Have you seen the news? Quite a bit has happened this week! Quebec – and now BC – are heading to the polls. The federal government is proposing a major omnibus bill to push forward projects that are in the national interest. Antisemitism is on the rise. And, apparently, there’s a 10% chance AI could wipe out humanity within a decade. What’s going on? Why should you care? And how are these seemingly disconnected news items related? Let’s get into it!
British Columbia’s Early Election
A snap election has been called in BC, with the province heading to the polls on October 24, 2026, roughly two years earlier than required. Premier David Eby and the BC NDP say the election is necessary because the province is facing an existential threat caused by US President Donald Trump’s trade war, and that a new mandate is required, but many others have a different take.
Why is it happening (and so early)?
Is it legal to call an election so soon after the last one? Yes! In Canada’s Westminster-style constitutional monarchy, a premier can request an early dissolution of the legislature, provided the constitutional rules governing the maximum life of the legislature are respected. The lieutenant governor then decides whether to grant the request. So, it was constitutionally appropriate for the Hon. Wendy Cocchia – the King’s representative in BC – to grant Premier Eby’s request to call an early election. But that doesn’t mean it’s a decision without controversy.
Critics argue that Eby is using a public emergency to take advantage of the weakness of the opposition in order to gain a political advantage before a high deficit and slumping poll numbers make re-election more difficult.
Why is the opposition weak? Well, the BC Conservatives – who narrowly missed forming government in the last election – are in serious turmoil. Former leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay resigned after less than four months on the job after several MLAs left the caucus, with some even joining or forming other parties. At least two BC Conservative MLAs have joined the further-right OneBC party. Other MLAs who left caucus to join the upstart CentreBC party have now rejoined the Conservative caucus, though internal divisions remain. And the CentreBC party – a new centrist political party that seemingly seeks to resemble the federal Liberals under Mark Carney – will remain on the ballot, led by former BC Conservative MLA Elenore Sturko. Oh, and the BC Conservatives will be led by an interim leader – Lorne Doerkson – during the election, meaning that the party may choose a new leader to serve as premier after the election, should the Conservatives win.
The result of all of this could be vote splits in key electoral ridings, allowing the NDP to win seats that a united opposition would otherwise win. And the optics of chaos and disunity in the BC Conservative Party could also make voters wary. For all of these reasons, the BC NDP are being accused of opportunism.
Who is running?
The main parties and leaders are:
- BC NDP – David Eby (premier) | Incumbent left-leaning government seeking re-election (comparable to federal NDP)
- BC Conservative Party – Lorne Doerkson (interim leader) | Centre-right party and official opposition after the last election (comparable to Conservative Party of Canada)
- BC Green Party – Emily Lowan (leader) | Left-leaning, third-place party in the legislature after last election (comparable to Green Party of Canada)
- CentreBC – Elenore Sturko (leader) | The leader is the only sitting MLA of the new centrist political party (comparable to Liberal Party of Canada)
- OneBC – Dallas Brodie (interim leader) | Relatively new populist, right-wing political party (comparable to People’s Party of Canada)
Why it matters
In addition to the top-of-mind issues like crime and safety, health care, and affordability, this election is a referendum on how BC should respond to the trade war.
- Should the province protect jobs through public investment and industrial policy?
- Should it expand resource exports and transportation links?
- How should it balance faster economic development with climate commitments and Indigenous rights?
- Does confronting US pressure require stronger provincial leadership or more cooperation with Ottawa?
Why it also matters
It’s also very possible this election will be a referendum on whether this election is harmful to democracy. While an early election is legal and far from unprecedented in Canada, the Westminster system’s unwritten rule is that an election shouldn’t be called when the opposition is without a leader. In fact, calling an election in this circumstance is highly unusual in countries that use our system of governance.
This raises several questions. Should a government use an emergency to ask voters for a mandate before opponents are organized? Does this scenario give voters enough reasonable options from which to make a fair decision on who should govern them for the next four years, especially during a time of crisis? And does the act of calling an election further undermine trust in electoral politics in a time of polarization and misinformation?
The BC election also overlaps awkwardly with municipal elections: local elections are scheduled for October 17, only one week before the provincial vote. This too could create confusion and low voter turnout, further impacting the democratic process in the province.
Want to know more?
Better understand our system of governance in Social Studies Chapter One, ideological debates in BC and Canada in Social Studies Chapter Two, and the issue of democratic decline in Canada at a Crossroads Chapter Five.
