greater. And achieving this goal is still far from fully decarbonizing the economy.

Building a sustainable and equitable future will require far-reaching policies that tackle both inequality and environmental degradation head-on. Provincial governments, in particular, have a crucial role to play, given their jurisdictional control over key areas such as energy, housing, and transportation.

Political leaders (including the next prime minister) must move beyond technocratic fixes and embrace a holistic approach to the climate crisis—one that prioritizes social equity and recognizes that environmental sustainability cannot be achieved without addressing the economic forces driving inequality. Only then can we hope to build a future that is greener and fairer for all. M

Andrew Jorgenson is a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia and founding director of the Climate & Society Lab. Nicolas Viens is a doctoral student in sociology at the University of British Columbia.

Kevin Rebeck

Celebrating a win: Historic labour laws in Manitoba

2024 was a watershed year for Manitoba’s labour movement: Manitoba’s unions were finally able to realize the dreams of generations of labour leaders and activists when Premier Wab Kinew’s provincial government passed historic labour legislation that makes it as easy as possible for workers to unionize.

These labour wins will ensure fairness when workers are standing up for their rights on the job and will ensure greater collective bargaining power by banning employers from replacing striking or locked out workers to try and force concessions at the bargaining table.

The fight for these two legislative victories had been waged for over 50 years in the province.

Successive NDP governments had flat out refused to heed the calls from unions and the NDP’s own members to pass anti-scab legislation, even though it had been party policy since 1978.

When it comes to union organizing, the previous NDP government of Gary Doer did create a process where unions would be automatically certified if a 65 per cent super majority of workers signed a union application card. If fewer than 65 per cent of workers signed cards, the employer would be notified that an organizing drive was taking place and the Labour Board would hold a second vote for workers at a future date.

It put very real roadblocks in the way of workers’ ability to organize. And this threshold was quickly

eliminated by the PC government in 2016, leading to a decline in the number of union certification applications made to the Manitoba Labour Board and the success rate of these applications, according to research by the CCPA-Manitoba office.

Since then, Manitoba workers who wanted to unionize faced a process that was far too complicated and provided too many opportunities for employers to interfere in the process and intimidate workers against joining a union.

During those years, workers had to go through the onerous process of voting twice to join a union: first by signing an application card to join the union, then by casting a ballot after their employer was

notified and allowed to be present in the voting room.

Just think of the chill that sends when your boss can see if you show up to vote.

While employers are not supposed to intimidate and bully workers against forming a union—this type of behaviour is defined and forbidden as an unfair labour practice under Manitoba’s Labour Relations Act—we know these actions continue to be perpetrated by employers.

Over the last two decades, the Manitoba Labour Board has found 10 separate employers guilty of trying to coerce and intimidate workers against joining a union during organizing drives, including making threats to workers’ compensation and reductions in their hours, spreading misinformation about unions, threatening employment and even firing workers.

No similar examples exist of unions being found guilty by the Labour Board for trying to intimidate people into joining a union.

The new rules for organizing a union that were created by Wab Kinew’s government put more power in the hands of workers by making it as simple and straightforward. If a majority of workers (at least 50 per cent plus one) sign a card to form a union, then they will get a union in their workplace. Workers can make the decision to sign these cards in the comfort of their own home instead of voting in the same room as their boss.

This type of union certification process, often called 50 per cent plus one card check, has been demonstrated to increase unionization rates. And while British Columbia recently set its card check rate at a higher rate of 55 per cent, Manitoba’s new rules set the lowest threshold possible for unionization, increasing the likelihood of organizing success.

Manitoba has now joined Quebec, Prince Edward Island and federally regulated industries as the only Canadian jurisdictions with this most worker-friendly threshold to union certification.

Manitoba’s new labour laws also provide unionized workers with greater protection during labour disputes by banning employers from replacing them in an attempt to break strikes and force concessions during lockouts.

The use of scabs had become a major problem in Manitoba: scabs were used in just over a third of all labour disputes during the past eight years. In fact, scabs were used by employers in six of the last seven full strikes in the province, including during large strikes by workers at Manitoba’s liquor and auto insurance crown corporations, as well as strikes by school support staff and by predominantly racialized women workers at a garment factory. In 2020, workers at a Tim Horton’s in Winnipeg were also locked out and replaced with scabs when they sought a 10-cent per hour raise.

