Over 60 countries around the world have a mandatory labelling law in force and polls show that about 90 per cent of Canadians want this to happen. Why flood the market with GMOs and just hope for the best -- when the evidence indicates we should expect the worst?
Why does the government continue to refuse to "consent" to binding arbitration for doctors when it is part and parcel to the negotiation process for all other sectors, both public and private? Their refusal has led to the lengthy delay that has left doctors without an agreement for more than two years and has forced them to challenge the government under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sixty-two per cent of Green members have voted for a resolution calling on Ottawa to end its support for a charity that discriminates in land use abroad. An owner of 13 per cent of Israel's land, Jewish National Fund bylaws and lease documents contain a restrictive covenant stating its property will not be leased to non-Jews.
As a member of the Ontario Medical Association's negotiating committee, I find it disappointing to read the misinformation circulating about the tentative Physician Services Agreement (PSA) now before Ontario's doctors. To say misinformation is to be kind. Some of the information being put out there is just, quite frankly, untrue.
Police accountability has never been a strength on the federal, provincial and local levels. We are still lacking independent civil and independent bodies that would investigate the actions of law enforcement when such tragic incidents happen.
Stephen Harper emerged in May from his self-imposed obscurity to say goodbye. I say good riddance. The former prime minister who once boasted, "You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it," lost the federal election last October and stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party, but remained a Member of Parliament.
If you think of earth as a giant and complicated neighbourhood of neighbourhoods, it might be said that the Trumpification we are now witnessing in the States doesn't really have anything to do with Trump himself. He is not the cause. He is the opportunistic benefactor. Let's call him dystopia Donald. He's relatively new to this area. But he's still affecting our neighbours to the south, and we have a duty to at least have a chat with them.
Truth is I've been a one-issue voter for most of my voting life. I didn't often want to admit it because I know some would say being so is unethical. If you put all your caring eggs into only one basket, the other caring baskets go empty.
A citizen's advocacy group has recently called Sophie Grégoire Trudeau out for accepting gifts and loans of clothing from Canadian fashion labels, deeming her "for sale" for daring to wear support for our country's industry on her sleeve. I can see how gifts and loans can make for some bad optics, even if the role of prime minister's wife has little real political oomph behind it. However, in a world where few powerful individuals direct their influence toward social good like Grégoire Trudeau does, Democracy Watch's threadbare argument seems to be more about populist-pleasing celebrity shaming than hypothetical conflicts of interests.
He could have chosen a different path in support of principle and conviction by offering a viable alternative to those who are not satisfied with how things are going. He could have risen to the challenge by forming an alternative to both Trump and Clinton.
There's not much time left for applications -- the August 4th deadline is not far off, and you need to get letters of recommendation together, as well as the usual paperwork -- but I urge you to think hard about who YOU think would make a great addition to the Senate and get applications in ahead of the deadline.
Christine Lagarde will now be facing a trial in France for "negligence" after allowing a compensation payment of close to US$600 million to a French politician and businessman. Canadians would not accept that a politician, being tried for something like this, remain in power while the trial was going on.
Police departments across the U.S. need to be radically changed. Brutally racist officers, often working in teams, thrive in too many departments. A massive effort is required to weed out as many racists as possible and rehabilitate those capable of changing.
Even before Canada's Premiers departed Whitehorse on Friday, media coverage was applauding a "ground-breaking" and "historic" agreement on internal trade within Canada. Not so fast. One key omission was immediately evident. When it comes to alcohol, the agreement will establish "a working group on alcoholic beverages, which will explore opportunities to improve trade in beer, wine and spirits across Canada."
The situation in both the U.S. and the U.K. indicates disenchantment with conventional political elites. Donald Trump has been playing heavily to white voters who have seen an erosion of jobs, and for those with jobs, no real wage growth. Against this backdrop of polarization, political discontent, uncertainty and nationalism comes Canada.
Another depiction of police brutality against a black man caught on tape, sparks outrage among black Canadians and the cycle of violence begins anew: a black person murdered by police is captured on video, the video goes viral and no changes are made to policing strategies or tactics. More importantly, no one is held accountable. Rather, the cycle of violence continues on an administrative level: SIU documents are concealed, police officers go unnamed; are seldom reprimanded and the victim's family and the black community never get justice.
The term "food desert" describes geographic areas with limited access to healthy food because the distance to the nearest supermarket is in excess of one km. Living far from healthier options forces many Canadians to fall back on higher priced convenience stores or to find ways to get to food stores elsewhere. Both options are costly.
The recent faux pas by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underscores what's wrong with the highest court in the land. So what possessed Ginsburg to violate one of the most fundamental tenets of the judiciary? I suggest that it's because, in some ways, the U.S. Supreme Court is above the law.