Quebec’s Election
Quebec’s upcoming election, while not a snap election like BC, is equally consequential. The Parti Québécois is campaigning on Quebec sovereignty and has said it would pursue a referendum, even if it formed a minority government. The party has also said it would wait until Donald Trump is no longer president before holding one. That means the future of Canada is very much on the ballot in Quebec.
Why is it happening?
The Coalition Avenir Québec’s four-year term was nearing its constitutional limit, so an election had to be held by this fall. With the unpopular former leader François Legault having resigned, the CAQ are now led by Premier Christine Fréchette, who hopes to focus the election on US President Donald Trump and the consequences of his trade war on Quebec. The opposition, on the other hand, hopes to focus on other issues, from sovereignty and culture to health care and education.
Who is running?
The main parties and leaders are:
- Coalition avenir Québec – Christine Fréchette (premier) | Incumbent centre-right, nationalist government seeking re-election
- Quebec Liberal Party – Charles Milliard (leader) | Federalist, centrist party and official opposition after the last election (comparable to Liberal Party of Canada)
- Québec solidaire – Ruba Ghazal + Sol Zanetti (co-leaders) | Sovereigntist, left-leaning third-place party in the legislature after last election (comparable to federal NDP)
- Parti Québécois – Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (leader) | Sovereigntist, left-leaning party could jump from fourth place in the legislature to first, forming government (comparable to Bloc Québécois)
- Parti conservateur du Québec – Éric Duhaime (leader) | Populist, centre-right political party (comparable to Conservative Party of Canada)
Why it matters
The PQ is leading in most polls and has focused its campaign on Quebec sovereignty, pledging to pursue a referendum even if it only wins a minority government. Of course, support for sovereignty is down, but that could always change. For example, a new federal omnibus bill (more on that in a moment) could potentially alienate Quebec voters as a similar bill did when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in power. In an era of mass change, nothing is set in stone. And while a referendum would still involve a separate democratic process and difficult constitutional negotiations, some argue that the act of holding a referendum – or having a separatist government in power in Quebec – could create uncertainty during a trade war and weaken Canada’s ability to negotiate with the United States and other countries. That raises the question: Does economic uncertainty make sovereignty less practical or make political control more important? Regardless, this election is not only consequential for Quebec, but for the future of Canada as well.
Where does the campaign stand?
Polling suggests a competitive race involving the PQ, Liberals and CAQ, with Québec solidaire and the Conservatives also capable of influencing the result. With five significant parties, the winner will depend not only on the popular vote but on vote efficiency: translating support into first-place finishes in enough ridings to form government. As it stands, the PQ not only leads in popular support, but its vote is highly efficient. The incumbent CAQ government has been gaining momentum and even a one-percent-gain or loss of support could be the difference between winning no seats and forming the official opposition. Whereas the Quebec Liberal vote is heavily centred on the anglophone and allophone Montreal ridings, meaning their vote is highly inefficient and will make the job of forming government much harder.
Want to know more?
Better understand our system of governance in Social Studies Chapter One, ideological debates in Quebec and Canada in Social Studies Chapter Two, and the issues of cultural identity and secession in Canada at a Crossroads Chapter Three.
A Major Omnibus Bill
The federal government has introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act. It is designed to speed up approvals for major infrastructure, energy, transportation, and trade-corridor projects. The government says projects should receive federal decisions within one year once a complete application is submitted.
Why is it being proposed?
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government argues that Canada needs to build more quickly because:
- US tariffs and trade pressure threaten Canadian jobs.
- Canada relies too heavily on a limited number of export routes and markets.
- Housing, energy, ports, mines, and transportation infrastructure are urgently needed.
- Long approval processes can and have discouraged investment.
- Canada needs more economic independence and resilient supply chains.
The bill would create clearer project-review processes, designate strategic trade corridors, and coordinate federal permitting. The government presents it as a way to strengthen energy security, create jobs, and get Canadian goods to new markets.
How is it different from C-5?
C-5, passed last year, was a broad law that created temporary powers and mechanisms for advancing projects or measures considered to be in the national interest. C-39 is specifically focused on fast-tracking major projects seen to be in the national interest by speeding up federal environmental reviews, coordinating Indigenous consultations, and changing the rules governing labour disruptions in areas of federal jurisdiction. If passed as proposed, C-39 would create a more permanent framework for fast-tracking major projects and coordinating approvals. In particular, it would remove the five-year time limit on some of the powers created by C-5, in theory making them normal features of government.
Why is C-39 already controversial?
- Environmental organizations fear that speed targets could weaken environmental assessment, climate review, or public participation in decision-making. They worry that national interest projects could receive approval before their long-term environmental effects are understood.