In addition to impacting bargaining power and solidarity, scab workers tend to prolong labour disputes. Research conducted by the CCPA-Manitoba office shows that when scabs were used since 2016, Manitoba labour disputes lasted almost twice as long. Adding insult to injury, employers typically pay scabs more than what their regular employees are making. Being able to replace workers and operate as if a strike or lockout is not happening is a deeply unfair advantage for employers during the collective bargaining process.

British Columbia and Quebec have long banned the use of scabs to try and keep employers and unions on more equal footing during labour disputes. The federal government, at the urging of the federal NDP, passed legislation to ban scabs at the federal level. However, of the four pieces of anti-scab legislation in the country, Manitoba’s is the strongest.

Manitoba’s legislation includes the broadest definition of scabs in Canada, including:

• Banning employers from hiring temporary staff to replace regular staff when they are on a picket line.

• Banning employers from moving staff from another of their locations to replace employees.

• Banning employers from entering into employment agreements with bargaining unit members to cross the picket line and attempt to break union solidarity.

While the new law establishes provisions for unions and employers to negotiate how bargaining unit members will maintain essential services in the event of a work stoppage, the definition of what constitutes essential services is narrow and consistent with Supreme Court rulings upholding the right to strike.

In addition, Manitoba’s anti-scab law allows unions to apply to the labour board for an exemption from having to negotiate an essential service when it is agreed that none are present in a workplace.

This is in sharp contrast to the federal legislation, where unions and employers are forced to go through the time-consuming process of negotiating an essential service agreement, even when both sides agree there are none to maintain during a work stoppage.

Manitoba’s unions entered 2025 with the strongest card check and anti-scab law in the country, and we are hopeful that this re-balancing of our labour laws will lead to significant workplace and economic gains for working Manitobans.

After years of having to fight back against provincial government attacks on workers and their unions, it is promising to have a government that is focused on making life better for the working class. Now, let’s get organizing. M Kevin Rebeck is the president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

OFFICE: NATIONAL/B.C.

YOUR CCPA Get to know Marc Lee

POSITION: SENIOR ECONOMIST

YEARS WITH THE CCPA: 26

What drew you to the CCPA?

I met Ed Finn, the OG editor of the Monitor, around 1996, when my partner and I were living in Ottawa. Ed turned me on to CCPA. A couple years later, we moved back to Vancouver, teaching a popular education course on globalization, when someone we met via the course passed along the CCPA-BC researcher posting. On my birthday, no less. And to my surprise, I landed a dream job and have never really looked back.

What was it like in the early days of doing CCPA work in B.C.?

It was exciting, like a start up. I was employee number three, after Seth Klein and Shannon Daub, and I was the office’s first dedicated researcher. They liked the idea of having an economist on board who could go toe to toe with the Fraser Institute, who was our big competition back then.

The media environment was also so different back then. We aimed to get a story covered in the Vancouver Sun or an oped published, an interview on CBC or talk radio, and only rarely TV news. That was the world before online alternative media and blogs, and the proliferation of new progressive organizations all competing for eyeballs. Social media was still years away.

You’ve written hundreds of reports for the CCPA—which ones stand out for you?

One of my favourites is a nerdy paper called Eroding Tax Fairness,

which looked at the overall distribution of taxes when all sources of income and taxes are accounted for. It was widely cited and after many requests we finally published an update last year, with some help from Troy Cochrane and Canadians for Tax Fairness.

I’m really proud of the visionary work we published with the Climate Justice Project on progressive carbon pricing, transforming transportation and energy poverty. More recently, Ben Parfitt and I did a study of the economic costs of B.C.’s 2021 extreme weather disasters and put the tally at $10.6-16 billion. And last year I wrote a public transit investment strategy for B.C., partnered with the B.C. Federation of Labour, which then did some campaigning on it in the 2024 B.C. election.

How did your family influence the path you’ve taken?

To be honest, I was fascinated by money at an early age. My mother

came from a wealthy family then blew her inheritance after my grandparents died. Mum sent me to Upper Canada College (on partial scholarship) where I got exposed to the rich. I never quite fit in but I think that tension served to interest me in economics. Thanks to a few progressive girlfriends, some intellectual curiosity, and good luck, I avoided becoming an investment banker.

What are you reading these days?

Poor Economics by Banerjee and Duflo on how the extremely poor make economic choices. Power and Progress by Acemoglu and Johnsson about the dark side of technology and economic growth. And since I’ve been teaching a macro course at Simon Fraser University, I went back and read a volume of essays by Harold Innis on Canada’s economic history, along with Robert Allen’s The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective

When you’re not at work, how do you decompress?

I love being outside, hiking and camping in summer and skiing in winter. And I love live music. I play guitar and some mandolin and jam with friends at the beach when the weather is good.

What gives you hope?

The rapidly falling cost of renewable energy may soon make doing the right thing the most economical choice—if we don’t combust our civilization first. And when you get to be older and look back at the ebbs and flows of economic history, there’s a case to be made that after the darkness comes new light. M

Meet Barry Morley

From Burnaby B.C., a CCPA monthly donor for 24 years

Why do you support the CCPA with a monthly donation? I support the CCPA with monthly donations because I find it easier to control annual donations when they are part of a monthly budget.

Who was an early big influence on you and how did that align with your interest in supporting the CCPA? I have been influenced by David Suzuki, David Attenborough and Reverend Barry Morris, a United Church minister who has the Longhouse Church in Vancouver. His ministry is about social justice, economic justice, and environmental justice all wound up into one theme, particularly justice for Indigenous Peoples. Reverend Morris was arrested, along with others, for trying to stop the TMX pipeline.

Who inspires you? I am inspired by Catherine Hayhoe, a Canadian who grew up in Ontario and was inspired by her father, a missionary and teacher. She has a PhD and teaches at Texas Tech University. She moved from astro physics to climate science when she realized the poor people of the world are being punished by the effects of the climate crisis, which they have had very little to do in creating.

Her choice was driven by her faith. She is the chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy and

endowed chair of public policy and public law. She believes people who have the education to help solve problems threatening life on this planet have an obligation to do so, “not keep their brains in a jar.” This is a phrase she has used in public gatherings.

What have you read or watched to keep your mind busy and your soul fed lately? My reading lately has included The Heartbeat of Trees by Peter Wohlleben, Whispers on the Ocean by Tracee Andrews, and A Good War by Seth Klein.

The continuing publication of the Monitor, with articles by authors like Darrin Qualman [“Breadbasket no more” January 2025 Monitor] and Jon Milton [“American fascism triumphant” January 2025 Monitor]—and many more great authors—have added more depth to national and local discussions about government policies.

What has the CCPA done lately that’s made you feel proud to be a supporter? In your opinion, what makes the CCPA special? For me, the CCPA is special because its authors do the science and research that make their articles credible, even when the conclusions may be what we don’t want to hear. How else can we make progress in areas of government policy that are outdated or just plain wrong?

Name one policy the government should adopt today that would make people’s life better. My hope for the future is a healthy, peaceful planet, one in which all lives matter and the true genius of informed people rules, not wealth. A policy of building a cleaner, more just economy, must be implemented. The resulting better health and thousands of green energy jobs would make it a winner in the coming federal election. M

A life insurance gift is a charitable donation that you can arrange now to help the CCPA in the future. Making a life insurance gift is not just for the wealthy or the elderly. It’s a legacy gift that makes a special impact. To ask about how you can leave a gift of life insurance to the CCPA, or to let us know you have already arranged it, please call or write Katie Loftus, Development Officer (National Office), at 613-563-1341 ext. 318 (toll free: 1-844-563-1341) or katie@policyalternatives.ca.

THE KNOWING TANYA TALAGA

HarperCollins Publishers, 2024

WÎNIPÊK: VISIONS OF CANADA FROM AN INDIGENOUS CENTRE

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR

McClelland & Stewart, 2024

WHEN THE PINE NEEDLES FALL: INDIGENOUS ACTS OF RESISTANCE

KATSI’TSAKWAS ELLEN GABRIEL

Between the Lines, 2024

RECONCILING HISTORY: A STORY OF CANADA JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD AND ROSHAN DANESH

McClelland & Steward, 2024

E.R. Zarevich

Taking the initiative to learn

My immersion in Indigenous contemporary literature

Genocide. Residential schools. Hair cut off. Languages abolished. Generational trauma. Reserves. The battle to preserve, and reclaim. Indigenous history, bare, shocking, and unsanitized, without censure, erasure, or interference from the higher powers who think they have the right to tamper with evidence. When I was a child of European descent, being led through a regular Canadian government-mandated school curriculum, what did I know and learn about any of this? I wish I didn’t have to say that it was next to nothing, but I do have to say it, with considerable regret. It was next to nothing.