- First Nations and Indigenous organizations are concerned that faster timelines could reduce consultation and interfere with Indigenous rights, title, and consent. The government says the bill upholds Indigenous rights, but critics will judge that claim by how much decision-making power Indigenous governments and nations actually retain. Many Indigenous nations argue that meaningful consultation requires time for relationship-building, community discussion and deliberation – not simply faster administrative deadlines.
- Labour organizations worry that the bill could weaken the right to strike by making it easier for the government to intervene in strikes or lockouts in federally regulated sectors deemed to be in the national interest. Labour unions – an important voting bloc for the government and opposition – have already stated that C-39 would weaken their hand when negotiating future wages.
What’s an omnibus bill and why are they controversial?
An omnibus bill combines many legal changes in one large package. Governments like omnibus bills because they can move a broad agenda through Parliament efficiently. Critics object that:
- Parliament has less time to study each measure.
- Unrelated or technical changes can be hidden among popular policies.
- Committees and public consultations may be compressed.
- MPs may feel forced to vote for an entire package rather than individual provisions.
- Large bills can reduce transparency and weaken meaningful opposition.
In fact, former prime minister Stephen Harper tried to push through very similar omnibus bills that were met with fierce criticism from all opposition parties, including the Liberals. National protests – including the Indigenous-led Idle No More movement – focused on the bills’ undemocratic character and helped contribute to Harper’s defeat in the 2015 election.
Why C-39 really matters
Thanks to the threats from the south and the ever-growing cost-of-living crisis, the times have changed since the last time a bill like this was proposed at this scale. But concerns around environmental sustainability, workers’ rights and Indigenous consent haven’t just disappeared.
Bill C-39 presents a central democratic trade-off: Can Canada act quickly without excluding the people most affected by a project? After all, if decisions are faster but communities have less ability to challenge them, public trust may decline. This is especially true given the nature of C-39.
By proposing an omnibus bill that combines major changes into one package, the government may make meaningful parliamentary debate and scrutiny more difficult. That has the potential to erode democracy in Canada, and so too does the extension of emergency powers first passed with C-5. By giving the prime minister and his cabinet more power over deciding what is in the national interest, fewer and fewer Canadians will have a say in decisions, given that all regions and peoples are represented in Parliament and not necessarily in the Prime Minister’s Office or Cabinet. Though Mark Carney enjoys incredible support in the polls, the powers being created or extended by C-39 will outlast the Carney government and will be available to future governments – whether popular and unpopular.
Though the legislation might test Carney’s slim majority – some MPs have raised concerns about the bill – it is still likely to pass given the support of Conservative MPs. Other than from within caucus, who might oppose the bill? The NDP and the Greens, for sure, but they have a limited presence in the House. In fact, the Bloc might emerge as the bill’s most effective opponent, given their seat count. That could spell trouble in Quebec, where the separatist Parti Québécois is ahead in the polls.
More than anything, C-39 threatens to renew old debates (in court and across cultural and regional divides), testing our unity on the issues we face at a critical time in the nation’s history. Canada does need pipelines, ports, mines, electricity systems, and railways to reduce our dependence on the United States. But omnibus bills and executive powers have the potential to undermine democratic rights and processes. And if fast-tracked projects damage ecosystems or ignore Indigenous rights, Canada may gain short-term economic capacity while weakening the country in other respects.
That means the key question is this: Is a faster approval process and more executive powers, provided through an omnibus bill, a way of avoiding difficult yet important democratic and environmental scrutiny – or a necessary national response in a time of unprecedented crisis?
Want to know more?
Better understand Indigenous rights in Social Studies Chapter Three, how decisions are made in Social Studies Chapter Four (including how our approval processes work), or why bill C-39 is being proposed and opposed by watching our full Canada at a Crossroads series.
AI Armageddon?
Warnings about artificial intelligence ratcheted up this week, ranging from realistic near-term harms to claims that advanced AI could eventually threaten human survival. Some technology leaders and researchers have described a small but serious possibility that highly capable systems could escape human control or be used to cause catastrophic harm. One widely reported warning suggested a possible 10-per-cent chance of AI causing human extinction within a decade.
How real are the threats?
Already real or highly plausible:
- Deepfakes and political misinformation
- Fraud, impersonation, and cyberattacks
- Unsafe or biased automated decisions
- Job disruption and concentration of wealth
- Privacy loss through large-scale data collection
- AI-generated propaganda and harassment
More uncertain but potentially severe:
- AI systems assisting the development of dangerous weapons
- Autonomous cyberattacks
- Systems behaving in ways their creators cannot predict or control
- A small number of corporations controlling critical information and computing power
Doomsday scenarios are difficult to test because the most advanced systems are private, rapidly changing, and not fully understood. The uncertainty is not proof that catastrophe is likely, but the potential scale of harm explains why some experts argue that governments should act before an accident occurs.