The nationwide Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) didn’t officially start until 2008, and by then I

was well into my teens. It wasn’t exactly implemented aggressively into the class schedule, at least not on a mandatory basis. I scrap my memories of my education as a whole and find very little about Canadian history that wasn’t The War of 1812, the Group of Seven, the mass manufacturing of maple syrup, or the first Prime Minister Sir John Alexander MacDonald building the railroads. Here and there, during my formative years, my classmates and I visited a totem pole on a field trip. And we were told that the painter Emily Carr (a white woman) liked to hang around Indigenous Peoples and was inspired by their simpler ways of life. I found out about the residential schools when I was in university. The blinds were opened then. I know now that something

monumental was missing from my upbringing, and that its very absence is shameful.

I have a responsibility as an adult to rectify that. I can’t exist in ignorance anymore. I currently have four books, my course of self-study, to guide me in filling in the empty boxes. They are: The Knowing by Tanya Talaga, Wînipêk: Visions of Canada from an Indigenous Centre by Niigaan Sinclair, When the Pine Needles Fall: Indigenous Acts of Resistance by Katsi’tsakwas Ellen Gabriel, and Reconciling History: A Story of Canada by Jody Wilson-Raybould and Roshan Danesh. All were published in the year 2024.

The authors of these books, my present tutors, appear well aware that by writing books at all, they’re taking a stand on a platform that has only just recently been built

and still has major safety hazards. They know they’re up against the 21st century’s shaky, wavering politics, centuries of ingrained prejudice, and a populace that is not universally ready to accept that Canada’s history is shrouded in darkness. Each author chooses either to start cautiously, easing into their narrative at a slow, accommodating pace, or loudly, lividly, demanding to be heard to make up for lost time. They all allow their emotions to show. The facts that they’re reporting aren’t gentle. I know that my role as the reader and the student is to give each speaker my undivided attention, whatever their style of addressing the audience, whatever their vision, whatever their angle, whatever their speed. Learning starts with listening.

We’ll start with The Knowing. The Knowing, Tanya Talaga’s work of tell-all nonfiction, is about the desperate efforts of descendants of Indigenous blood to fill in the missing timelines of families who were violently separated by colonist agendas. Talaga, an investigative reporter of both Anishinaabe and Polish origins, has a Cree (Ininiw) great-great-grandmother named Annie Carpenter. One day, the adult Annie was taken away from her home by the authorities and her family never saw or heard from her again. “If you want to destroy a nation, you destroy the women,” Talaga writes with conviction. The mystery of Annie’s abduction and disappearance, now solved through the family’s inquisition, is tragic and horrifically common. It is now known that Carpenter died incarcerated at the Mimico Asylum of Ontario, at the age of 69.

This story, told from Talaga’s perspective, is not just about the harrowing knowledge that generations of Indigenous Peoples were and still are forced to live with. The painful awareness that the bodies tossed into institutions’ unmarked graves belonged to their own folk. The Knowing is also about what the author wants you, the reader, to know. If it’s not part of your history, are you ready to take in the comprehension that many Indigenous families were separated forever because settlers decided to imprison them and let them die of deadly diseases, abuse, and neglect, in “schools” and “asylums?” And if Talaga’s account is part of your history, how does her report resonate with you? Has she said it all the way you would say it in writing yourself?

Talaga makes a meaningful choice and introduces her real-life ancestry’s plight with a myth. The folk hero Cha-ka-pesh lives in relative harmony with his judicious older sister, but the threat of their possible enforced separation hangs like a dark cloud between them. The threat comes in the form of the pale men on boats who are making voyages across the sea. These men are not emanating peacefulness. Happy and peaceful family units are in grave danger. As Talaga’s version of the tale goes:

“She [the sister] asked him [the hero] what would have happened if the strange man had hit him with the stick. ‘You would die, and that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. You would lose your life. I would never find you.’ The coming of the We-mis-ti-go-si-wak. White men, the men with wooden boats. Men holding sticks, threatening and waving them in our faces. Men who could take our lives if they wished, and men who did.”