What is Canada proposing?
Canada’s national AI strategy includes more than $2 billion in planned measures for AI capacity, literacy, and adoption. It proposes secure public computing, large Canadian data centres, AI education, and stronger protections for privacy, children and online safety. The government also emphasizes reducing dependence on foreign providers and protecting Canadian technological sovereignty.
Carney has warned that AI could be weaponized against Canadians, but Canada’s earlier Artificial Intelligence and Data Act did not become law, leaving a less complete patchwork of rules at the moment.
Why this matters
In many ways, AI is one of Canada’s technological advantages. Canadian researchers helped create and advance the field, and fostering its continued growth could help address some of the economic weaknesses worsened by the trade war with the US. But AI can also weaken democracy by making false content cheap, convincing, and difficult to trace. If citizens cannot tell whether a speech, photograph, or video is authentic, elections (including the BC and Quebec elections, as well as future referendums on secession) and public debate (around Bill C-39, say) become more vulnerable.
The challenge is to strike the right balance. How can Canada become technologically independent and economically prosperous while also avoiding doomsday scenarios and ensuring AI does not undermine our democracy or sovereignty?
Want to know more?
Better understand the future of work in Careers Chapter Two and the threats posed by AI, social media and surveillance capitalism in Canada at a Crossroads Chapter Five.
The Shooting and Rising Antisemitism
A police officer was shot outside a synagogue in Belleville, Ontario, during Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The 29-year-old suspect later died in hospital, according to authorities. Police investigations were continuing, and authorities had not initially confirmed a motive. Prime Minister Carney described the incident as part of a broader crisis of antisemitism and pointed to recent attacks on Jewish institutions.
The incident followed other violence and threats involving Jewish communities, including shootings, firebombings, and attacks in Montreal. B’nai Brith Canada reported 27 violent antisemitic incidents this year (as of September), more than double the previous year’s total.
Why is antisemitism rising?
- Anger and polarization connected to the Israel-Gaza war.
- Online conspiracy theories and extremist propaganda.
- The normalization of racist language on social media.
- Political movements that treat Jewish Canadians as responsible for the actions of a foreign government.
- Failure to distinguish criticism of a government from hatred toward an ethnic or religious group.
To be clear, criticism of Israel is not automatically antisemitic. Antisemitism occurs when Jews are collectively blamed, dehumanized, threatened, or targeted because they are Jewish.
What is happening politically?
The federal government has passed a hate-crimes measure that makes it an offence to intimidate or obstruct people trying to access places of worship, community centres, and other institutions associated with identifiable groups. Carney has also called for stronger action against hate.
The debate involves a difficult balance. Jewish communities need protection from threats and violence, but governments must also protect lawful protest and freedom of expression. Police and courts must distinguish political disagreement from intimidation, harassment, and violence. Critics argue that fear of crossing the line has sometimes contributed to inaction and allowed antisemitism to go unchecked.
Why this matters
Antisemitism should matter for the obvious reason: it promotes hatred and intolerance. When any minority group cannot participate equally in public life, our society is no longer free and equal – the basic building block of a liberal democracy such as Canada. And when hate becomes normalized, it weakens trust in institutions and encourages communities to withdraw from democratic participation, hurting everyone in the process. In other words, like racism, antisemitism should have no place in Canada.
The question becomes: How can a democracy defend vulnerable communities while preserving open debate and lawful protest?
Want to know more?
Better understand the ethics of complex decision making in Social Studies Chapter Four and the historical connection between antisemitism and democratic decline in Canada at a Crossroads Chapter Five.
A Final Thought
Canada is facing several linked choices: who should make decisions, how quickly governments should act, and how to protect democratic rights while responding to economic, environmental and security pressures. In each case, the central question is whether national urgency – the trade war, sovereignty threats, environmental concerns, constitutional rights, technological trade-offs, or public safety – justifies concentrating more power in governments and moving faster than normal democratic processes usually allow.
When governments claim that a crisis requires speed, what democratic safeguards should remain? Who decides what counts as a national-interest project? Can economic sovereignty be strengthened without sacrificing environmental protection or Indigenous rights? Does political instability make stronger executive leadership necessary, or does it make checks and balances more important? How should we respond when social media spreads fear, conspiracy theories or AI-generated falsehoods, especially targeting these questions? And what responsibilities do governments, media companies, political parties, and individuals have in protecting minority rights and ensuring democratic participation?
These are the questions. Over to you.