Niigaan Sinclair’s opening of his book, Wînipêk: Visions of Canada from an Indigenous Centre, is the complete antithesis of Talaga’s. Talaga’s opening honours a mythological figure in her own culture’s history as a way of introducing her subject matter. Sinclair’s documents the dishonour of the real-life figures that represented European rule over First Nations territories. Wînipêk starts off with Sinclair’s report of the statues of two British monarchs being yanked down with ropes by protestors on Canada Day in 2021. This effectively ends the statues’ tenure as Winnipeg’s physical symbols of its colonial past. Down came Queen Victoria first, and then her descendant, Queen Elizabeth II. Sinclair is, with justification, unsympathetic towards the statues and what they stood for.

“Perhaps the worst characteristic of Queen Elizabeth II was her ambivalence to the plight of Indigenous Peoples,” Sinclair writes critically of the late queen of the United Kingdom. This statement, this revelation, will come as a surprise to someone who was raised in an environment with royalist sympathies, or to someone who was raised with the idea that the royal family represents stainless and inviolable magazine-cover glamour. Sinclair’s evidence

For 78 violent and chaotic days in 1990, the resistance in Quebec stood against putting a golf course over a sacred burial ground

suggests that under Great Britain’s jurisdiction of the past century, despite all the social progress in other areas, Indigenous Peoples did not properly factor into the “united” part of “United Kingdom.” The backlash against the protestors who knocked down the statues confirms this.

Sinclair, like Talaga, is an Anishinaabe reporter, and he writes a column for the Winnipeg Free Press. He describes how he, as a public figure in the media, took the brunt of the capital of Manitoba’s divided anger after the statue vandalism incident occurred. “Even though I had not said a thing. I was harassed, barraged with confused and angry messages that simply asked: why did this happen?” Sinclair describes the aftermath. “One in particular, from a wealthy Winnipeg philanthropist, told me he was ‘disappointed’ by Indigenous Peoples, writing an email with the subject line: ‘Reconciliation is dead.’ In response to every single message, I wrote: ‘Welcome to Winnipeg.’”

Wînipêk is a collection of confrontational essay pieces about Canada’s failure to remember or compensate its Indigenous Peoples, despite the promises of the treaties. Sinclair writes with a subtly disaffected tone but this in no way undermines, invalidates, or misrepresents the historical material he’s delivering to the readers. He is not writing just as a journalist, but also as an opinionated historian, allowing his dissatisfaction with already played-out events to show in defiance of archivist neutrality. He also does not excuse the problematic aspects of some Indigenous communities. Sinclair informs the readers point-blankly that many Indigenous communities practiced slavery. That conversation needs to be had too. As I discovered from reading Sinclair, “Iroquois chief Joseph Brant captured forty Africans during the Revolutionary War and made them into basically slaves.” Joseph Brant was the

“If you want to destroy a nation, you destroy the women”

—Tanya Talaga

founder of Burlington, the city where I was born, and where I live. I’ve been thinking a lot about this.

When the Pine Needles Fall by Ellen Gabriel is physical proof that collaboration and understanding is possible between an Indigenous person and a non-Indigenous ally, a reassuring concept in the midst of an overwhelming “us vs. them” climate. This book is presented as a long transcribed conversation between Gabriel, the official Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) spokesperson for the infamous 1990 Oka land theft conflict, and Sean Carleton, a historian and supporter of Indigenous rights. Carleton takes an appropriately humble approach in his role throughout this exchange of ideas and knowledge, graciously sidestepping to give Gabriel the majority of the stage to speak freely about her family history, her long-term activism, and what really happened during the Oka Crisis in the summer of 1990. This is a historical event that I was never taught about myself, so while I was reading, I was essentially participating in this conversation as a third, silent attendee, taking notes. What I discovered, much to my shock, is that for 78 violent and chaotic days in 1990, the

Kanehsatà:ke resistance in Quebec took a stand against a developmental plan to expand a golf course over a sacred Mohawk burial ground. It’s the age-old story of centuries of human tradition pushed to make way for supposed capitalist “progress,” or at least the entertainment of the wealthy. The Kanehsatà:ke built barricades, pushed back, and resisted colonial greed. Gabriel was at the forefront in a leadership role as a land defender specifically chosen by the People of the Longhouse. Gabriel and Carleton’s dialogue throughout When the Pine Needles Fall is reminiscent of a well-executed journalistic interview where there is a clear interviewer and a clear interviewee, meaning that neither oversteps into the other’s position. There is a powerful mutual respect for each other’s livelihoods that makes this unconventional memoir-style delivery of information work.

Reconciling History: A Story of Canada is another tag-team historical text by lawyer and former politician Jody Wilson-Raybould and lawyer and peace educator Roshan Danesh. This book is a hard but vital lesson for anyone who was taught that Canada truly became a country when it broke off from the British Empire. Canada was a country long before that, long before the settlers landed, long before English and French were installed as the official languages in which all legal and educational documents are written. Canada, long before it was colonized, already had its established peoples, languages, cultures, arts and science, and origin stories. The history textbooks handed out in modern-day classrooms do not carry the same weight as the history lessons offered by totem poles, tall storytelling carvings made from red cedar trees by the First Nations and Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast.

Totem pole, by the way, is a translation. “Our word for totem is ki’kw,” the text informs its readers. “The Algonquin word odoodem is where the word ‘totem’ in English is derived from. Odoodem means ‘clan,’ or ‘kinship group.’” Like the other books, Reconciling History challenges school curriculums all the way back to kindergarten. In a world where statues of colonial leaders are being toppled over and condemned for standing for cruelty and discrimination, totem poles and new perspectives are being raised in the name of peace and open-mindedness.

Wilson-Raybould and Danesh educate on the creation and purpose of totem poles with the great tenderness and affection that only comes from absolute immersion in one’s own culture. The authors also emphasize how history is far more than memorizing facts and dates. It is a complete consideration of a story from every point of view, and a genuine conversation about why people behaved the way they did, and why things are the way they are: “In the totem pole is a valuable lesson about how we talk about history and tell stories of how we arrived at this moment in time. Poles need to be viewed from multiple angles. They protrude, jut, and cut. If you look at one just from straight ahead you will miss something.” In Reconciling History, Wilson and Danesh strive to recreate the experience of regarding a totem pole with their own physical book made of trees. They succeed because their book incorporates personality, distinct voices, analysis, and love for one’s kin, which are usually not features of the standard textbook.

What should readers like me consider further, long after all this information is processed and the initial, intense disturbances of one’s worldviews have subsided? What any reader can learn from all four books, as a start, is that it is vital to talk about names. Especially place names. Why is your city, street, or university named what it is, and where did that name come from? Is it a colonized name and, after you’re properly informed, do you think it should be changed? Should we stop calling our country “Canada” and start calling it by its original Huron Iroquois name of “Kanata” instead?

And then there are people names. Sinclair’s descriptions of the practice of a naming ceremony are also thought-provoking. According to Sinclair, many people in different Indigenous cultures change their name multiple times throughout their life, based on the direction their life is going. There is so much uproar and controversy that surrounds name changing today. People tend to react in an offended manner when someone adopts a new name because it no longer matches their gender, sexuality, beliefs, or any other aspect of their identity. Among Indigenous Peoples, this fluidity has always been present. “Some names,” Sinclair writes, “shape a person’s role or are a

gift they spend a lifetime learning about.” All readers who were previously unfamiliar with this concept will start thinking more introspectively about their own names. Me included.

All four books and especially When the Pine Needles Fall taught me, from the very beginning, that the learning experiences of an Indigenous person will always be different from the learning experiences of a non-Indigenous person. I can educate myself as thoroughly as I can, but I’ll never be subjected to the fears and anxieties of being a person from a persecuted background. In the book’s forward, Pamela Palmater, a Mi’kmaq lawyer who was feeling vulnerable at a time when major historical occurrences were unfolding, writes: “I was still learning about the world when the events unravelled in the summer of 1990, but what I saw and heard from these soldiers struck me in a way that helped me understand Indigenous-settler relations in a way I never could have learned from my university textbooks.”

Ellen Gabriel reminds me, as the non-Indigenous reader, to always remain mindful of what I do with the knowledge I’ve obtained from my studies, and to follow Carleton’s example of good allyship. “There are good academics,” says Gabriel, “And there are those who still see us as a stepping stone to their careers.” The ideal non-Indigenous reader should strive to be a good academic.

As I read through these books, I experienced a tumultuous array of emotions. Sorrow, at the atrocities committed against the first peoples of these lands. Fury, that those atrocities were systematically concealed from ensuing generations, who were coasted through school with whole history lessons blotted out. Disappointment, in many of the lackluster ways reconciliation is proceeding, and the government’s failure to take the current Indigenous missing persons cases seriously enough. And hope, for the voices of those who are taking back their cultures, their languages, their space, and their place in history. My reading was eye-opening and staggering in a necessary way. I had to learn. I’m glad I’m learning. I will continue to learn and I hope my learning never ends. I implore other prospective readers in my situation to do the same and take the initiative to learn by picking up these four books as well. M

E.R. Zarevich is a journalist and cultural critic from Burlington, Ontario. You can find her work published regularly on Local News Burlington and Jstor Daily.

John Cartwright

Leadership in a time of uncertainty

PEOPLE POWER CHANGE: ORGANIZING FOR DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

MARSHALL GANZ

Oxford University Press, August 2024

Ifirst met Marshall Ganz 50 years ago, when he came to oversee the Toronto grape boycott for the California farmworkers, led by Cesar Chavez. I was a member of the Scarborough boycott committee and full of youthful enthusiasm. I had no idea that, years later, he would become one of the most respected and influential adult educators in our world.

Marshall went on to work on key movement building efforts in the United States, including training leaders in each of the 50 states for Obama’s 2008 election campaign. His unique methodology is called the “power of narrative”, training people to draw from their own personal journey to tell a compelling story that invites others into the struggle for social justice.

It’s what he has learned from working in the civil rights movement, with the farm workers, and with political campaigns that defeated powerful and well-funded

opponents. The approach is rooted in the collective power of ordinary people, and today extends to a network of training in nearly 80 countries across the world. He has finally published the book on his model of organizing—it should be read by every social justice activist.

Marshall introduces the three questions of Hebrew theologian Rabbi Hillel. If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am for myself alone, what am I? If not now, when? He unpacks the meaning of those questions through richly told stories of numerous campaigns over six decades. And he provides a unique but powerful definition: “Leadership is the ability to allow others to act in common purpose in a time of uncertainty.”

It’s worth letting those words sink in. I come from the construction side of the trade union movement, marked by strong personalities and strong opinions. Our culture is about leading members in a fight, sometimes against seemingly impossible odds. But Marshall asks us to adapt that culture so that it builds up many others to be essential actors on their own, not just following a strong leader.

This is vital for people who don’t have powerful institutions or lots of money to mount campaigns. For Marshall, the key is how people can use the resources they do have. He points to a different way of determining that dynamic: start with asking “who are my people” rather than “what is the issue”. As people can come together, they will determine what is most important to fight for, and what resources they can utilize. An example from

the Montgomery bus boycott: the Black working class in that city used their feet to walk to work for 13 months rather than ride the bus, and eventually forced a change. Every successful movement finds ways to keep encouraging solidarity and hope. Ganz suggests you start by painting a picture of hope (to reach the heart), then finding the way to strategize (using the head), and finally determining how to move into action (the hands). It is one of the clearest reminders of what is needed for organizing a union in a workplace, starting a campaign for social justice, or defending community well-being. There are lots of guides to building campaigns, but I have seen few rely on drawing on the lived experience of the people being asked to engage. The essential foundation of the Power of Narrative program asks us to examine their own life, and the events or relationships that shaped the person we are today. Sometimes that involves overcoming personal hardships or reacting to injustice done to others, but often it is the values you learn from family or community. Together they inform your determination to speak out. Your story helps show others who you really are, and why they should invest their time in common cause with you. The story of self leads to the story of us—who are we in this room and what we have in common. And then the story of now identifies the challenge or opportunity that is in front of you.

That is particularly true when people are being asked to take risks. From signing a union card, to going on strike, challenging racist

behaviour or coming out to your family and co-workers. When you ask people to act, there is always a risk that it might not work out, or that they may pay a price for that decision. Knowing who you are—much more than your title or station in life—helps create a sense of trust and community.

We all know that power and politics is about relationships. The billionaires have their networks, the elites have their “old boys clubs” and the rest of us have family, co-workers, neighbours and friends. In a world that is growing more uncertain every day, the very basis of democracy—where working people are able to shape the decisions that affect their lives—is now under severe threat.

Ganz asserts that we need to embrace the craft of organizing to empower people to make a difference.

He modestly suggests that the book is not an organizing model but is rooted in his own learning journey—and then invites you to embark on your own learning journey. In a forum 50 years after meeting Marshall, I asked him how seasoned leaders like me can pass on the knowledge we have learned through past struggles. The answer was in one way annoying, but probably the best advice I have ever received. It was one line: “do more listening”.

It’s true that listening may not have been the foremost skill of some of us, but I can share one thing. Reading People Power Change is the best form of communication I can imagine for 2025 and beyond. M

John Cartwright is chair of the Council of Canadians and past president of the Toronto & York Region Labour Council.

By Mark Hilton, HMdb.org

The good news page

Elaine Hughes

Towering mural a beacon of hope, healing

Unveiled on November 1, 2024, Manitoba’s tallest mural stands at the corner of Kennedy Street and Sargent Avenue in downtown Winnipeg. It is 150 feet high, 50 feet wide and displays a young woman in turquoise ceremonial dress against a pale pink backdrop, with a sacred eagle’s feather in her right hand. A slate grey Inuit inukshuk emerges from the bottom left corner. The work by Jeannie White Bird and Charlie

Johnston—called Giizaagiigo (You Are Loved in Anishinaabemowin)—was commissioned by the Minister of Families Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns). “I bring the healing aspects to this mural,” says White Bird, who lives in Selkirk and whose home community is Rolling River First Nation, Treaty 4, near Brandon, MB. / Winnipeg Free Press, November 9, 2024.

‘Most fascinating librarian in American history’ celebrated

During the Gilded Age, American financier JP Morgan was a dominant force on Wall Street and an avid collector of books and art. His collection outgrew his home. Before building the Morgan Library, he hired the woman who would later become the library’s first director—a Black woman named Belle da Costa Greene. The Morgan Library is celebrating Greene’s accomplishments

and her identity in an exhibition that traces her life from her roots in a predominantly Black community in Washington, D.C. to her 24-year tenure at the helm of the Morgan Library. / My Modern Met, December 26, 2024.

Awards for Canadian climate

justice advocates

Two leading Canadian climate and environmental justice advocates, Eriel Tchekwie Deranger and Alex Doukas, are among the four recipients of this year’s Climate Breakthrough awards. They’ll each receive US $4 million over three years. Deranger will develop a new International Indigenous Climate Justice Initiative and Doukas will build the Polluter Pays Project, a global coalition to require climate polluters to cover the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up their extraction sites.

/ The Energy Mix, December 9, 2024.

Blending agriculture and solar could benefit Nova Scotia

According to renewable energy advocates, using solar panels on farmland could yield many benefits for Nova Scotia. Agrivoltaics, a term that blends the words agriculture and voltaic cells, is the dual use of land for solar energy and farming. According to the non-profit group that’s trying to build up solar infrastructure in the province, there are now more than 10,000 solar installations in Nova

Scotia, up from 8,000 this time last year and just 200 in 2018. / CBC News, December 8, 2024.

Camp for HIV-positive kids closes— for a good reason

Due to rock-bottom rates of HIV infection among babies in Minnesota, One Heartland, one of the nation’s largest summer campgrounds for HIV-positive kids, is no longer needed. Thanks to antiretroviral medications, perinatal transmission of HIV, occurring when children contract the virus while in the womb or breastfeeding, has fallen to below one per cent in HIV-positive mothers in the United States.

/ Good News Network, January 1, 2025.

Saskatchewan waiter is learning Cree to better serve customers

Smitty’s Restaurant in Prince Albert, SK sees a fair share of tribal member customers and one of its waiters, Adam Rieger, began listening to them and decided to learn the Cree language to take orders and welcome guests. “Once I started doing this and I started seeing people’s reactions, it completely changed my perspective…immediately people would light up and they would start talking and be excited,” Rieger said. “I could see that it’s almost like the purpose of my job now became to reach people and to express love for them.” / Good News Network, November 19, 2024.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

—Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities