Ontario’s case for taking over the Toronto District School Board rested on a simple promise: elected trustees had failed, and a Ministry-appointed supervisor would restore the accountability parents and students had lost. A year in, two cases inside the TDSB’s own walls put that promise to a direct test. One suggests the promise was kept. The other suggests it wasn’t. Read together, they say more about what supervision actually is than either side’s talking points do on their own.

The Transfer That Didn’t Stick

In June 2025, weeks before the province took control of the TDSB, the board announced it was transferring Barrie Sketchley, the longest-serving principal in Ontario’s history, out of Rosedale Heights School of the Arts, the school he helped found 33 years earlier. The board framed it as a routine rotation. Students didn’t see it that way. Hundreds walked out of class. A petition to reinstate him drew nearly 2,900 signatures. Parents said a policy requiring consultation before a principal transfer had been ignored.

Two months later, the newly installed provincial supervisor reversed the decision. Sketchley stayed at Rosedale Heights through his planned retirement the following June. A superintendent’s letter to the school community called it a “win-win,” and the parent advisory council chair agreed, writing that the reversal meant “their voices were heard.”

Whatever else is true about supervision, this is a case where it worked the way its defenders say it should: a contested, opaque decision made by TDSB management got overturned in response to sustained public pressure, and the person the community wanted stayed put.

The School That Keeps Shrinking

Heydon Park Secondary School tells a different story, and the timeline matters.

In June 2025, days before supervision began, the TDSB announced it would stop accepting Grade 9 students at Heydon Park, its only high school built specifically for young women, transgender, and non-binary students, many with intellectual disabilities. The board cited low enrolment, nine applicants for the fall. Parents and the school’s advocacy network disputed that framing directly, pointing to TDSB’s own projections showing enrolment had been climbing in the years before the cut, not falling. A planned open house that typically drove new registrations had also been cancelled that spring.

Then something happened that the pro-supervision case doesn’t account for. A Local Feasibility Study, already scheduled for August 2025 to explore ways to keep Heydon Park viable, was cancelled outright when supervision began that June. Not delayed. Cancelled. The one process designed to give the school’s community a formal say in its future disappeared at the exact moment the province took over.

A year later, in June 2026, the story continued under the supervisor’s watch, not before it. Citing construction safety concerns at a nearby elementary school, the TDSB announced Heydon Park students would be relocated out of their building as early as January 2027 to make room for the displaced students. Parents at the school say they found out through a letter, with no advance consultation. “The latest decision by the board shows a lack of transparency and consultation,” multiple parents told CTV News Toronto. A school council co-chair put it more simply: “We need the stability. We need the security.”

That is the same complaint, using nearly the same language, that TDSB families have been raising since before supervision existed. A full year into provincial control, it hadn’t changed.

What Connects Them

Put side by side, these aren’t contradictory stories. They’re the same institution behaving two different ways depending on which lever got pulled.

Sketchley’s case shows supervision can work as advertised: an opaque, community-opposed decision reversed once enough people pushed back. Heydon Park shows the opposite is just as true: a vulnerable community’s own request for a formal process to be heard was cancelled the moment supervision arrived, and the pattern of unilateral, after-the-fact decisions has continued unbroken since.

The honest reading isn’t that supervision is a failure, and it isn’t that supervision is a fix. It’s that supervision has been applied inconsistently, responsive when the backlash was loud and visible, unmoved when it wasn’t. Rosedale Heights is a large, well-connected arts school with an active advisory council and media attention within days. Heydon Park serves roughly 110 students, many with intellectual disabilities, in a building its own advocacy group calls “the TDSB’s best kept secret.”

If accountability under supervision depends on how much noise a community can make rather than on a consistent standard applied to every school, that isn’t accountability. It’s a different version of the same problem the province said it was fixing, just with a different set of names attached.

A note on how this piece came together: This story started as an attempt to test the strongest case for supervision, not undermine it. Columnists making the case for provincial takeover of the TDSB pointed to both the Sketchley transfer and the Heydon Park enrolment cut as evidence the board’s pre-supervision governance had failed. On the facts, they were right about that much. Where the record diverges from their framing is what happened next. Reading the opposing argument in good faith, then checking every claim against primary sources, is what turned up the part that argument left out, that supervision fixed one and quietly worsened the other. That’s the process, applied the same way regardless of which direction the evidence points.

Sources: CBC News, CTV News Toronto, Global News, TorontoToday, and Heydon Park Secondary School Advocacy (heydonadvocacy.ca).

Leave a comment

The Toronto District School Board’s 2026-27 budget presentation makes one claim clearly and repeatedly: there will be no reductions to school-based special education supports.

The board’s own Parent Involvement Advisory Committee didn’t buy it, and neither should you.

The question the board hasn’t answered

On June 10, 2026, PIAC formally adopted a set of recommendations, moved by Farheen Mahmood and seconded by Crystal Stewart, requesting written answers from TDSB staff on a long list of budget questions. Buried in that document, question 26, is one of the sharpest lines in the entire request:

“The presentation states that school-based special education staffing remains unchanged, yet 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classes have reportedly been eliminated. Please provide enrollment data used to support the closures of these classes.”

That is not an accusation. It is a committee, the body specifically constituted to represent parents on exactly these questions, pointing directly at a contradiction in the board’s own materials and asking the board to explain itself.

As of this writing, more than a month later, there is no public record of that question being answered.

A second, independent voice says the same thing

PIAC’s question sat unresolved for weeks, one document, one claim, unconfirmed. Then, in the July 6 wave of school council letters sent directly to Supervisor Rohit Gupta, Cresthaven Public School’s council raised the same program, independently and without apparent knowledge of the PIAC document, describing what its letter calls “the dire situation in the school’s Diagnostic Kindergarten and ISP classes.”

Two sources. No connection to each other. Same specific program. Same conclusion: something is wrong with Diagnostic Kindergarten this year, and the board’s public claim that special education staffing is untouched does not match what parents and committee members are seeing.

Diagnostic Kindergarten classes exist to identify and support the youngest students with developmental delays and disabilities, before those needs compound into larger, more costly problems later in a child’s education. It is not a peripheral program. It is early intervention, the kind of support that is cheapest and most effective when it happens early, and most damaging to lose.

What the budget numbers actually show

The board’s own 2026-27 budget document offers a possible answer to how “no reductions” and “classes eliminated” can both be technically true at once.

The Special Education Fund itself is down $7.3 million this year, a 1.8 percent decline in absolute dollars. At the same time, the board’s public materials cite a 2.2 percent increase in special education spending per pupil. Both figures come from the same document. Both are accurate. They are not describing the same thing.

Per-pupil spending rises when the number of dollars falls more slowly than the number of students does. TDSB enrollment is projected to drop by 4,912 students this year. A shrinking total, divided among fewer children, can produce a larger number per child while the actual resources available to any given classroom, or any given Diagnostic Kindergarten program, shrink in real terms.

That is arithmetic. It is not evidence that support held steady. And it is entirely consistent with a board that can say “staffing is unchanged” in a budget presentation while individual schools report specific programs disappearing.

The pattern, not just the program

This isn’t really a story about fifteen classrooms. It’s a story about what happens when the only people asking hard, specific questions, a parent advisory committee and a handful of school councils, get silence in return, while the language in official presentations stays carefully worded enough to survive a surface read.

PIAC asked in writing, through the proper channel, more than a month ago. Cresthaven raised it independently through the letter campaign. Neither has received an answer. The board’s own numbers suggest a real explanation exists. Nobody at the TDSB has offered it.

Until they do, the claim that school-based special education staffing “remains unchanged” should be read for exactly what it is: a sentence that survives scrutiny only if nobody asks what’s underneath it.

Sources: TDSB Parent Involvement Advisory Committee, SCS.26.06.1, June 10, 2026. Cresthaven Public School Council letter to Supervisor Rohit Gupta, July 6, 2026. TDSB 2026-27 Budget, tdsb.on.ca.

The Old Guardian’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Leave a comment

Thirteen school councils. Two waves of letters. Zero replies.

Between June 22 and July 6, 2026, parent-elected school councils across the Toronto District School Board sat down and did the thing Regulation 612 says they exist to do: they wrote to the person now running their children’s education system and told him, in plain language, what was actually happening in their buildings. Not talking points. Not survey data massaged for a press release. Direct accounts from Bowmore Road, Montrose, Perth Avenue, Williamson Road, Carleton Village, Cresthaven, Swansea, Annette Street, Runnymede, Mountview, Grove Community, High Park Alternative, and Berner Trail.

As of this writing, twelve of those thirteen councils have received nothing. Not a form letter. Not an acknowledgment of receipt. Nothing.

“I’m still in contact with all the councils,” campaign coordinator Kamin Peyrow Lee told The Old Guardian, “and no one has gotten any acknowledgement from the supervisor about their letter as far as I know.” The single partial exception, Berner Trail Junior Public School, got a response, but Lee is careful about why: the school had already been in contact with its superintendent over a specific local issue, and a protest had been scheduled for the same day the letters went out. “That protest got a lot of attention,” she said. “So technically Berner Trail JPS have received a response from the board about their specific issue, but I would not say that it was the letter that got the response.”

Read that twice. The formal channel, the one Ontario law says exists specifically to give parents a voice, produced silence. Public pressure produced a reply. If you want to know what this board actually listens to, that’s your answer, and it came from the people running the letter campaign themselves, not from The Old Guardian’s own conclusion.

What the letters actually said

The thirteen schools weren’t a coordinated messaging operation reciting the same script. They were a large elementary school and a small alternative one. A designated Model School and a school with a diagnostic kindergarten program. Schools with strong new leadership and schools still working through a turbulent year. What they shared wasn’t talking points. It was the same handful of experiences, arrived at independently.

Bowmore Road and Montrose, two schools with no apparent connection to each other, both named the same closed facility as the single most significant loss their students would feel: the Island Natural Sciences School, an outdoor education centre closed by the TDSB this year. Montrose surveyed twenty-one families and heard it over and over. “We had graduation and 6 out of 8 students who spoke cited Island School among their fondest memories from grade 6,” one parent wrote. “I am saddened and angry that my child and future grade 6s will not have this experience.” Bowmore’s letter called it a rite of passage that had, for years, been “an equalizer for all students, ensuring that regardless of a student’s background or socio-economic standing, all were afforded the opportunity to make important curriculum connections.”

Perth Avenue’s council reported something sharper: their Holiday Market, a fundraiser and community tradition, was cancelled after the school’s principal was told by TDSB’s own Risk Management team that the decision reflected a “reduced risk tolerance” during the period of provincial supervision. Not a budget line. Not an enrollment number. A parent-run community event, cancelled, with supervision itself cited as the reason.

Williamson Road, serving more than 500 students, has no full-time vice-principal and no full-time teacher-librarian. Parents there also described something else worth noting alongside Perth Avenue and Bowmore’s account of shrinking supervision: a growing reliance on screens to manage students during lunch, not as enrichment, but as a substitute for staff who aren’t there.

None of these are anonymous complaints. Every letter came with a named contact and a phone number, offered specifically for media follow-up. These are people willing to put their names on what they’re describing.

What the board’s own numbers say

The TDSB’s 2026-27 budget, published on the board’s own website, tells a story that doesn’t match the one the board tells in public.

The Special Education Fund is down $7.3 million, a 1.8 percent decline in absolute dollars, according to the board’s own revenue tables. At the same time, the board’s public materials cite a 2.2 percent per-pupil increase in special education spending. Both figures are technically accurate. They are not describing the same thing. Per-pupil spending rises when total dollars fall more slowly than enrollment does, and TDSB enrollment is projected to drop by 4,912 students this year alone. A shrinking pie divided among fewer students can produce a larger slice on paper while the pie itself gets smaller. That is arithmetic, not investment, and the difference matters enormously to a parent trying to figure out whether their child’s support will still be there in September.

Computer spending is down $8.4 million, 21.2 percent, the steepest cut anywhere in the instructional budget. This is the same fiscal year the Ontario government is putting $60 million into Edwin, a new provincewide digital learning platform from Nelson Education, rolling out to all 72 school boards starting this September. The province wants a platform. The board is cutting the devices. Nobody has explained how those two facts are meant to coexist.

And underneath all of it sits the number that actually explains where the board’s savings came from. Of the $59.5 million in “Supervisor Savings Measures” that brought this year’s deficit down from a preliminary $74.5 million to $15 million, $34.8 million, 58 percent of the entire total, came from Central Staff Reductions. Not efficiencies. Not waste. Headcount.

What thirteen letters and a budget table have in common

Put them side by side and the pattern isn’t subtle. A board under provincial supervision cut the people, cut the devices, and quietly let per-pupil framing paper over a real decline in special education dollars, all while telling parents that supervision exists to fix mismanagement. Meanwhile, thirteen school communities wrote directly to the person in charge, using the one formal channel still available to them, and got back exactly what you’d expect from an institution that has already told you, through its own numbers, where its actual priorities sit.

Silence is data. This board has now generated a great deal of it.

Sources: TDSB 2026-27 Budget, tdsb.on.ca. TDSB Parent Involvement Advisory Committee, SCS.26.06.1, June 10, 2026. Letters from the Bowmore Road, Montrose, Perth Avenue, and Williamson Road school councils, July 2026. Correspondence with Kamin Peyrow Lee, campaign coordinator, July 2026. CBC News, Edwin platform reporting, 2026.

The Old Guardian’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

www.theoldguardian.ca | Independent Investigative Journalism

By Chris Allen | The Old Guardian | June 17, 2026

Ten years ago today, Parliament passed Bill C-14 and Canada became one of the first countries in the world to legalize medical assistance in dying. The assurances that made it possible were precise: MAiD would be a last resort, available only to those in irremediable suffering for whom no other option remained. Consent would be meaningful, not inferred. Vulnerability would be protected, not eligible.

Today, on the tenth anniversary of that legislation, a parliamentary committee has recommended that the federal government indefinitely exclude people with mental illness from MAiD eligibility — a recommendation that is itself an acknowledgment of how far the program has drifted from what it promised to be.

But here is what the committee report does not address, and what this investigation has spent months building from primary government sources: the accountability failures it identified in psychiatric MAiD are already present — documented, measured, and in some cases prosecuted — in the system currently serving 100,000 Canadians who have already died.

A pause on expansion answers a different question than the one the evidence raises. The question the evidence raises is this: does Canada have a MAiD system that can be trusted with the authority it already has?

The answer, built from Health Canada’s own annual reports, parliamentary testimony, regulatory findings, and six documented case files, is no.

I. The Scale No One Is Stating Plainly

In 2024, 16,499 Canadians died by MAiD. That represents 5.1 percent of all deaths in the country — one in twenty. By raw numbers, MAiD is now the fourth most common way Canadians die, behind cancer, heart disease, and accidents. The government does not state it this way, because the World Health Organization classifies MAiD as a health service rather than a cause of death. That classification is itself part of the story: the agency responsible for counting how Canadians die has formally decided not to count this one.

Cumulative provisions surpassed 100,000 in April 2026 — nine years after legalization. Quebec’s MAiD rate has reached 7.9 percent of all provincial deaths, the highest rate in the world. In the same decade, Canada’s palliative care coverage has declined, its hospice bed capacity sits at 57 percent of the recommended standard, and its average healthcare wait time has reached 30 weeks — while the average time from MAiD request to death is 13 days.

These numbers are not from critics of the program. They are from Health Canada’s own annual reports. The government collected them, published them, and released them under a ministerial message emphasizing compassion and patient-centered care. The numbers tell a different story than the message does.

II. What the Promises Actually Were

The legal foundation of Canada’s MAiD framework is Carter v. Canada, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that struck down the criminal prohibition on assisted dying. Carter was explicit about the conditions under which the right existed: competent adults in grievous and irremediable suffering, for whom no other means of relieving suffering remained acceptable. The safeguards — two assessors, reflection periods, mandatory consideration of alternatives — were not bureaucratic decoration. They were the conditions under which the court found the right existed at all.

The first legislative expansion came in 2021 with Bill C-7, which created Track 2 MAiD for people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable — people who are not terminally ill. The psychiatric expansion — MAiD for those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness — was added by Senate amendment and has been delayed three times, most recently to March 2027, which is where the AMAD committee has now recommended it stay, indefinitely.

What has not been delayed is the erosion of the conditions that made the original framework defensible. Four words have been quietly redefined in the decade since Carter, without legislation, without parliamentary debate, and without public announcement.

Irremediable once meant that medicine had exhausted its options. It now means that the patient finds available options unacceptable — and Canada is the only jurisdiction in the world that does not require proof that treatment was tried before approving MAiD. Suffering has expanded from clinical symptoms to life circumstances: poverty, isolation, loneliness. Compassion has been reframed from accompanying a person through their pain to removing the person experiencing it. And safeguard now describes a documentation process that records compliance without verifying it.

None of those redefinitions passed through Parliament. They accumulated through training programs, clinical guidelines, and the institutional culture of a provider community funded and organized around access rather than gatekeeping.

III. The Data the Minister’s Message Does Not Mention

The government publishes detailed annual data on MAiD. What follows is drawn entirely from Health Canada’s own Fifth and Sixth Annual Reports.

The approval rate

In 2019, 59 percent of MAiD requests ended in death. By 2023 that figure was 78 percent, and rising. In any other medical context, an approval rate approaching 80 percent for an irreversible procedure would prompt scrutiny of whether the gatekeeping function was operating. In the MAiD context, it is presented as evidence of appropriate access.

The Track 2 profile

Track 2 MAiD — for people who are not terminally ill — grew 34 percent between 2022 and 2023, and a further 17 percent between 2023 and 2024. The people receiving it are predominantly women (56.7 percent in 2024), with a median age of 75.9 years, the majority of whom have lived with their condition for more than a decade. In 2024, 61.5 percent self-identified as having a disability. Only 23.2 percent received palliative care before dying — down from 29.6 percent the year before.

That last number deserves to be read slowly. Nearly eight in ten people who received non-terminal MAiD in 2024 did not receive palliative care. Among those who required but did not receive palliative care, 91.2 percent confirmed that services were accessible to them. They could have accessed palliative care. They did not. Then they received MAiD. The government reports this as a sign of appropriate patient choice. It is also consistent with a system in which the path to death is faster and better resourced than the path to care.

The suffering data

Health Canada asks practitioners to report the sources of suffering cited by MAiD recipients. In 2024, 50.3 percent of Track 2 recipients cited feeling like a burden on family, friends, or caregivers as a contributing factor. For Track 2, 44.7 percent cited isolation or loneliness.

Feeling like a burden is a documented primary driver of suicidal ideation. It is precisely the cognitive state that crisis psychiatry is designed to identify and treat as a distortion, not a terminal prognosis. When half of all non-terminal MAiD recipients report it as a significant factor in their decision, the system is not responding to irremediable suffering. It is ratifying a social failure and calling it compassion.

The voluntariness gap

In 2024, in 21.2 percent of Track 1 cases, the practitioner selected only one source of information when determining that the request was voluntary. One source. For an irreversible decision. In the same year, 45 people were found ineligible specifically because their request was determined to be the product of external pressure. Those are the cases where pressure was identified. The data offers no information about cases where it was not.

IV. Six Cases. Six Failure Modes. One System.

The following documented cases are not presented as representative of all MAiD provisions. Most people who access MAiD in Canada do so with genuine informed consent, in genuine irremediable suffering, with adequate assessment. The cases below document specific failure modes in a system without adequate mechanisms to detect or stop them.

Jolene Van Alstine, 45, Saskatchewan

Van Alstine has normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism — a rare but treatable parathyroid disease. The treatment is surgery. No Saskatchewan surgeon was available to perform it. To obtain a referral to an out-of-province specialist, she first needed an endocrinologist appointment in Saskatchewan. No Saskatchewan endocrinologist was accepting new patients. The system had produced a closed loop.

She was approved for MAiD. Her appointment was set for January 7, 2026. Her approval was later pulled on a procedural technicality. American broadcaster Glenn Beck saw coverage of her case on social media, contacted her husband, and arranged surgical consultations in Florida. As of January 2026, she was alive.

Her assessor, Dr. George Carson, confirmed to CBC News that the approval criteria were met. He did not establish that her condition was medically irremediable. He established that the Saskatchewan healthcare system had failed to treat it. Those are not the same thing, and the framework Canada built was supposed to require the distinction.

Kristin Logan, Campbell River, BC

Logan, a dual Canadian-American citizen and US Air Force veteran, was diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer. Per her husband Donovan James, Canadian doctors told her MAiD was her only option because they had no treatment available. A chemotherapy requisition was placed and then disappeared. She met her oncologist only by phone. She accessed treatment in Washington state under her US veteran benefits. She has since achieved multiple remissions.

Her own words: ‘How can you prioritize cases so that people with aggressive stage four cancer get seen by someone and when they do get seen, they get offered treatment and not MAID like I was the first time?’

Miriam Lancaster, 84, Vancouver

Lancaster was taken to Vancouver General Hospital with severe back pain. According to her and her daughter, the first thing a physician said was an offer of MAiD — before any diagnostic tests had been conducted. She declined. She was diagnosed with a fractured sacrum, a painful but treatable injury. She made a full recovery and climbed an active volcano in Guatemala in February 2026.

She later noted that her husband had also been offered MAiD at the same hospital ten days before his death from metastatic cancer in 2023 — also unsolicited.

Fr. Larry Holland, 79, Vancouver

Holland, a Catholic priest, was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital after fracturing his hip on Christmas Day 2025. He was not terminally ill. He was offered MAiD twice during his recovery — first by a physician, then weeks later by a nurse — despite having told staff he is a Catholic priest morally opposed to euthanasia.

Vancouver Coastal Health confirmed in writing that staff ‘may consider bringing up MAiD based on their clinical judgment, provided they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to do so.’ That written confirmation is the institutional anchor for a pattern that Lancaster, Holland, and Chilliwack patient Pat Gray all experienced at facilities in the same health authority catchment: not rogue physicians, but documented institutional policy producing documented outcomes.

The policy document behind that outcome is CAMAP’s guidance on ‘Bringing up Medical Assistance in Dying as a clinical care option,’ which explicitly instructs practitioners not to assume patients oppose MAiD because of their faith, citing Roman Catholic nuns as an example. The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers is funded by Health Canada.

Kiano Vafaeian, 26, Ontario/BC

Vafaeian received MAiD on December 30, 2025 in Vancouver, after being denied multiple times in Ontario and traveling to British Columbia where he was approved under Track 2. He had Type 1 diabetes, partial vision loss, and a history of mental health struggles. His family was not informed of his approval; they learned of his death days later through estate paperwork.

University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens stated the case raises serious questions about whether non-treating physicians can approve MAiD when the patient is clearly battling mental health issues. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC told the Globe and Mail it had never disciplined a doctor in relation to medically assisting someone’s death.

Thomas Dillon, 45, London, Ontario — and Dr. James MacLean

In June 2023, Dr. James MacLean assessed Thomas Dillon for MAiD outside a Tim Hortons in London, Ontario, after exchanging dozens of text messages with him. MacLean then drove Dillon personally to the location where MAiD was administered in January 2024. Dillon’s family was not informed. His sister had arrived at the Tim Hortons to accompany her brother; MacLean drove him instead.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that MacLean’s conduct crossed professional boundaries and risked appearing coercive. A broader review of his general practice found his conduct exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury in five of twenty charts reviewed — a 25 percent harm rate. In a second case, MacLean failed to administer one of the three drugs used in assisted death; the patient resumed breathing after being pronounced dead. MacLean had already left.

The CPSO’s response: a minimum six-month supervision period beginning April 15, 2026. MacLean is permitted to continue providing MAiD throughout that supervision period.

Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee tracked 428 possible Criminal Code violations between 2018 and 2023. It referred zero to law enforcement. The MacLean case is what that zero looks like in practice.

Dr. Ramona Coelho, a member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, responded to the MacLean findings with this: ‘What is striking is not only the seriousness of the concerns identified in these cases, but the limited regulatory response.’

V. The Psychiatric Frontier Canada Is Not Ready For

The AMAD committee has recommended that Parliament indefinitely exclude mental illness from MAiD eligibility. That recommendation is correct. The clinical infrastructure required to implement psychiatric MAiD safely does not exist. What the recommendation does not say — but what the evidence from those same AMAD hearings establishes — is that the accountability infrastructure required to implement the current system safely does not exist either.

Dr. Allison Crawford, chief medical officer of Canada’s 9-8-8 suicide crisis helpline, testified to AMAD that up to 7 percent of all interactions with the service involve mention of MAiD, and that 74 percent of those callers had experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous 48 hours. She stated there is currently no reliable clinical method to distinguish between suicidal intent and a reasoned wish to die in the context of psychiatric MAiD.

Dr. John Maher, Chief of Psychiatry at an Ontario hospital and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, told AMAD he personally challenged an approval he believed was illegal — a patient with schizophrenia approved on the basis of a skin condition a dermatologist said could be treated with a cream, and a sore ankle. The patient was psychotic and delusional at the time. ‘People are clearly getting MAID for reasons that are frankly illegal,’ Maher told the committee.

Dr. Harvey Chochinov, one of Canada’s most respected palliative psychiatrists, testified that at least half the people who would die by MAiD for mental illness would have gotten better.

These are not positions from the fringes of the debate. They are the testimony of the government’s own expert witnesses, to the government’s own committee, about the government’s own system.

The Netherlands is frequently cited as evidence that psychiatric MAiD can be implemented safely. Dutch psychiatric euthanasia rose from 2 cases in 2011 to 219 in 2024, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors — including an autistic teenager who described his life as joyless and had attempted suicide two years before being euthanized. Dr. Sonu Gaind, past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, commented on that case: ‘The threshold for assisted death in Canada is actually lower than the Netherlands. If MAID for sole mental illness is opened up in Canada, the numbers would significantly exceed what you see in the Netherlands.’

That is the model jurisdiction telling Canada: we have gone further than you understand, and your system is built to go further still.

VI. Who Bears the Weight

Track 2 MAiD recipients in 2024 were 56.7 percent women, with a median age of 75.9 years, the majority living with conditions they had managed for more than a decade. Sixty-one percent self-identified as having a disability. Half reported feeling like a burden. Nearly half in Track 2 cited isolation or loneliness.

Senior women in Canada earn 26 percent less in retirement than senior men. Government transfers make up 43 percent of their total income. Twelve percent live in housing that is unaffordable or below acceptable standards. Women are twice as likely to work part-time, reducing their pension contributions across careers spent disproportionately in unpaid caregiving. They become the people with no one to care for them.

Ontario coroner data shows that people in the lowest material resource category make up 20 percent of the general population and 28.4 percent of Track 2 MAiD recipients. People in the worst housing instability category make up 34.3 percent of Track 1 deaths and 48.3 percent of Track 2.

The Lancet noted in 2024 that Canada does not require MAiD to be a last resort, and that women seek and receive psychiatric MAiD at two to three times the rate of men.

None of this requires that anyone in the system intended to harm elderly women. What it requires is that the system knows these facts — they are in its own annual reports — and has not structurally adapted to address them. The palliative care investment gap is undocumented at the federal level. The disability support crisis is noted in the data and unremedied in policy. The housing instability of Track 2 recipients is recorded and unaddressed. The law does not require MAiD to be a last resort. The expansion proceeds.

There is a version of targeting that does not require intent. It requires only that a system produce disproportionate harm to a specific population, have the data to show it, and decline to act. At some point, sustained inaction in the face of documented disparity becomes its own form of decision.

VII. What Today’s Report Does and Doesn’t Answer

The AMAD committee’s recommendation for indefinite exclusion of mental illness from MAiD is the right call. The clinical tools to assess irremediability in mental illness do not exist. The method to distinguish a suicidal crisis from a settled wish to die does not exist. CAMH itself, which provides capacity assessments for psychiatric MAiD, has stated that no reliable method exists to make that distinction. Proceeding without those tools on a fixed political timeline would be, in Dr. Maher’s word, reckless.

But here is what the recommendation does not do: it does not address the 428 Criminal Code violations Ontario tracked and did not refer. It does not address the Tim Hortons assessment, the six-month supervision, the continued provision. It does not address Jolene Van Alstine’s closed referral loop, Kristin Logan’s lost chemotherapy requisition, Miriam Lancaster’s unsolicited emergency room offer, Fr. Larry Holland’s twice-repeated offer during hip fracture recovery. It does not address the Track 2 palliative care rate that fell from 29.6 to 23.2 percent in a single year while the program expanded.

If Parliament wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause — which CBC News has reported is under consideration, and which would mark the first time the federal government has used that override in 44 years of Charter history — to protect an indefinite exclusion from constitutional challenge, that may be necessary. But a clause protecting the exclusion does not build the accountability infrastructure the system already lacks.

Dr. Ramona Coelho, writing in The Hill Times on May 20, framed it precisely: ‘Suffering is shaped not only by illness, but also by trauma, poverty, isolation, and lack of access to care. The ethical obligation of medicine is to respond to that complexity with treatment, supports, and time. Yet assisted death is already occurring in cases where suffering is driven by unmet medical needs, psychiatric illness, trauma, isolation, and socioeconomic vulnerability.’

And then: ‘Pausing the practice for mental illness should only be the start.’

The committee has recommended the start. The country has not yet begun the conversation about what comes after it.

VIII. The Line Canada Said It Would Never Cross

I support assisted dying. I support the right of a competent person in genuine irremediable suffering to choose death with dignity, in a system that has genuinely tried everything else. I supported it when Carter was decided. I supported it when Bill C-14 passed ten years ago today.

What I cannot support is the system Canada has built to administer that right.

A system with a 78 percent approval rate is not carefully assessing whether each request meets a rigorous standard. A system that processes death in 13 days while rehabilitation waits 30 weeks has not equalized its options. A system that tracked 428 possible Criminal Code violations and referred zero to law enforcement does not take its own rules seriously. A system that allowed a physician to assess a patient at a Tim Hortons, drive him to his death, leave a second patient breathing after pronouncing him dead, and receive six months of supervised practice as a consequence — while continuing to provide MAiD throughout — has not built a gate. It has built a door.

The promise that made MAiD acceptable was that it would be the last resort of a system that had exhausted every other option. Canada has not exhausted its options. It has underfunded them, understaffed them, and made them inaccessible. Then it built a process that moves from request to death in 13 days and called it compassion.

Ten years in, 100,000 deaths later, on the day a parliamentary committee recommended the first structural limitation the program has ever received, the question is not whether to pause the expansion. The question is whether Canada is willing to hold the system it already has to the standard it promised.

The evidence says it has not been. The evidence also says it could be. That distinction is the only thing that separates a program worth defending from one that has quietly become something else.

Key Statistics — Health Canada Annual Reports

Editor’s Notes and Sources

This investigation is built on primary government sources. The statistical spine is Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada (2023 data, published December 2024) and Sixth Annual Report (2024 data, published November 2025), available at canada.ca. All percentages and case volumes cited are from these primary documents unless otherwise noted.

Case file sources:

Jolene Van Alstine: CBC News (Dec 10, 2025); Global News; CTV News Regina; Toronto Sun; CBN News (Jan 9, 2026). Assessor Dr. George Carson’s comments confirmed on record to CBC.

Kristin Logan / Donovan James: Global News; Campbell River Mirror. Core narrative confirmed by Global News; social media updates not independently verified and not cited.

Miriam Lancaster: National Post (Sharon Kirkey, March 27, 2026). Account based on patient and family statements; no independent regulatory investigation findings have been publicly reported.

Fr. Larry Holland: BC Catholic (primary — official media of the Archdiocese of Vancouver); Catholic Register (corroborating); Vancouver Coastal Health written statement (institutional anchor).

Kiano Vafaeian: Globe and Mail (Feb 6, 2026); Global News (Jan 30, 2026). CPSO statement confirmed. Family allegations regarding coached testimony denied by Dr. Wiebe.

Thomas Dillon / Dr. James MacLean: Globe and Mail (broke the story); National Post (Sharon Kirkey); CPSO regulatory findings (public document). Dr. Coelho response on record.

AMAD committee testimony: Dr. Crawford, Dr. Maher, Dr. Mishara, Dr. Chochinov, and Dr. Gupta testified before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying in spring 2026. Testimony citations should be verified against Hansard transcripts at parl.ca before publication. Secondary reproduction via regional press (Peace Arch News, Black Press regional syndication) and advocacy outlets used for sourcing notes in the research brief; Hansard is the citable primary source.

AMAD committee report, June 17, 2026: CBC News (Jennifer La Grassa, Olivia Stefanovich, Raffy Boudjikanian); Globe and Mail. The committee’s formal written report is the primary document and should be obtained directly from parl.ca.

Parliamentary Budget Office cost estimates: PBO, Costing Bill C-7: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Medical Assistance in Dying), October 2020. Peer-reviewed cost literature: Trachtenberg & Manns, CMAJ, 2017; Jamil & Pearce, OMEGA Journal, February 2025.

Ontario violation tracking: Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee Reports (2024–2025), confirmed via The New Atlantis / leaked Ontario compliance data (February 2025).

Dr. Coelho quotation: ‘MAID committee hearings exposed a deeper problem,’ The Hill Times, May 20, 2026, via Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Dr. Sonu Gaind quotation: National Post (Sharon Kirkey), March 23, 2026.

CAMAP guidance document: ‘Bringing up Medical Assistance in Dying as a clinical care option,’ publicly available via CAMAP’s website. Funding relationship with Health Canada confirmed via Health Canada grant records.

Notwithstanding clause consideration: CBC News (June 16, 2026).

Gender analysis data: Women and Gender Equality Canada, December 2025; Ontario Human Rights Commission; LEAF, 2023; Lancet Regional Health — Americas, June 2024; Ontario coroner data via The Conversation, October 2024.

Dutch data: Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committees Annual Report 2025.

The Old Guardian is an independent investigative journalism outlet. Investigations are built on primary government sources, peer-reviewed literature, and documented case files. Secondary and advocacy sources are not cited as primary evidence. This editorial represents the views of the author.

It started with life lessons. Things learned the hard way, written down because they deserved to exist somewhere other than the back of my mind. Short dispatches. Did you know entries. The kind of writing that doesn’t have a category but needs to happen anyway.

Then the tools got better. The research got deeper. And the first real investigation published — and something shifted.

It started with a gesture.

When Elon Musk made what many immediately labeled a Nazi salute at a public event, the internet split in two directions within minutes. One side condemned it without question. The other defended it without question. Neither side waited for evidence.

TOG waited.

The investigation went where the evidence led — not where the outrage pointed. What emerged wasn’t a simple verdict in either direction. It was something more useful: a case study in how narrative gets weaponized before the facts have had a chance to breathe. How a moment gets seized, shaped, and deployed by both sides in service of conclusions that were already written before anyone looked closely.

That piece set the template. Follow the evidence. Challenge the frame. Don’t arrive at the destination before you’ve made the trip.

One piece became five. Five became twenty. Twenty became a hundred.

Nobody plans to become a watchdog. You just start paying attention, and eventually you can’t stop.

Looking back across 100 pieces, one pattern emerges that I didn’t anticipate when I started. It runs through the TDSB investigations, through Rogers, through reproductive rights, through Ukraine, through every institution and government file TOG has ever opened.

Overreach.

Not corruption in the classic sense — not always envelopes of cash or obvious crimes. Something subtler and in many ways more dangerous. Institutions, governments, and individuals quietly assuming authority that was never theirs to take. Reaching for what they shouldn’t have. Counting on the fact that nobody is reading the filings, watching the votes, or following the money.

TOG reads the filings.

The Moment It Got Real

There’s a moment in every serious endeavor where you stop doing the thing and realize you are the thing.

Mine came with Lahaina.

I filed my first FOIAs — Freedom of Information requests — using anonymous channels, pushing against a government apparatus that had every institutional reason not to respond. I’m a regular person. Day job. Family. Forty-plus hours a week before TOG gets a single minute of my time.

And there I was, going after information the government doesn’t necessarily want the public to have.

It wasn’t the response that crystallized it. It was the act. The moment I pushed back and the machine pushed back harder — that’s when I understood what this was. Not a hobby. Not a blog. A function. Something that needed to exist because the alternative is silence, and silence is data.

That’s the line TOG has operated on ever since.

One Thread. Many Faces.

A hundred pieces across dozens of topics looks scattered from the outside. TDSB trustees. Rogers Communications. Roblox. Reproductive rights. Ukraine. Palm oil. Forced labour supply chains. Men’s mental health. Lahaina.

What connects them isn’t geography or sector or political category. It’s the same disease wearing different clothes.

Overreach.

Provincial interference treating public school land — land held in trust for children — as an asset to be leveraged by Queen’s Park for interests that have nothing to do with education, while the trustees whose job is to protect that land find themselves systematically undermined. Rogers operating as though market dominance is a substitute for accountability. Governments legislating at the edges of their mandate and counting on public exhaustion to cover the distance.

The Roblox investigation revealed something that still sits heavily — a system architecture that allows child predators to operate with near impunity, and a corporation that knows it. The reporting didn’t come from insider access or leaked documents. It came from surface-level news reports and concerned parents run through a rigorous analytical framework. What emerged was a pattern the company had every reason to obscure and every ability to fix.

They hadn’t fixed it.

That’s overreach of a different kind — not the reach for power, but the reach for profit over protection. The calculus that treats harm as an acceptable variable.

Across every file TOG has opened, the question underneath the question is always the same: who decided they were entitled to this, and what were they counting on to get away with it?

Usually the answer is: they were counting on nobody looking.

What I’ve Been Called

In 100 pieces I have yet to be pushed back on in good faith.

Not once has someone engaged the methodology, challenged a source, or offered a counter-argument built on evidence. What I’ve received instead is a taxonomy of labels: right wing, propaganda, fascist, Nazi, slop.

When I reported on the release of a convicted child predator — his sentence had been served, the system released him, that’s how it works — people in that thread turned on me. The label they reached for was child predator sympathizer.

Let that land for a moment.

I reported a legal fact. A sentence ended. An institutional process concluded. I didn’t editorialize. I didn’t defend the man. I stated what happened.

The outrage didn’t go toward the system that released him. It came at me for noting it.

That’s not criticism — that’s deflection. Discomfort with reality redirected at the person reporting it. And it is itself a data point about exactly the kind of reflexive, evidence-free reaction TOG exists to cut through.

What I’ve observed is that cutting truth gets labeled as right wing by those who’ve drifted far enough left that objectivity reads as opposition. The truth lands as a lie because it doesn’t confirm what they already believe.

My read on them is this: they’re asleep. Inured to the system. Defending a glass house of cards that doesn’t need their protection — because it was never strong enough to stand on its own. They just haven’t looked at it closely enough to know that yet.

TOG looks closely. That’s the job.

I’ll also say this plainly: I have not yet had a solid barometer of correctness because no one has offered one. I remain open to good faith challenge. The North Star doesn’t move for comfort — but it moves for evidence. Bring evidence and we’ll have a conversation.

The Machine. The Ledger. What’s Next.

The Iron Ledger — TOG’s long-term accountability archive — is active.

The TDSB investigation is not closed. The Rogers file is not closed. There are threads in the ledger that have been running quietly for months, waiting for the evidence to reach the threshold that earns publication. That threshold exists for a reason. Faith-level material stays internal. Evidence gets monitored. Proof gets published.

That’s the discipline that separates accountability journalism from noise.

What’s coming won’t be announced prematurely. The North Star governs what gets published, not what gets promised. But the machine is running. The signal is clean. And the pattern that emerged across the first 100 pieces hasn’t gone anywhere — it’s gotten clearer.

Overreach doesn’t stop because someone is watching. But it gets harder to hide.

To The Reader

There are a few of you who have been here since close to the beginning. Who read without performing. Who share quietly. Who come back.

You are not the loudest part of this audience. You never are. But you are the reason the function exists beyond my own compulsion to follow the truth wherever it goes.

This work costs time. It costs the hours between the day job and sleep, the weekends that could be something else, the mental real estate that once occupied gets hard to vacate. I still spend time with my family. I haven’t lost perspective on what matters. But I won’t pretend this is effortless — because pretending serves no one.

What keeps the machine running isn’t momentum or audience size or milestone numbers.

It’s that truth compels me. Productively.

One hundred pieces in, that hasn’t changed.

The Old Guardian continues.

Truth over narrative. Always.

www.theoldguardian.ca

THE ARCHITECTURE OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL POWER | Part 1 of 7 This investigation follows the institutions that built America, from the textile mills of New England to the technology campuses of the Pacific Coast, asking the same questions in every place: Who built the community? Who held the power? Who benefited? And what was left behind?

A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

This series did not begin in a newsroom or with a source.

It began on a Sunday evening in Toronto, with a film.

I was watching Dopesick, the dramatization of Beth Macy’s investigation into the opioid crisis, when I found myself doing what I always do when something on screen refuses to stay fictional. I started pulling the thread. What was real? What was documented? Where exactly did this happen, and why there?

That led me to West Virginia. West Virginia led me to DuPont and the town of Parkersburg. Parkersburg led me to Dark Waters, the 2019 film documenting attorney Robert Bilott’s two-decade legal battle against a corporation that knowingly poisoned a community’s water supply for profit and called it a business decision.

I watched Dark Waters the same night. When it ended I was holding a can of sunscreen, reading the ingredient list, and asking the same question Robert Bilott spent twenty years asking: what else did they know, and when did they know it?

That question did not go away. It never does.

What started as a single evening’s curiosity about West Virginia became something larger. The more I pulled the thread, the more the geography expanded. West Virginia to Appalachia. Appalachia to New England. New England south and then west across two centuries of American industrial history. And then, inevitably, north. Home.

This series is what happened when I stopped watching and started looking.

The United States section documents the history, the pattern, and the architecture of concentrated institutional power as it moved across the American landscape from the 1820s to the present day. It is rigorous, it is sourced, and it pulls no punches, but it is written from the outside looking in.

The Canadian series will follow. That work requires more time, more access, and more primary documentation than a parallel production schedule would allow. When it arrives, it will be written by a Canadian citizen about Canadian institutions, Crown corporations, provincial governments, and communities that are still living inside a version of this story right now. It will not be written from the outside looking in.

Robert Bilott read every document DuPont hoped nobody would ever read. Erin Brockovich knocked on doors in a town that wished she would stop. Both of them were told the same thing at the start: there is no story here.

There is always a story here.

Chris Allen

Founder and Editor, The Old Guardian

Toronto, Ontario

Across two centuries of American history, certain communities repeatedly organized themselves around a single dominant institution. Sometimes it was a mill. Sometimes a mine. Sometimes a steel company. Sometimes the federal government. Today, sometimes it is a technology company. This series asks what those communities have in common, and what they reveal about the relationship between economic power and civic life.

By Chris Allen | The Old Guardian

Series: The Architecture of American Industrial Power

There is a song most Americans have heard but few have examined. Sixteen Tons, recorded by Tennessee Ernie Ford in 1955, sits comfortably in the catalogue of American folk memory. The chorus contains a line that most people treat as colorful lyric: you load sixteen tons and what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don’t you call me, cause I can’t go. I owe my soul to the company store.

That was not a metaphor. That was a job description.

In the coal fields of Appalachia, the textile mills of New England, the copper mines of Montana, and the lumber camps of the Pacific Northwest, the company store was the institution through which corporations converted wages into debt and workers into property. The scrip they issued instead of legal currency was redeemable only at prices the company set, in buildings the company owned, in towns the company built, policed, and governed without an election in sight.

This is Part One of a series examining concentrated institutional power across American history and American geography. The vehicle for that examination is the company town, the most visible and fully documented expression of that power in the American record. But the company town is not the subject. It is the entry point.

The questions this series sets out to answer are not historical curiosities. They are active. What conditions allow a single institution to assume total authority over a community? How does that authority sustain itself? What breaks it, when anything does? And what remains when the institution departs?

The evidence assembled across seven parts will test a framework. It will not announce a conclusion. The conclusion, if the evidence supports one, will be visible by Part Seven. For now, the investigation begins where the architecture first became visible enough to examine.

The company town is not the subject. It is the entry point.

WHAT A COMPANY TOWN ACTUALLY WAS

The definition sounds simple. A company town is a community in which a single corporation owns most or all of the land, housing, utilities, and commercial infrastructure, while simultaneously serving as the primary or sole employer of residents. Housing was rented to workers at rates the company set, deducted directly from wages. The company store stocked food, clothing, and necessities at prices the company also set. The company hired the police, ran the schools, collected the garbage, and dispensed justice. Workers who complained found themselves without a job. Workers without a job found themselves without a home. The eviction notice and the termination letter arrived together.

At its peak, by 1930, an estimated two million Americans lived in company towns. That figure almost certainly undercounts the total because many towns were unincorporated, meaning they existed entirely outside any civic framework that would have registered them in a census category. They were not cities. They were not villages. They were holdings.

The legal mechanism was property law, not labour law. Because the corporation owned the land, the buildings, and the roads, it could enforce its rules as a landlord rather than as an employer. Dismissal and eviction were a single act. Workers had no recourse because what was being done to them was, by the legal standards of the era, not being done to them as workers. It was being done to them as tenants.

This distinction is not a footnote. It is the entire architecture. The company town was, at its core, a method of removing labour disputes from the terrain of labour law and relocating them onto the terrain of property rights, where corporations held every advantage.

THE FIVE QUESTIONS

This series applies a consistent investigative framework across every community it examines. These are not conclusions. They are the questions an investigator asks before the evidence has been fully assembled. They will be applied in every subsequent part of this series without re-explanation.

Read them once. They will do the rest of the work.

1. Why here?

Looking for: What made this location suitable for total institutional control? Geography, resource concentration, absence of alternatives, deliberate site selection.

Exposes: Engineered or exploited isolation. Communities chosen because resistance would be structurally difficult.

2. Who held power?

Looking for: Who governed daily life? Was civic authority independent of the dominant institution, or absorbed by it?

Exposes: Regulatory capture. The point at which the employer and the government become functionally indistinguishable.

3. How did wealth move?

Looking for: Did wages leave the corporate ecosystem, or were they recovered through rents, prices, fees, and debt structures controlled by the same institution?

Exposes: Circular currency. The mechanism by which apparent compensation becomes net extraction.

4. What did it cost?

Looking for: What was the human, civic, environmental, and generational price paid by the community? Who paid it, and who was insulated from it?

Exposes: Cultural dehumanization. The narrative strategies used to make the community’s costs invisible, or to attribute them to the community itself.

5. What was the exit strategy?

Looking for: How did the institution plan to leave? Who designed the exit? Who was informed? What obligations were acknowledged, and which were abandoned?

Exposes: Structured abandonment. The conditions left behind, and the gap between what was owed and what was paid.

These questions will not be re-explained in subsequent parts. They will simply be asked. By Part Four, the reader will be asking them independently, before the article does. That is the point.

Five questions. Seven parts. The framework holds or it does not. The evidence will decide.

THE LEGAL ARCHITECTURE

During the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, the proprietors of company towns exercised what legal scholars have described as absolute control through the private law of property and contract. The corporation did not need elected authority because it had something more reliable: ownership. It imposed its rules not as a government, which would have faced constitutional constraints, but as a landlord, which faced almost none.

The Pullman Palace Car Company built its town just south of Chicago in 1880 and ran it for fourteen years before the model collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. George Pullman owned every building, every lot, every pew in every church. He set the rent, set the prices, and set the rules. When the economic panic of 1893 reduced demand for his railway cars, he cut wages. He did not cut rents. Workers struck. Federal troops were dispatched. Thirty people died. The Illinois Supreme Court eventually forced Pullman to divest the town, finding the arrangement incompatible with democratic governance. What the court did not do was establish that the underlying model was illegal. It found that this particular version had gone too far. The model itself survived.

The coal towns that followed Pullman refined the approach. They dropped the most visible paternalism while keeping the structural controls. Housing contingent on employment. Debt accumulated at the company store. Eviction as the consequence of dissent. Sheriffs who answered to the mine owners rather than to the public. The result was a system that was harder to photograph and harder to legislate against, because it lacked the theatrical overreach of Pullman while preserving every mechanism that mattered.

THE BRIEF INTERRUPTION

The company town had a weakness its architects did not fully anticipate. It depended on the absence of alternatives. When alternatives arrived, the model began to crack.

The automobile gave workers mobility that rail-dependent company towns could not suppress. Workers could live outside the town and commute. They could shop outside the company store. The isolation that had been an engineering achievement began to erode as roads extended into previously remote areas.

The New Deal delivered a series of legislative blows. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 guaranteed the right to organize. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 banned scrip as a method of payment, established a federal minimum wage, and capped the working week. The pay envelope that had once contained nothing after company store deductions now had a legal floor below which it could not go.

By mid-century, the classic company town was largely gone as a formal structure. The housing was sold off. The company stores closed. The scrip was gone. Commentators declared the model dead.

The five questions remained unanswered in a great many places.

The institution dissolved. The conditions that produced it did not.

WHY THE SERIES MOVES EAST TO WEST

This series follows American industrial history geographically because, for much of American history, industry moved in the same direction. Each region inherited a different economic model, a different relationship between employer and community, and a different legacy from what preceded it.

New England produced the first planned industrial communities in America, built on waterpower and imported textile technology in the 1820s. The South absorbed the model after the Civil War, reconfigured it around a different labor supply, and added a layer of coercion the New England version had largely concealed. Appalachia became the deepest and most documented case of single-industry extraction in American history, accumulating consequences across coal, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals over a century and a half. The industrial Midwest built cities from nothing, generated the most visible labor conflicts in American history, and then watched those cities discover what they had actually been built on. The American West produced the most physically isolated version of the model, where distance itself was the primary instrument of control.

By following that path, this series is not simply traveling across the United States. It is moving through the evolution of concentrated institutional power itself, watching the model adapt to new geographies, new industries, new legal environments, and new labor forces, while the five questions underneath it remain the same in every place.

The final part of the series will examine what that evolution looks like today. The names of the institutions have changed. The geographies are different. Whether the questions still yield answers is what Part Seven will determine.

THE SERIES

Part Two: The Mill and the Machine. New England, 1820 onward. Before coal, before steel, before oil, before Silicon Valley, there was a river in Massachusetts. This is where the model was invented, where it was first tested against labor resistance, and where the first cracks appeared.

Part Three: The Southern Shift. The textile industry migrated south after the Civil War chasing cheaper, non-union labor. Company town mechanics merged with convict leasing to produce the most coercive iteration of the model in American history.

Part Four: The Internal Colony. Appalachia in depth. Coal, chemical contamination, pharmaceutical flooding. Three industries, one region, the same five questions applied across a century and a half. The question Part Four asks is whether the sequence was coincidental or structural.

Part Five: Steel, Scrip, and the Strike Line. The industrial Midwest. Cities built from empty land, the labor movement that broke the classic company town, and what those cities discovered when the institutions that built them departed.

Part Six: Timber, Copper, and the Frontier Franchise. The American West. The most geographically isolated version of the model, where physical distance between communities and any external authority was itself the primary instrument of control.

Part Seven: Same Town, Different Logo. The present. The five questions applied to the dominant institutional relationships of contemporary American economic life. The evidence will determine what they find.

The first company towns were built with timber, brick, and railroads. This series begins where the architecture first became visible. Where it ends will depend on what the evidence shows.

A NOTE ON SOURCES AND METHOD

This series relies on primary documentation wherever available: government commission reports, court records, legislative testimony, and corporate internal documents that have entered the public record through litigation or regulatory disclosure. Where secondary sources are cited, they are used as guides to primary material, not as authorities in themselves.

The Five Questions are investigative tools, not conclusions. They are applied against the evidence in each regional part. Where the evidence does not support a finding, that will be noted. Where the evidence supports a different interpretation, that interpretation will be presented alongside this one.

The goal is not to produce a polemic. It is to produce a record. What was built, where it was built, who built it, what it cost the people who lived inside it, and what, if anything, remains.

NEXT IN THE SERIES

Part Two: The Mill and the Machine | New England 1820-1935

Chris Allen is the founder and editor of The Old Guardian (theoldguardian.ca), an independent investigative journalism outlet based in Toronto. Correspondence: tips@theoldguardian.ca

Leave a comment

Investigative Journalism for the Public Interest

BCE Inc. is Canada’s oldest and largest telecommunications company. It owns CTV, TSN, Crave, and the country’s fastest fibre network. For decades, its dividend was the point — the reason cautious investors held the stock, the thing financial advisors called safe. On May 8, 2025, BCE’s board cut it by 56.1 percent. The investigation that follows examines what that decision revealed about everything that had been building underneath — and what it means for the Canadians on hold, in grief, with a company that never built a system for them.

By Christopher Allen

The Old Guardian • June 2026

I. The Call

Someone called Bell the other day to cancel their late mother’s home internet service.

Bell’s system transferred them to the loyalty team. The agent asked whether they lived at the address. Whether they wanted to transfer the account into their name. The mother had lived alone. Then the agent asked about the caller’s own home internet — who their provider was. The caller cut them off and reminded them they were calling to cancel a dead woman’s internet.

The agent closed the account. Told them where to return the equipment. Then immediately pitched a wireless plan.

The account of this exchange was posted publicly to r/bell, Reddit’s Bell Canada community forum, in May 2026. The poster’s framing was precise: “I know the agent was doing their job, and they did it well. But whoever designed this system is a parasite.”

This is not a story about one agent. The agent was following the script. Bell’s customer retention systems are designed to extract revenue at every contact point — including the ones that happen because someone’s mother just died. A separate commenter on the same thread, identifying themselves as a current Bell representative, explained the mechanism plainly: Bell uses AI to monitor whether agents are pitching on calls. Context is not part of the evaluation. If you don’t pitch every call, your job is on the line.

When The Old Guardian asked Bell Canada whether its customer retention systems include a sales pitch protocol that activates during bereavement calls, and whether any exception handling exists for such calls, Bell Canada’s Senior Manager of Media Relations, Elise von Scheel, responded on May 16, 2026: “Bell has clearly defined scenarios where sales pitches should not occur, including bereavement-related customer service calls. These expectations are regularly reinforced with frontline teams to ensure sensitive situations are handled appropriately.”

Bell Canada did not describe the specific content of those scenarios. It did not explain why multiple independent accounts document representatives as unaware of or failing to apply any such policy. It did not address whether its AI-powered call monitoring system accounts for call context when evaluating agent performance.

A policy asserted is not a policy demonstrated. The r/bell forum contains a catalogue of what Bell’s bereavement systems look like in practice. A widow trying to access her late husband’s Sympatico email found the password reset routed to a phone number cut off after his death, with no clear path through Bell’s account management systems. A family cancelling a deceased grandmother’s phone plan spent twenty minutes on hold before finding a representative who knew what Bell’s death policies were — and then discovered the plan hadn’t actually been cancelled after the first call, so another month’s payment went through. Credits were issued that will never be used because the grandmother is, as the poster wrote, “all ashes now.” An estate executor in Ontario spent months navigating five representatives, three hangups, and one agent who demanded a power of attorney — which ceases to exist at death — before making any progress. Mail continued to arrive addressed to the deceased’s name months after the executor had submitted proof of authority over the estate.

A commenter in that final thread noted that their father went through the same experience in 2011 — faxed three death certificates plus all required documentation, received identical treatment, then had a collection agency pursue his posthumous credit rating because Bell kept billing a dead man.

That was fifteen years ago. Bell’s policy, it says, is clearly defined. The system, the accounts suggest, has not changed.

The financial stakes beneath this pattern are not incidental. Under Bell’s own published policy, the estate of a deceased account holder is responsible for all outstanding charges accrued until the service is cancelled. Charges that accumulate because Bell’s cancellation system failed — because a representative gave incorrect information, because a confirmation number didn’t actually close the account, because a family member was hung up on and had to start over — are legally enforceable against the estate. The executor who couldn’t get through to Bell, or who received a confirmation that meant nothing, may be administering an estate that is simultaneously being billed by a company whose own system made cancellation impossible. In 2017, CBC News documented a case in which Bell Mobility continued drawing from a dead man’s bank account after his daughter, the named executor, had called to cancel the account and received a confirmation number. The confirmation number was meaningless. The system kept running.

Bell created the liability. Bell’s legal framework collects it. The family pays it out of what their relative left behind. The credits issued when Bell eventually acknowledges the error — as in the case of the grandmother whose family was told the credits “will never be used” — are Bell’s solution to Bell’s problem. The estate gets nothing back. The family absorbs the cost of navigating a system that was never designed to let them out.

Bell is not alone in this. The r/Rogers and r/TELUS forums contain their own parallel records. A deceased man’s Rogers account sent to collections with interest. A family hit with a $320 early cancellation fee after notifying Rogers of a death, returning the equipment, and believing the account was closed — then told to call back the following week to confirm the reversal. A TELUS customer trying to cancel a deceased family member’s service: one hour on hold, four transfers, contradictory information at each layer, then a hangup. Another TELUS customer trying to shift a bill into her name after her husband’s death — told it couldn’t be done without increasing her bill. A family in British Columbia whose father’s twenty-four years of email correspondence were permanently deleted by TELUS after a representative migrated the account, was explicitly warned this might delete the emails, said it wouldn’t, and did it anyway.

Between August 2025 and January 2026, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services accepted 2,505 complaints about Bell Canada — up 26 percent from the same period the prior year. The CCTS’s mid-year report documented a 61 percent industry-wide surge in accepted complaints, more than double the rate of consumer protection code breaches compared to the prior year. The CCTS’s mandate does not cover customer service complaints, which it categorizes as out-of-mandate. The complaints that reach the CCTS are the ones customers know they can file. The ones involving grief, confusion, and systems that simply keep running because nobody turned them off — those don’t make the count.

The reason these systems work this way is not mystery. It is arithmetic. Bell’s customer experience infrastructure was built to acquire customers, retain customers, and extract revenue from customers. Death does not appear in any of those optimization functions. It was never optimized. And because Bell, Rogers, and TELUS operate in a market with no meaningful competition that would punish this failure — because a grieving family leaving Bell finds Rogers and TELUS waiting with the same non-system — the incentive to build something better has never materialized.

The oligopoly doesn’t just harm Canadians through high prices and slow networks. It harms them by removing the competitive pressure that would force any of these companies to treat the worst moments of their customers’ lives with basic institutional competence.

What follows is an investigation into how BCE arrived at the financial and strategic position that makes that competence increasingly unlikely to develop.

———

II. The Cut

For most of its modern existence, BCE Inc. paid its investors to wait. The dividend was the promise — a reliable quarterly return that grew almost every year, the financial equivalent of a utility’s stability attached to a company whose name was on hockey arenas, news broadcasts, and the side of every Bell truck in the country. The dividend was not incidental to BCE’s investment thesis. The dividend was the investment thesis.

In February 2023, BCE raised it 5.2 percent, from $3.68 to $3.87 per share annually. In February 2024, it raised it again, 3.1 percent, to $3.99. In February 2025, it held it flat, still $3.99, still safe. Eleven weeks later, BCE’s board established the annualized dividend at $1.75 per common share.

That is a reduction of 56.1 percent. Effective July 15, 2025.

The announcement came with the language of strategic discipline. BCE described the cut as a reflection of its “focus on enhancing financial flexibility, supporting accelerated deleveraging and optimizing BCE’s cost of capital in the current operating and capital market environment.” The board, it said, remained committed to “maintaining a meaningful and sustainable dividend for shareholders.”

What it did not say is what kind of shareholder BCE had spent decades cultivating, and what the cut meant to them. BCE was not primarily owned by traders seeking capital appreciation. Its shareholder base had been built on the promise of income: pension funds, retirees, retail investors holding BCE in registered accounts because a financial advisor had told them, correctly until recently, that Canada’s largest telecom didn’t cut its dividend.

The BCE 2025 Annual Information Form records the dividend history without commentary. The table is sufficient commentary on its own. The company raised its payout in 2023. It raised it again in 2024. Then it cut it by more than half.

What changed was not BCE’s strategy. What changed was BCE’s situation.

———

III. The Company

BCE Inc. — Bell Canada Enterprises — was incorporated in 1970 and traces its operational lineage through Bell Canada to 1880. It is Canada’s largest communications company by total revenue and total combined customer connections. Its shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. Its 2025 annual revenues were $24.47 billion. At year-end 2025, it employed 38,683 people.

Unlike Rogers Communications, which operates under the effective permanent control of the Rogers family through a dual-class share structure, BCE has no controlling shareholder. It is a conventionally governed public company, overseen by a board of fourteen directors, led since 2020 by President and Chief Executive Officer Mirko Bibic.

BCE operates through three segments. Bell CTS Canada provides wireless and wireline services to residential, business, and government customers across Canada. Bell CTS U.S., a new segment created in 2025, comprises Ziply Fiber, the Pacific Northwest fibre Internet provider BCE acquired for approximately $7.6 billion Canadian in August 2025. Bell Media holds a portfolio of television, radio, out-of-home advertising, and streaming assets, including CTV, TSN, RDS, Crave, and the iHeartRadio Canada brand.

At its October 2025 Investor Day, BCE unveiled a three-year strategic plan built on four priorities: put the customer first, deliver the best fibre and wireless networks, lead in enterprise with AI-powered solutions, and build a digital media and content powerhouse. The refreshed brand platform — “Connection is everything” — was introduced the same day.

The plan was announced while three credit rating agencies had the company under negative pressure, while its core Canadian telecom revenues were declining, while Bell Media had recognized nearly $2 billion in asset impairments over the prior twelve months, and while BCE was simultaneously executing the largest acquisition in its recent history.

The strategy is coherent on paper. The question is whether BCE has the financial runway to execute it.

———

IV. The Retreat

The most revealing single fact about BCE’s strategic posture in 2025 is not what it bought. It is what it sold.

In May 2023, Bell Media completed the sale of its 63 percent ownership in certain production studios for net cash proceeds of $211 million. In June 2024, Bell Canada entered into an agreement to sell Northwestel — its northern telecommunications subsidiary serving the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut — to Sixty North Unity, a consortium of Indigenous communities, for up to $1 billion. That transaction has not yet closed.

In July 2025, BCE completed the sale of its 37.5 percent ownership stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment to Rogers Communications for $4.7 billion. BCE retained long-term content rights for the Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto Raptors on TSN through the 2043-44 season — the broadcast relationship without the equity.

In the first half of 2025, Bell Media completed the sale of substantially all of its 45 radio stations for expected proceeds of approximately $53 million. In October 2025, BCE completed the sale of substantially all of its home security and monitored alarm assets to a.p.i. ALARM Inc. for $170 million. In April 2025, Bell Media sold 669 out-of-home advertising displays in Quebec and Ontario for $14 million, required by a Competition Bureau consent agreement.

On March 26, 2026 — three weeks after BCE’s annual report was filed — BCE announced that Motorola Solutions Canada Networks Inc. had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Bell Mobility’s land mobile radio networks services business for CAD $675 million. Bell and Motorola Solutions Canada have operated this infrastructure together for more than thirty years. Following the sale, Bell will remain as a service delivery partner. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026.

The complete disposition inventory across roughly three years: production studios, MLSE stake, 45 radio stations, home security assets, OOH advertising displays, and the land mobile radio business. Combined announced or completed proceeds exceed $6.8 billion. Northwestel, if it closes, adds up to $1 billion more.

Against this, BCE made one major acquisition: Ziply Fiber, at approximately $7.6 billion Canadian all-in including assumed debt. BCE is trading its Canadian legacy asset portfolio for a single American growth bet.

The workforce tells a parallel story — and it is still being written. BCE has executed five rounds of job reductions since June 2023. First came 1,300 positions in June 2023, approximately three percent of the workforce at the time, accompanied by the closure of foreign news bureaus and nine radio stations. Then 4,800 positions in February 2024 — nine percent of the entire workforce — the largest single-round reduction in BCE’s recent history, accompanied by the sale of dozens of radio stations and the cancellation of multiple television newscasts. Then approximately 650 manager positions in November 2025. Then the year-end 2025 figures: a net reduction of 1,707 employees, from 40,390 to 38,683, with $517 million in severance, acquisition, and other costs recorded for the year. And then, on June 15, 2026 — as this investigation was being finalized — BCE confirmed a further 690 positions eliminated: 460 non-union employees and 230 unionized roles targeted through voluntary departure packages.

BCE described the June 2026 round as part of Bell’s three-year strategy to “drive sustainable growth in a highly competitive market,” telling CBC News the changes reflect “the migration of customers to a more resilient, easier-to-maintain fibre network and ongoing operating efficiencies.” The fibre network that Bell is cutting Canadian capital investment to build is simultaneously cited as the reason to cut the Canadian workforce that maintains what it replaces. The logic is internally coherent. Its human cost is not abstract.

Taken together, the reductions since June 2023 represent thousands of positions eliminated across Bell’s Canadian operations — engineering, network operations, management, media, and now unionized front-line roles. The restructuring is not decelerating. Each round is described as part of a plan. The plan keeps requiring another round.

The fibre network tells a third story. In November 2023, the CRTC issued an interim decision requiring BCE to provide wholesale aggregated access to its fibre-to-the-premise network — meaning Bell’s competitors, including Rogers and TELUS, could resell services on BCE’s own fibre infrastructure at mandated rates. In August 2024, the CRTC made the obligation final and expanded its geographic scope.

Bell’s response was unambiguous. Its 2025 annual report states that the CRTC’s decision “undermined Bell Canada’s incentives to invest in next-generation wireline networks” and that “as a direct result, Bell Canada has reduced its capital expenditures in Canada by $593 million in 2025 alone and by over $1.2 billion since the interim decision in November 2023.”

What the annual report does not state plainly, but what the capital expenditure tables confirm, is the directional shift embedded in those numbers. Bell CTS Canada’s capital spending fell by $593 million in 2025. Bell CTS U.S. — Ziply Fiber — added $388 million in capital investment in the same year. BCE is not simply cutting capital spending. It is rebalancing capital from Canada to the United States. The regulatory environment it built its business inside for 145 years has become, in its own assessment, a disincentive to invest. So it is investing elsewhere.

Bell missed its near-term fibre build target of 8.3 million locations by the end of 2025. Its FTTP footprint reached approximately 8 million homes and businesses at December 31, 2025. A $593 million shortfall in investment translated directly into fewer Canadians connected to its best network.

———

V. The Numbers

BCE’s 2025 annual report contains a line in its financial performance summary table worth isolating: “Net earnings growth: n.m.” Not meaningful. The category was abandoned because the comparison — $6.3 billion in reported net earnings in 2025 against $163 million in 2024 — is structurally misleading. The 2025 number includes a $5.2 billion gain on the MLSE sale. Strip that out, and 2025 net earnings are substantially lower. Strip out the 2024 impairment charges of $2.19 billion, and 2024 looks worse than its headline. The reported numbers are less a picture of BCE’s financial health than a catalogue of extraordinary items.

The underlying business tells a more legible story.

Bell CTS Canada operating revenues — the core Canadian telecom business — declined 1.5 percent in 2025. Wireless revenues fell 0.4 percent. Wireline voice revenues fell further, continuing a structural decline driven by technology substitution that will not reverse. Bell CTS Canada adjusted EBITDA declined year over year.

The wireless subscriber numbers are where the structural break is most visible. Mobile phone postpaid net subscriber activations — the metric that most directly measures wireless business health — fell 51.9 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. BCE’s own annual MD&A explains why: “slowing population growth mainly attributable to government immigration policies, fewer lower-value bring-your-own-device activations.”

This is the same structural shift documented in Part One of this series. Rogers Communications reported postpaid wireless net additions of 145,000 in full-year 2025, down from 380,000 in 2024. BCE’s full-year 2025 figures show a parallel collapse. Both companies confirm independently, in their own regulatory filings, that the immigration-driven demographic engine powering a decade of wireless subscriber growth has stopped.

Bell CTS Canada’s retail high-speed Internet subscriber base was essentially flat year-over-year. BCE’s filings attribute this directly to “slowing market growth, driven by lower immigration and slowing housing starts.” The Internet business that Bell spent billions building its fibre network to serve is no longer growing in Canada.

Bell Media is a separate category of deterioration. When a company pays for an asset — a broadcast licence, a television network, a portfolio of radio stations — it records that asset on its balance sheet at the price it paid. If the business environment changes and that asset is now worth less than what was originally paid for it, accounting rules require the company to formally recognize the loss. That recognition is called an impairment charge, or a write-down: the company is writing down the value of what it owns to reflect what it is actually worth today. It is not a cash expense. It is a formal admission, required by accounting standards, that something BCE bought is worth less than BCE paid for it — and that the gap between those two numbers is large enough that it can no longer be ignored.

In the third quarter of 2025, BCE identified those indicators of loss in its Bell Media TV services, radio markets, and out-of-home advertising business, citing “a decline in legacy advertising demand and spending in the linear advertising market.” The impairment testing that followed produced $976 million in write-downs in a single quarter — against $958 million in impairment charges in the same quarter of 2024, plus a further $1.132 billion in goodwill impairment in 2024. Goodwill is the premium a company pays above the assessed market value of an asset when it acquires it — the extra amount paid in anticipation of future earnings that, in Bell Media’s case, did not fully arrive. Writing down goodwill is an admission that those expected earnings will not come.

Two consecutive years of nine-figure impairment charges against the same asset class is not a market fluctuation. It is a balance sheet declaration that Bell Media’s legacy assets — the broadcast licences, the program rights, the physical infrastructure of conventional television — are worth materially less than BCE paid for them, and less again each year.

The dividend payout ratio completes the picture. For the year ended December 31, 2025, BCE’s implied dividend payout ratio based on free cash flow after payment of lease liabilities was approximately 99 percent. The company cut its dividend by more than half and still paid out nearly every dollar of free cash flow after lease obligations in the transitional year. The 2026 target payout range is 40 to 55 percent of free cash flow. Whether BCE reaches that range will depend on free cash flow growth that its Canadian business is not currently generating.

———

VI. The Ratings

Between August 2024 and May 2025, three major credit rating agencies took negative action on BCE and Bell Canada. The sequence and stated rationale document an external assessment of BCE’s financial trajectory that predates and contextualizes the strategic pivot BCE announced in October 2025.

In August 2024, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded Bell Canada’s issuer rating to Baa2 from Baa1, and BCE’s issuer rating to Baa3 from Baa2. Stated reason: ongoing debt leverage above Moody’s thresholds for the prior ratings.

In September 2024, S&P Global Ratings downgraded BCE and its subsidiaries to BBB from BBB+, and lowered BCE’s preferred shares to BB+ on the global scale — below investment grade by S&P’s own definition. Stated reason: ongoing debt leverage above S&P’s thresholds.

In November 2024, DBRS placed all its BCE and Bell Canada credit ratings under review with negative implications, following BCE’s announcement of the Ziply Fiber acquisition. The message was explicit: BCE was proposing to acquire a large U.S. asset while already carrying leverage above its own internal targets.

In May 2025 — the same month BCE cut its dividend — S&P revised its outlook on BCE and Bell Canada back to negative from stable, again citing ongoing leverage above thresholds. DBRS downgraded Bell Canada’s senior long-term debt to BBB from BBB (high), and its subordinated and junior subordinated debt to BB (high) — below investment grade by DBRS’s scale. Third agency. Third downgrade. Same diagnosis.

BCE’s net debt leverage ratio at December 31, 2025, was 3.78 times adjusted EBITDA. BCE’s internal leverage policy target is approximately 3.0 times. Its stated target for end of 2027 is 3.5 times. Its policy level of 3.0 times is now targeted for 2030 — without announcement, the goalposts moved in the annual report. BCE is giving itself until 2030 to reach its own internal leverage standard.

The instruments BCE has been issuing to refinance its debt compound the picture. The Series A and B junior subordinated notes issued in February 2025 carry initial rates of 6.875 percent and 7.0 percent. The Series C notes issued in March 2025 carry 5.625 percent. The February 2026 Series D and E notes carry 5.375 percent and 5.875 percent. BCE is refinancing legacy debt with new instruments that rating agencies partially classify as below investment grade, at rates that reflect that classification.

Three agencies. One diagnosis. BCE entered its strategic transformation while carrying more leverage than its own targets allow, rated partly below investment grade on the instruments it chose to fund that transformation.

———

VII. The Bet

On August 1, 2025, BCE completed its acquisition of Ziply Fiber, the leading fibre Internet provider in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, for cash consideration of US$3.64 billion — approximately CAD$5.01 billion — plus the assumption of approximately CAD$2.6 billion in outstanding net debt at closing. BCE immediately redeemed all of Ziply’s outstanding debt securities, replacing them with Bell Canada’s own paper. The all-in Canadian dollar cost of the transaction was approximately $7.6 billion.

Ziply Fiber operates fibre-based and copper-based networks serving residential, business, and wholesale customers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. At year-end 2025, it had approximately 435,000 retail high-speed Internet subscribers. In the five months BCE owned it in 2025, it generated $392 million in operating revenue at an EBITDA margin of approximately 44.4 percent.

The strategic logic is stated plainly in BCE’s filings: escape the slowing Canadian market, build scale in U.S. fibre, and position as the third-largest fibre Internet provider in North America. Through a separate partnership with PSP Investments — the Public Sector Pension Investment Board — BCE formed Network FiberCo to accelerate fibre expansion through Ziply into underserved U.S. markets, with the potential to reach up to 8 million fibre locations.

The counter-argument is equally plain. BCE acquired a U.S. growth asset while its Canadian subscriber growth had stopped, while its credit ratings were deteriorating, while it was cutting its dividend to free up cash flow, and while it was simultaneously shedding Canadian assets to finance the purchase. BCE is cutting Canadian network investment by $593 million while adding $388 million in U.S. network investment. It is not simply diversifying. It is defunding one geography to fund another.

Scotiabank analyst Maher Yaghi, commenting on the subsequent Motorola land mobile radio sale, described that transaction as focused on “a legacy asset that generates stable revenue but is not considered a primary growth area.” This framing — legacy versus growth, Canadian versus American, stable versus expanding — is the lens through which every BCE transaction in the past three years resolves. The question BCE’s filings cannot answer is whether U.S. growth materializes fast enough to offset Canadian decline.

Ziply Fiber’s internal controls were explicitly excluded from BCE’s 2025 disclosure controls certification — a standard carve-out for newly acquired businesses, but a reminder that BCE is operating an asset it does not yet fully understand in a regulatory environment to which it is unaccustomed. BCE has acknowledged in its own risk disclosures that Ziply Fiber “is subject to significant regulation in the U.S. which may reduce the amount of subsidies or revenues it receives, increase its compliance burdens or constrain its ability to compete.”

BCE is betting that a Pacific Northwest fibre operator can generate enough growth to justify $7.6 billion in capital deployed at a moment when its own leverage ratio sits above its internal policy target and its Canadian core is shrinking. The fibre thesis is structurally sound. U.S. broadband markets have room to grow. But the bet is being made with borrowed money, rated partly below investment grade, by a company that cut its dividend to make the numbers work.

———

VIII. The Irony

BCE owns BNN Bloomberg.

The network that covers BCE’s stock price, BCE’s dividend cut, BCE’s credit rating downgrades, and BCE’s acquisition of Ziply Fiber — the primary financial news television channel in Canada — is a wholly owned asset of the subject of those stories, operating under the Bell Media umbrella.

When The Old Guardian raised this structural conflict with Bell Canada, Senior Manager of Media Relations Elise von Scheel responded: “Bell Media and CTV News are committed to upholding the principles of journalistic independence and integrity under all circumstances and at all times, without exception. CTV News, including BNN, clearly identifies its ownership in all reporting on BCE Inc. All CTV News properties, news directors, producers, editors, and journalists operate under a journalistic independence policy, which together with applicable industry codes — including the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics — govern impartiality and independence in CTV News’ newsgathering, reporting, and editorial decisions, and for ensuring the integrity of its news operations.”

The governance framework exists. The commitment is documented. The journalistic independence policy is real.

So is the structural conflict. BNN Bloomberg’s advertisers, anchor talent, and institutional relationships exist in a market where BCE’s financial health is a recurring news subject. The coverage of BCE by BNN Bloomberg may be entirely fair. It may also be subject to pressures — subtle, institutional, unremarkable — that are simply part of operating inside a conglomerate whose parent company is simultaneously a major news subject. Disclosure of ownership is not the same as independence from ownership. Bell Canada says the two are equivalent. The question is worth leaving open.

———

IX. The Reckoning

BCE Inc. is not failing. Its free cash flow in 2025 was $3.18 billion, up 10 percent year over year. Its fibre network is the fastest in Canada by independent measurement. Crave is growing. Bell Cyber was launched. The AI infrastructure buildout — Bell AI Fabric, the partnerships with Cohere, Perplexity, SAP, and others — represents a coherent vision of what a Canadian telecom could become. BCE has raised its AI revenue target to $2 billion by 2028, up from $1.5 billion, and Mirko Bibic has said the company is confident in the path.

What BCE is experiencing is the simultaneous expiration of the assumptions that made its business model work.

The immigration pipeline that drove a decade of wireless subscriber growth has been deliberately closed by the federal government. BCE’s own 2025 annual report confirms this in the present tense — not as a risk disclosure but as an explanation for why postpaid net additions fell 51.9 percent in a single year. The cable and conventional television bundle that anchored Bell Media’s advertising revenues has been abandoned by audiences at a pace that produced $2.19 billion in impairment charges in two consecutive years. The regulatory framework that protected BCE’s network investment by guaranteeing returns has been rewritten to mandate competitor access, and BCE has responded by withdrawing $1.2 billion in Canadian fibre investment. The dividend that defined BCE’s relationship with its shareholders for decades was cut in half when the underlying cash flows could no longer support it sustainably.

BCE’s response to this simultaneous expiration has been to retreat from declining Canadian positions and advance into a new geography. The Motorola land mobile radio sale, announced three weeks after BCE’s annual report was filed, adds $675 million to the disposition ledger and confirms the pattern is ongoing. BCE is monetizing every Canadian asset that generates stable revenue without offering growth prospects, and redeploying those proceeds toward U.S. fibre expansion and AI infrastructure.

Rogers built its moat and refused to believe the walls were falling. Bell looked at the same walls and started selling the stones.

There is a version of BCE’s strategy that looks like vision: a company that read the Canadian market clearly, recognized the structural deterioration before its competitors did, and made a disciplined decision to redeploy capital toward a geography with genuine growth potential. There is another version that looks like constrained desperation: a company with a leverage ratio above its own targets, credit ratings at the floor of investment grade, five rounds of workforce reductions in three years, and a Canadian core generating flat to declining revenues, making a $7.6 billion bet in a foreign regulatory environment because the alternative — staying in a market whose structural problems are not of its making and not within its power to fix — looked worse. Both versions are supported by the same set of facts. What separates them is not evidence. It is outcome. BCE has removed almost every financial cushion it had in order to execute a transformation that will take years to validate. If Ziply delivers, the strategy was bold. If it doesn’t, there will be very little left to catch the fall.

Whether that makes Bell smarter or merely faster in its recognition of the same underlying reality is a question the next several years of quarterly filings will answer. What is already documented — in BCE’s own annual reports, its credit rating disclosures, its regulatory filings, and the press releases it issues when it sells another piece of itself — is that Canada’s largest and oldest telecommunications company is in the middle of a transformation it did not choose and cannot afford to get wrong.

In the meantime, the retention script runs. The pitch follows the estate call. The system keeps going, because nobody built it to stop.

Bell says its policy is clearly defined. The accounts say something else. The distance between those two things is where the story lives.

The dividend was $3.99. Then it was $1.75. The bereavement call ends with a wireless plan. The estate pays the bill.

The numbers say what the strategy documents cannot. The customers experience what the earnings releases don’t mention.

———

Sources and Methodology

This investigation draws on the following primary sources:

BCE Inc. 2025 Annual Financial Report and Management’s Discussion and Analysis, filed with SEDAR+ March 5, 2026. BCE Inc. 2024 Integrated Annual Report and Management’s Discussion and Analysis, filed with SEDAR+ March 6, 2025. BCE Inc. 2023 Annual Financial Report and Management’s Discussion and Analysis, filed with SEDAR+. BCE Inc. Annual Information Form for the Year Ended December 31, 2025, filed March 5, 2026. BCE Inc. 2025 Third Quarter Management’s Discussion and Analysis, dated November 5, 2025. BCE Inc. news release, May 8, 2025: dividend reduction announcement. BCE Inc. news release, March 26, 2026: Motorola Solutions Canada Networks Inc. to Acquire Bell Canada’s Land Mobile Radio Networks Services Business. CRTC Telecom Decision CRTC 2023-358, November 6, 2023. CRTC Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2024-180, August 13, 2024. Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-226, September 4, 2025. DBRS Limited credit rating announcements for BCE and Bell Canada, 2024 and 2025. Moody’s Investors Service credit rating announcement for BCE and Bell Canada, August 2024. S&P Global Ratings credit rating announcements for BCE and Bell Canada, September 2024 and May 2025. Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, 2025-2026 Mid-Year Report. Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, 2024-2025 Annual Report. Bell Canada, support.bell.ca/billing-and-accounts/what_to_do_after_a_death, BCE bereavement account policy. CBC News, March 2017: Bell Mobility charging deceased account holder’s bank account after cancellation confirmation. Canadian Press and CBC News, June 15, 2026: BCE confirms 690 job reductions. Canadian Press, March 27, 2026: Motorola Solutions transaction commentary including Scotiabank analyst Maher Yaghi. Public posts on r/bell, r/Rogers, and r/telus communities on Reddit, 2011 through May 2026, documenting bereavement account management experiences across Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, and TELUS. Posts verified as publicly accessible at time of publication.

The Old Guardian contacted Bell Canada Media Relations on May 11, 2026 with four specific questions regarding its customer retention and bereavement account management protocols, and sought comment on the financial analysis and BNN Bloomberg conflict of interest documented in this investigation. Bell Canada responded on May 16, 2026 via Senior Manager of Media Relations Elise von Scheel. Bell Canada’s responses are quoted in full in the relevant sections of this investigation.

The Old Guardian contacted BCE Inc. for comment on the broader financial analysis and asset disposition pattern documented in this article. BCE did not respond by publication deadline.

Part Three of The Oligopoly Files examines TELUS Corporation: the national expansion, the international workforce strategy, and what the third pillar of Canada’s telecom oligopoly reveals about the industry’s structural future.

The Old Guardian accepts confidential tips from BCE, Bell Media, and Bell Canada employees, contractors, and former staff at tips@theoldguardian.ca. Secure communications welcomed.

My son doesn’t attend a Catholic school. I’m not Catholic. I have no personal stake in what gets taught in a separate school classroom, what prayers get said before lunch, or whether a Grade 9 retreat opens with a Scripture reading.

But I am a parent in this city. And I’ve spent the last several months paying close attention to an institution that educates roughly 84,000 students on public money, operating under a constitutional guarantee that it exists to provide something distinct — a Catholic education — that families have chosen and that taxpayers fund.

What I found is worth sharing. Not to pick a fight with anyone’s faith. But because when a publicly funded institution loses the ability to be what it claims to be, that’s a story for all of us. Same city, same storm.

The audit

Starting in December 2025, I began systematically cataloguing the Toronto Catholic District School Board’s official weekly communications — news stories, social media posts, board announcements. Not looking for scandal. Just looking at what the board chooses to say about itself, week after week, to the families it serves.

I classified every item by content type: explicitly Catholic or faith content, academic achievement, athletics and extracurricular, diversity and equity programming, administrative and operational matters.

Six months. Dozens of weeks. Hundreds of individual stories.

Here is what the data shows.

Outside of the Christmas season, explicitly Catholic or faith-related content represents approximately 8% of the TCDSB’s official communications. The remaining 92% is content that could appear, without alteration, on the feed of any secular public school board in Ontario. Chess tournaments. Jazz festivals. Robotics competitions. Dance showcases. Sports championships. International Women’s Day events. Student entrepreneurship contests.

All of it genuinely good. None of it distinctively Catholic.

The Christmas exception

In the weeks surrounding Christmas, the picture changes. The December 23 feed shows an Advent mass at St. Gerald’s, a nativity exploration at St. Brigid, Our Lady of Guadalupe honoured at Chaminade, a Festival of Lessons and Carols at St. Joseph’s. Faith content rises to roughly 35% of all communications that week.

This is the board speaking Catholic. And it does so fluently, warmly, with obvious institutional comfort.

But here is the question that doesn’t leave me alone: why only then?

Christmas has broad cultural cover. A nativity scene in December offends almost no one. Advent language reads as seasonal warmth rather than religious conviction. The Catholic voice emerges precisely when it costs the least to use it — when the calendar makes faith expression culturally safe, even welcome.

Which brings me to Lent.

Where Lent went

Lent is the forty-day season running from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday. It is, by any measure, the most countercultural season in the Catholic calendar. Fasting. Abstinence. Examination of conscience. Repentance. The stations of the cross. The slow, unflinching walk toward Good Friday and what it means.

Lent does not have broad cultural cover. It is not warm and inclusive in the way Christmas is. It asks something difficult. It names sin. It demands sacrifice. It is the season where Catholic identity is most distinct from the surrounding secular culture — and therefore the season where institutional courage matters most.

In the March feeds I catalogued — weeks falling squarely within Lent — explicitly Catholic spiritual content was almost entirely absent. One Grade 9 retreat. One item with a faith framing. Out of dozens of published stories across multiple weeks.

No Ash Wednesday content. No Lenten programming. No Catholic Social Teaching applied to the real pressures the board’s families face. No mention of fasting, sacrifice, or what the cross might mean to a student navigating a difficult year.

Swap the saint names off the school buildings and you cannot distinguish a TCDSB March feed from a TDSB one.

The easy interpretation is that the board is choosing to go quiet. I don’t think that’s the right one.

The cage

In June 2025, the Ontario Ministry of Education placed the Toronto Catholic District School Board under provincial supervision. Under Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act, the Ministry assumed expanded powers over board governance, budgets, delivery of education, student well-being, and more. A provincially appointed supervisor now holds operational authority that elected trustees once held.

The supervisor appointed to manage TCDSB’s affairs declined media interviews and redirected all questions to the Ministry of Education.

Read that again slowly. The operational voice of a Catholic school board — redirected to a secular provincial government.

This is not a communications preference. It is a structural condition. A board operating under Ministry supervision does not set its own agenda. It does not project its own identity freely. It manages compliance. It demonstrates alignment. It survives.

When Beach Metro Community News asked the TCDSB for comment on Bill 33’s impact on a specific Catholic school and a specific family, the board’s response was five words: “The Board is currently under Ministry Supervision.” Speak to Queen’s Park.

A Catholic institution, asked about its own schools, pointing to a secular government for answers.

And consider what else the Ministry has done. Under Bill 33, school boards were directed to block livestreams of their Special Education Advisory Committee meetings — the forums where parents advocate for their most vulnerable children. Trustees have had their operational authority stripped. The elected voice of Catholic school communities has been systematically reduced to an advisory function at best.

This is the cage. It was built quietly, legislatively, one directive at a time.

The provincial voice on Catholic turf

The moment that crystallized everything for me came from the December 23 communications feed.

On that date, the TCDSB published its Director of Education’s Christmas message — genuinely Catholic in tone, invoking Advent, hope, and the birth of Jesus. A few items away on the same platform, directed at the same families, sat a year-end message from Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra.

Not linked to. Not referenced. Published. On the TCDSB’s own communications platform. As a matter of routine.

The provincial voice sharing the stage with the Catholic voice. On Catholic turf. At Christmas.

This is what the normalization of Ministry authority looks like in practice. It doesn’t arrive with a declaration. It arrives as a year-end message, sitting quietly next to the Director’s, on a Catholic school board’s own website, and nobody remarks on it because it has become unremarkable.

The accommodation question

To be fair to the board, this tension has been named from inside. A trustee I spoke with raised it directly: the TCDSB serves students of many faiths. Non-Catholic families choose Catholic schools for various reasons — proximity, reputation, community. The board has to be Catholic while remaining welcoming to those who aren’t.

It’s a real tension. And the Catholic tradition has a coherent answer to it.

You welcome everyone. You don’t conceal what you are. You invite people into something. The encounter with a serious faith tradition is itself valuable, whatever a student’s own background. A confident Catholic identity extends itself as hospitality, not imposition.

But here is what that trustee’s framing leaves out: the board is not going quiet during Lent to accommodate non-Catholic families. Non-Catholic families chose a Catholic school. They understood, or should have understood, what they were entering.

The board is going quiet to accommodate the Ministry. And those are very different things.

When a Catholic institution self-censors its most distinctive voice not out of pastoral sensitivity but out of compliance with a secular government’s comfort level, that is not inclusion. That is capitulation. And the families who chose Catholic education — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — deserve to know the difference.

Who is responsible

I want to be precise here, because precision matters.

The TCDSB’s teachers are not responsible for this. The classroom communities I see in the feeds — the retreats, the masses, the service hours, the Corpus Christi celebrations — reflect genuine faith lived genuinely. The people doing the work of Catholic education in individual schools are, by all evidence, doing it.

The question is whether the institution that governs them is still able to project and protect a Catholic identity in the public square. And the answer, increasingly, is that it is not — not primarily because of choices the board has made, but because of the conditions the province has imposed.

Bill 33 did not just give the Ministry power over budgets and capital planning. It gave the Ministry effective control over what kind of institution the TCDSB is permitted to be. A board that must redirect all questions to Queen’s Park cannot simultaneously project a confident, countercultural Catholic identity. The compliance required by one makes the other structurally impossible.

That is the story underneath the data. The Catholic voice isn’t disappearing because the board has lost its faith. It’s disappearing because the province has made independence — institutional, financial, communicative — progressively harder to sustain.

From one parent to another

My son doesn’t attend a Catholic school. But 84,000 students do. Their families made a specific choice, protected by the Constitution, funded by the public, and premised on the promise that something distinct would be offered and maintained.

Six months of data suggests that promise is under serious pressure — and that the pressure is coming primarily not from within the board, but from above it.

I’m not a Catholic. But I understand what it means for a public institution to be captured by a government that didn’t like what it stood for. And I know that when that happens quietly enough, for long enough, most people don’t notice until the thing they chose is already gone.

It was Lent. You’d never know it.

And that’s not entirely the board’s fault.

The Old Guardian is an independent publication committed to source-driven, unspun journalism on Ontario education policy and institutional accountability. The content audit described in this piece was conducted across six weeks of TCDSB official communications from December 2025 through June 2026.

Leave a comment

The appeal window closed two weeks later. Nobody appealed. The file is now stamped, in the City’s own language, Final and Binding.

By every formal measure, this story is over. Decision made, process followed, record closed.

But “Final and Binding” doesn’t mean the public has nothing left to say about how we got here — and a close read of this one file says a great deal about how “minor” decisions get made along one of Scarborough’s major corridors.

The parking that doesn’t count

The applicant’s planner was upfront about it, in writing, in the official planning rationale: the building would have zero on-site parking spaces for visitors. In their place, a single “lay-by” space was proposed on the public boulevard — and the rationale itself acknowledges that this space “cannot be counted toward zoning compliance because it is located within the public right-of-way.”

Read that again. The mitigation offered for the missing parking requirement is, by the applicant’s own admission, not a legal substitute for the parking requirement. It was offered anyway. It was accepted anyway.

This is what a “minor” variance looks like in practice: a requirement is waived, a token gesture is offered in its place, and the gesture is conceded up front to not actually meet the standard it’s substituting for.

The objection that didn’t move the needle

This wasn’t an uncontested file. Ward 21 Councillor Michael Thompson wrote to the Committee twice — first in January, and again on May 6, 2026, the day of the hearing itself.

His second letter didn’t hedge. He laid out, point by point, why the lay-by space couldn’t address real parking demand from a 30-unit building, why the nearest transit option was too far to substitute for a car for seniors, families, and anyone carrying groceries in a Toronto winter, and why the cumulative effect of approvals like this one falls on streets that were never designed for it. He closed with a direct, unambiguous ask: refuse the variances.

The Committee approved both variances that same day, unanimously, with no indication in the decision that any of this was weighed. To be fair, this is standard practice — Committee of Adjustment decisions are boilerplate by design and don’t typically respond to individual correspondence point by point. But that standard practice has a cost: when a sitting councillor’s detailed, on-the-record objection produces no visible effect and no visible response, residents are left to wonder whether engaging with the process changes anything at all.

The legacy framework that’s outdated — until it isn’t

Here’s where the file gets genuinely interesting, and where “The Pharmacy Avenue Playbook” earns its title.

The variance to Chapter 900 Exception RD 289(E) — the provision setting a 7.5-metre building setback from Pharmacy Avenue — was reduced to 3.0 metres. Less than half. The planner’s justification, in their own words: this Chapter 900 exception “predates the City’s Major Streets policies and reflects a historical zoning framework,” and the reduced setback “reconciles a legacy site-specific zoning provision with the City’s contemporary planning framework” under By-law 608-2024.

In plain terms: the old rule is outdated, the new framework should govern, and the Committee should treat the 7.5-metre requirement as a relic to be set aside.

The Committee agreed. Unanimously.

Now consider this: the same planning firm, on a different application currently before the Toronto Local Appeal Body for a property on the same street, leans on a different Chapter 900 exception — and in that filing, the Chapter 900 framework isn’t a historical relic to be reconciled away. It’s a live, operative entitlement, cited in the same breath as the same contemporary By-law 608-2024, to justify more relief than the contemporary standard would otherwise permit.

Same chapter of the zoning by-law. Same street. Same firm. Within months of each other. And the legal status of the framework — outdated here, binding there — depends entirely on which answer gets the application approved.

We’re not arguing either file should have gone differently. We’re pointing out that a Committee approving variances based on “the old rule doesn’t really apply anymore” should probably know that the same applicant is, on a concurrent file, arguing the opposite when it suits them. Right now, nothing in the process surfaces that connection. The Committee that approved 910 had no way of knowing what was being argued, at the same time, about 397.

One file, a bigger pattern

910 Pharmacy Avenue is closed. We’re not asking anyone to reopen it, and we’re not accusing anyone of bad faith — planners advocate for their clients, that’s the job, and Committees approve what’s in front of them under the rules as written.

What this file documents is something more structural: a pattern of individually “minor” approvals — a parking space that doesn’t count, a setback cut by more than half, a framework that’s flexible exactly as far as it needs to be — each one weighed in isolation, none of them weighed against each other, and a public record that, once the ink is dry, gives residents no further say.

The Chapter 900 question raised here isn’t academic. A separate application on Pharmacy Avenue, where the same Chapter 900 framework is central to the planning argument, is currently before the Toronto Local Appeal Body. How that question gets resolved there may say something about whether “the old rule doesn’t apply anymore, except when it does” is a sustainable way to evaluate development along this corridor — or any corridor.

We’ll be watching.

The Old Guardian tracks civic accountability across Scarborough and Queen’s Park. File documents referenced in this piece are matters of public record, available through the City of Toronto’s Application Information Centre under file number A0231/25SC.

On June 2, 2026, a TDSB superintendent sent a letter to parents.

TOG reported on that letter the same week it was sent — before CBC, CTV, CP24, the Toronto Star, and the Toronto Sun all picked up the story this week. Not because TOG has resources those outlets don’t. Because TOG had already been reading the protectschoollands.ca property analysis, and that analysis had already flagged exactly this site as one TLC was watching.

This week the story became impossible to ignore. It’s worth slowing down and explaining what’s actually happening — and why TOG saw it coming.

The Letter

The letter, from Superintendent Jennifer Chan, explained that a 60-storey tower is being built at 149 College Street, directly next to Orde Street Public School’s outdoor play area. Construction will bring excessive vibration, traffic, noise, air quality concerns, and the risk of falling objects — conditions the board says are “not conducive to a safe learning environment.”

The board’s solution: move Orde Street’s roughly 400 students into the building currently occupied by Heydon Park Secondary School, about 700 metres away.

Heydon Park, in turn, will need to be relocated. The earliest that could happen is January 2027. Where, the letter doesn’t say.

What TOG Flagged First

Before this letter became a five-outlet story, TOG had already connected it to something most readers wouldn’t think to look for: the protectschoollands.ca property analysis — the same document underlying TOG’s reporting on the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal over school lands.

That document, compiled before the June 2 letter, already noted Orde Street’s situation in its internal commentary: TLC has been closely monitoring emerging redevelopment plans for adjacent properties with potential impacts resulting from proposed size and proximity to the Orde site. Over the coming year, TLC will continue to observe this potential redevelopment activity and explore opportunities that may arise for TDSB and the school community.

That sentence was written about a 60-storey tower next to a school. It described displacement as an “opportunity” before the displacement was announced.

This week, the opportunity arrived.

Who Heydon Park Serves

Heydon Park Secondary School, near Dundas Street West and Beverley Street, has existed for more than a century. It is a specialized public high school for young women, transgender, and non-binary students — many of whom have special education needs and arrived at Heydon Park because larger, more institutional environments didn’t work for them.

Jessica Rotolo, a Heydon Park graduate who now volunteers at the school, put it bluntly. “TDSB, you are making the biggest mistake of your life. This school helps people like me who have a disability come out of their shell.”

Parents described the news as a fresh blow after a difficult year. Like Eastdale Collegiate — the school documented in TOG’s reporting on the OLT appeal — Heydon Park had its Grade 9 enrollment cancelled within the past year, and families have spent that time rallying to protect the school. Now, with this relocation announcement, parents fear the move is a step toward Heydon Park being phased out entirely, with its students dispersed into larger mainstream high schools — the exact environments many of them came to Heydon Park to escape.

One parent described what that would mean for her daughter: in a larger school of over a thousand students, she had gone missing before. At Heydon Park, that risk is managed by an environment built for students who need it.

This is the same pattern TOG documented at Eastdale. Schools that serve students who need stability, small environments, and trusted relationships are treated as the most movable pieces on the board — because their small size makes them easiest to relocate, and because the students they serve are the least likely to have the means to organize loudly against it.

They are organizing anyway. Parents and advocates rallied outside Heydon Park this week, and have been speaking to CBC, CTV, CP24, the Star, and the Sun.

“We Will Work With the Principal”

The TDSB’s public response is that moving Orde Street’s 400 students to Heydon Park “makes the most sense” because there is room for all of them to stay together — and that Heydon Park’s students will also stay together at their new site, since the school draws from across the city rather than a fixed geographic boundary.

That explains the logistics. It does not explain where Heydon Park is going, or why families are learning about a decision affecting a century-old specialized school through a letter rather than a consultation process.

Under the previous governance structure, a decision displacing a specialized school serving vulnerable students would have gone through trustees — debated in public, with families able to ask questions of people accountable to them at the ballot box. That structure doesn’t exist right now. The supervisors who approved this plan answer to the Minister, not to Heydon Park families.

The board has scheduled parent-teacher meetings to answer questions and gather feedback. The June 17 virtual information meeting referenced in the superintendent’s letter is the broader forum. Both are information sessions. Neither is a decision-making body, and neither existed before the decision was made.

The Through-Line

TOG’s reporting on the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal — “The Land Beneath the Schools” — documented over 200 Toronto school properties potentially affected by redesignation for mid-rise development, including sites where TLC had already begun developing redevelopment concepts.

Heydon Park is what that looks like in practice, months before the OLT even rules.

No redesignation was required. No appeal needed to succeed. A private development next door was enough to trigger the displacement of a specialized school serving some of the system’s most vulnerable students — students who, in many cases, came to Heydon Park after larger schools failed them, and whose families are now watching the cycle threaten to repeat itself.

If this is what happens at one site under current conditions, it is worth asking what happens at the more than 200 sites named in the OLT appeal if it succeeds.

What Families Can Do

The June 17 virtual information meeting is the immediate opportunity for Heydon Park and Orde Street families — and anyone concerned about how this decision was made — to ask direct questions on the record.

For families connected to the broader school lands fight, the OLT participant registration process remains open through protectschoollands.ca, with the next hearing date September 9.

These are not two separate stories. They are the same story, at two different stages.

Sources

TDSB letter to parents, Jennifer Chan, Superintendent of Education, June 2, 2026

CTV News Toronto — ‘Biggest mistake’: Toronto parents, advocates slam decision to relocate school for young women with special needs, Beth Macdonell, June 4, 2026

CBC News — Parents speak out as TDSB high school for special needs students forced to relocate, June 2026

Toronto Star — Parents at TDSB special-needs school Heydon Park shocked by moving plan, June 2026

Toronto Sun — Parents oppose TDSB plan to relocate Toronto special-needs school for females, June 5, 2026

TorontoToday — TDSB to relocate students of special needs high school, raising fear it will be forced to close, June 2026

ProtectSchoolLands.ca — School Properties Analysis, accessed May 2026

The Old Guardian — The Land Beneath the Schools, May 2026

theoldguardian.ca

June 10, 2026

By Chris Allen | The Old Guardian

On the evening of June 9, 2026, a Collin County jury handed down the final word in a case that had consumed the American cultural conversation for fourteen months. Karmelo Anthony, 19, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for the murder of Austin Metcalf, a 17-year-old track athlete from Frisco Memorial High School. He will be eligible for parole after serving approximately half that time.

The same jury had convicted Anthony of murder just hours earlier, after roughly three hours of deliberation. They were given three options: murder, manslaughter, or acquittal. They chose the highest charge available. In the subsequent sentencing phase, they rejected the defense’s argument that Anthony acted under “sudden passion” -- a finding that would have reduced his sentence to as little as two years. They rejected that off-ramp too.

The jury said the same thing twice in one day. It was murder. It was not justified.

What happened next was predictable. Social media erupted. Crowds outside the Collin County Courthouse chanted “Free Karmelo.” Austin Metcalf’s twin brother Hunter, making his first courtroom appearance after being kept out as a potential witness, leaned forward as the verdict was read. Anthony broke down in tears. His mother wept in her seat.

The culture war machine that had been running for over a year shifted immediately into its next gear.

None of that changes what the evidence showed.

What Actually Happened

The facts of the incident were never seriously in dispute. On April 2, 2025, during a rain-delayed Frisco ISD track meet at Kuykendall Stadium, Karmelo Anthony -- then a student at Centennial High School -- entered a tent belonging to the track team of Frisco Memorial High School. Metcalf and other Memorial students repeatedly asked Anthony to leave. He refused.

What followed was a prolonged verbal confrontation. One witness testified Anthony told Metcalf “Touch me and find out.” Another described Anthony challenging Metcalf while reaching into his bag. Students testified that no group ever surrounded or cornered Anthony. Multiple witnesses said they initially believed the knife was a bluff and did not expect Anthony to actually use it.

Metcalf eventually shoved Anthony. Anthony reached into his backpack, pulled out a pocketknife, and stabbed Metcalf once in the chest. He died shortly after at hospital. Collin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Elizabeth Ventura later testified to a fatal two-inch stab wound to Metcalf’s heart.

Anthony was arrested the same day and admitted to the stabbing.

How Texas Handled It

Most people assume a guilty verdict ends a trial. In Texas, it ends the first half.

Under Texas criminal procedure, the same jury that decides guilt also decides punishment -- often the same day. After convicting Anthony of murder, the jury immediately entered a second deliberation phase to determine his sentence. Both sides waived opening statements. The defense called one witness: Anthony’s mother, Kayla Hayes, who told jurors “He’s my oldest, he’s my firstborn. He will always be my baby. I love him very much.” She said her son was sorry for what he did.

The prosecution called no witnesses. They let the trial record speak for itself.

The jury deliberated on punishment for approximately two hours and twenty minutes. They rejected the “sudden passion” reduction and sentenced Anthony to 35 years, landing in the middle of a range that ran from five years to life.

Lead prosecutor Bill Wirskye framed it plainly in closing: “You don’t get to meet a shove with a stab -- especially if you provoke the shove.”

The Trial

The prosecution built its case methodically over seven days, calling more than twenty witnesses including students, coaches, law enforcement investigators, and the medical examiner. The evidentiary record included video evidence, 911 calls made immediately after the stabbing, and autopsy findings.

The defense argued Anthony acted in a “split second of fear and chaos” after Metcalf made the first physical contact. That argument required the jury to accept that a single shove from an unarmed teenager -- following a verbal confrontation Anthony initiated and escalated -- justified a lethal knife strike to the heart.

A key defense witness was cross-examined extensively over inconsistent statements about whether Anthony had been surrounded before the stabbing. The inconsistencies were damaging.

Karmelo Anthony did not testify in his own defense during either phase of the trial.

In a self-defense case built entirely on Anthony’s subjective fear in that moment, that silence was the loudest thing in the courtroom. His attorneys calculated that cross-examination carried more risk than leaving the central question unanswered. The jury answered it themselves -- twice.

The Jury Composition Question

One aspect of this trial warrants separate and honest examination.

During jury selection, prosecutors used peremptory strikes to remove three prospective Black female jurors, citing their occupations as educators as a race-neutral justification. The defense filed a Batson challenge -- a formal legal objection alleging race-based exclusion -- arguing the three women were similarly situated to white jurors the prosecution chose to keep. Judge Roach overruled the challenge. The final jury of twelve contained no Black members.

An all-white jury is not automatically unconstitutional. Courts focus on whether individual jurors were excluded because of race, not whether the final panel mirrors community demographics. Judge Roach found the prosecution’s educator justification sufficient. That finding is now part of the appellate record.

What is also part of the record: at least one prospective Black juror was separately dismissed after stating during vetting that they would “have a hard time putting a brother in jail” -- a self-disqualifying statement that had nothing to do with prosecutorial strikes.

The jury composition question is legitimate and deserves scrutiny. It does not, on its own, establish that the verdict was wrong. Those are two separate questions, and collapsing them serves neither Austin Metcalf’s family nor the integrity of the process.

There is one further question worth answering directly: would Karmelo Anthony still be guilty before a more racially diverse jury? The evidence says yes. Texas requires a unanimous verdict. All twelve jurors convicted on the highest available charge. Had those three prospective Black jurors been seated and voted differently, the most likely outcome would have been a hung jury -- not an acquittal. More importantly, jury composition does not change the medical examiner’s findings, the witness testimony, the fact that Anthony brought a concealed knife to a school event, or the fact that he chose not to testify in his own self-defense case. A more diverse jury might reasonably have landed on manslaughter rather than murder. It might have weighted the sudden passion argument differently at sentencing. Those are legitimate considerations. But the evidence that placed Karmelo Anthony in that tent, with that knife, on that day was never going to produce a not guilty verdict regardless of who sat in that jury box. The composition question and the guilt question are not the same question. Treating them as identical does a disservice to both.

What the Narrative Machine Built -- and What It Got Wrong

This case did not exist in a vacuum. From the moment of Anthony’s arrest, two parallel narratives constructed versions of events that served agendas rather than evidence.

On one side, Anthony’s family spokesperson characterized the trial publicly as “a fight against white supremacy.” Supporters raised over half a million dollars in donations. A security operation set up on Anthony’s behalf was later found in violation by Texas DPS, resulting in charges and fines against its organizer. An Anthony supporter was arrested and extradited to Texas on a $750,000 bond after threatening the life of a journalist covering the case. When the verdict was announced, crowds outside the courthouse chanted for Anthony’s release.

On the other side, commentators declared Anthony guilty before a single witness took the stand. The case became a vehicle for racial grievance, with accounts across social media using it to make sweeping claims disconnected from the evidentiary record. When security footage from the stadium did not show the actual stabbing, conspiracy theories emerged that the footage was being deliberately suppressed. A journalist who had obtained the court order and reviewed the footage clarified it had no evidentiary value and did not capture the stabbing. That correction was largely ignored by the people who needed it most.

Both narratives had one thing in common: neither had much use for the actual evidence.

The Fundraiser Question

One thread from this case did not end with the verdict.

On April 15, 2025 -- less than two weeks after Austin Metcalf died -- Anthony’s mother, Kala Hayes, launched a fundraiser on the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo. The campaign raised nearly $634,000 before being shut down following Anthony’s conviction. Its stated purpose, published on the platform, was to cover legal defense costs and the safe relocation of the Anthony family due to escalating threats.

GiveSendGo confirmed in a June 2026 statement that the funds were disbursed for those stated purposes -- legal defense and family relocation. The platform characterized the disbursements as lawful and consistent with the campaign’s published goals.

One day after sentencing, Anthony filed a notice of appeal. In that filing, obtained by WFAA, he described himself as a “penniless, destitute, and indigent person, too poor to employ counsel to represent me on the appeal.”

A court-appointed attorney was initially assigned. The family is now expected to hire private counsel instead.

The specific social media claims that the Anthony family used donations to purchase a $900,000 home and a $150,000 vehicle are not supported by verified evidence and are not reported here. What is supported by verified evidence is this: a family that raised $634,000 in public donations, spent those funds on relocation and living expenses by their own platform’s admission, then filed court documents one day after conviction claiming their son could not afford a lawyer.

That contradiction does not require embellishment. It stands on its own.

Donors who gave money believing it would fund a legal defense are entitled to ask what it actually funded. Courts will determine whether Anthony qualifies for appointed counsel. The public record will determine whether the people who donated to this cause got what they thought they were paying for.

What the Verdict Actually Means

A Collin County jury convicted Karmelo Anthony of murder and sentenced him to 35 years in prison. That is a legal finding based on evidence presented in a court of law by twelve jurors who heard every word of testimony and reviewed every piece of physical evidence.

It does not mean the justice system functions perfectly. It does not validate the racial grievance framing that surrounded this case from either direction. It does not mean every Black defendant receives a fair trial in Texas, nor does it mean every self-defense claim by a Black defendant is fraudulent.

It means the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury agreed. Twice.

Following sentencing, the Metcalf family held a press conference outside the courthouse. Free from the constraints of the trial gag order, Austin’s father Jeff Metcalf defended his son’s memory and revealed the family had been subjected to multiple swatting calls throughout the proceedings.

Austin Metcalf was 17 years old. He was a 4.0 student, voted team MVP by his football teammates. He died in his twin brother’s arms at a high school track meet on April 2, 2025.

That was always the finding. It took fourteen months of noise for the rest of the country to hear it.

The Old Guardian publishes when the evidence is sufficient, not when the news cycle demands it.

SOURCING

Verdict and sentence: AP wire, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News Texas, CNN -- confirmed June 9, 2026

Trial testimony reconstruction: AP, WFAA courtroom reporting, CBS Texas live updates

Medical examiner testimony: Fox 26, Fox 7

Prosecutor closing argument quote: ABC News / WFAA

Punishment phase witness testimony: CBS Texas, Fox 4

Fraudulent security operation finding: Texas DPS, reported and verified by Sarah Fields

Metcalf family press conference: Fox 26

Sentence and parole eligibility: Fox LA, Fox 32, NBC News

Jury composition and Batson challenge: Washington Times, CNN/KTVT, Fox News, Fox 4 Dallas -- confirmed June 3-4, 2026

Educator justification for strikes: CNN/KTVT, Washington Times

Black juror self-disqualification statement: Revolt TV

Fundraiser amount and shutdown: Fox News, Washington Times, WFAA -- confirmed June 2026

GiveSendGo disbursement statement: Snopes June 2026, Washington Times

Indigency filing language: WFAA court documents, confirmed by Fox News, NewsNation, Western Journal

House and car claims excluded: Snopes June 2026 fact check -- rated unverified

Private attorney development: NewsNation -- confirmed June 2026

Leave a comment

* * *

I.

Nestlé Canada told the federal government it was monitoring forced labour risks at a palm oil supplier’s plantation in Malaysia. A worker hotline had been seeded. Recruitment practices were being tracked. A CEO put his name to it.

A year later, every mention of Malaysia had vanished from the global human rights report Nestlé cited as evidence. The hotline — gone. The supplier — gone. The country — gone. No explanation was offered. None was required.

Canada’s government, which received the original filing, never asked why.

* * *

II. What the Law Requires

Canada’s Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act came into force January 1, 2024. It requires companies of a certain size that produce, sell, distribute, or import goods into Canada to file an annual report with the federal government describing what steps they are taking to identify and reduce forced labour risk in their supply chains.

The reports are signed by a senior officer — in most cases, the President or CEO of the Canadian entity. John McKay, the former Liberal MP who co-authored the legislation, is unambiguous about what that signature means. “It’s the same as an audit statement,” he said in a recent interview. “Same as a bank or stock exchange.” A CEO who signs a misleading disclosure isn’t making a public relations error. They are attesting, under law, to the accuracy of what their company has told the government of Canada.

The penalty for filing a false or misleading report is up to $250,000. It has never been imposed. Not once.

Public Safety Canada receives the filings. It does not verify them. It does not have a stated process for questioning their contents. It publishes them in an online catalogue and moves on. McKay, who watched his legislation come to life from the inside, does not mince words about what that has produced. The government, he said, is “unenthusiastic about analyzing the reports, and ideas of enforcement.”

The result is a system that looks like accountability and functions like a suggestion box.

* * *

III. What Companies Are Telling the Government

To understand what Canadian companies are actually telling the government about their palm oil supply chains, you have to read the filings yourself. Public Safety Canada won’t do it for you.

Palm oil’s reach into the Canadian food system is wider than most people realize. In 2021, Canadian consumers noticed something had changed about their butter — it wasn’t softening at room temperature the way it always had. Bakers across the country reported the same thing. The culprit, eventually traced through the dairy supply chain, was palm oil-based feed supplements — specifically palmitic acid, a saturated fat derived from palm oil — being added to dairy cow feed to boost milk fat production. The fat composition of the milk had changed, and so had the butter. The Dairy Farmers of Canada recommended farmers stop the practice and struck a working group. What the episode made visible, briefly, was something that had been happening without public awareness for years: palm oil derivatives of unknown origin entering the Canadian food system through a route — animal feed — that no border agency was monitoring and no disclosure law was designed to capture. The scandal had a name. Nobody asked where the palm oil came from.

Over the past several months, The Old Guardian reviewed three years of mandatory S-211 reports from confirmed Canadian palm oil importers — companies that, according to the federal government’s own Canadian Importers Database, bring more than $311 million in palm oil and palm-derived products into Canada annually from Malaysia and Indonesia. The US Department of Labor lists palm oil from both countries as produced with forced and child labour. The ILO estimates that 80 percent of Malaysia’s 451,000 oil palm plantation workers are documented migrants, predominantly Indonesian, working in conditions that international monitors have repeatedly flagged for debt bondage, wage theft, and passport confiscation.

What the filings show is a spectrum of disclosure — from companies that named specific countries, specific suppliers, and specific programs, to companies that produced boilerplate so generic it could have been written by anyone about anything. What they share, almost universally, is a single conclusion: nothing was found.

Cargill Limited named Malaysia explicitly and described a labour transformation program with the Earthworm Foundation. Kellanova Canada — the company behind Pringles, Pop-Tarts, and Eggo waffles — named both Malaysia and Indonesia as high-risk sourcing countries for palm oil in all three years of filing, consistent and specific. Mondelez Canada named both countries and cited ILO forced labour indicators — then disclosed it had taken no remediation measures whatsoever, using identical language across multiple filings, raising questions about whether each successive report was simply a copy of the last.

Ferrero Canada, whose products include Nutella — which lists palm oil as its second ingredient — filed multiple years with a “CONFIDENTIAL” stamp on a document that is supposed to be a mandatory public disclosure. Its 2025 filing still carried the title of its 2022–2023 report on the cover. All years concluded that no slavery had been identified and no remediation steps had been taken.

Bunge Canada and its subsidiary Bunge Loders Croklaan Canada — a specialty fats processor that explicitly imports tropical oils including palm — named no source countries in any filing, described no specific incidents, and offered no concrete remediation.

Colgate-Palmolive Canada did not mention palm oil in its first two years of filing. In year three, the company named it explicitly as a priority risk commodity and disclosed an active public palm oil grievance log and no-buy list — a more substantive disclosure than most of its peers. Buried in the same filing was an admission that the company had specifically focused its human rights due diligence assessment efforts on “agricultural supply chains associated with our Hill’s Pet Nutrition business.” Hill’s Pet Nutrition Canada — a Colgate-Palmolive subsidiary whose products contain palm-derived ingredients — filed independently in year one, vanished from the Public Safety catalogue entirely in year two, and reappeared in year three only as a co-author on the Colgate-Palmolive Canada filing. That three-year arc — present, absent, reabsorbed — passed without comment from any government authority.

Kellanova Canada’s year-three filing introduces a separate accountability question. The filing was submitted under the name “Kellanova Canada Inc.” and signed by the company’s Legal Director — the second consecutive year the disclosure has been signed at that level rather than by the President. What the filing does not acknowledge is that Kellanova Canada no longer exists as an independent entity. Mars, Incorporated completed its acquisition of Kellanova in late 2024. The year-three S-211 filing was made months after that acquisition closed, under a corporate name that had ceased to exist, with no reference to Mars anywhere in the document. Who bears legal responsibility for S-211 obligations post-acquisition is unresolved and undisclosed. Canada has not asked.

Then there are the two filings that stand apart from the rest — not for what they disclosed, but for what they stopped disclosing.

* * *

IV. The Disappearing Disclosures

Nestlé Canada’s 2024 S-211 filing — covering the 2023 fiscal year, signed by CEO and President John Carmichael — contains a specific disclosure buried in its supply chain section. The company was, it said, “sponsoring the development of an open-source due diligence toolkit for palm oil suppliers globally and seeding a third-party worker hotline in one of its palm oil supplier’s plantations in Malaysia that enables workers to safely report on working conditions, recruitment, safety and other rights abuses.”

A plantation in Malaysia. A specific supplier. A worker hotline. A CEO’s signature.

Nestlé’s 2025 filing — covering 2024, again signed by Carmichael — contains the same sentence, word for word. The disclosure appears intact. But Nestlé’s filings don’t stand alone. They reference the company’s global Non-Financial Statement as supporting evidence — the document that is supposed to show the work behind the words.

The 2024 Non-Financial Statement mentions Malaysia six times. It describes the hotline. It names the broker certification program. It identifies Malaysia as a high-priority geography for palm oil due diligence.

The 2025 Non-Financial Statement does not mention Malaysia once. The hotline is gone. The broker certification is gone. The palm oil supplier program is gone. No explanation is provided anywhere in the document for why a program significant enough to be disclosed in a CEO-attested legal filing had apparently ceased to exist — or ceased to be disclosed.

Nestlé’s year-three filing, covering 2025, maintains CEO-level signatory and continues to reference palm oil as a priority sourcing risk. The Malaysian hotline does not reappear. No explanation for its absence has been offered in any year.

Has Public Safety Canada noticed? Has anyone in the federal government asked Nestlé what happened to the hotline, and to the workers it was designed to protect?

The workers that hotline was supposed to protect — migrant labourers on a Malaysian plantation, far enough from home that a third-party reporting channel was considered necessary to keep them safe — do not appear anywhere in any of these documents. They never did. What appeared, and then disappeared, was the program designed to reach them.

Nestlé was asked to explain the discrepancy. As of publication, the company had not responded.

This is not the first time Nestlé has faced scrutiny over forced labour in its agricultural commodity supply chains. For more than 15 years, Nestlé USA fought a lawsuit in the American courts brought by six Malian citizens who alleged they were trafficked into Ivory Coast as child slaves to produce cocoa — on farms Nestlé sourced from and provided with financial and technical support. The case — heard alongside a parallel suit against Cargill, also a confirmed Canadian palm oil importer — reached the US Supreme Court in 2021. The court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the forced labour had not occurred on US soil. The court did not rule that Nestlé was unaware of the conditions on those farms. It ruled that awareness, exercised from US soil, was insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. The six plaintiffs received no remedy.

The pattern is not limited to one commodity or one country. In its cocoa supply chain, Nestlé faced allegations of knowingly sourcing from farms using child slave labour. In its palm oil supply chain, a worker protection program at a Malaysian plantation has quietly disappeared from its global human rights reporting. In both cases, the company has faced no legal consequence. In both cases, the workers at the end of the supply chain have been left without recourse.

Canada has received Nestlé Canada’s disclosures. It has asked no questions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland’s Canadian subsidiary, ADM Agri-Industries Company, is a confirmed importer of hydrogenated vegetable fats into Canada. Its 2024 S-211 filing — signed by Kevin Wright, President of ADM Agri-Industries — contains a disclosure that is unlike anything else in the Public Safety catalogue.

In a section describing grievance mechanisms, the filing states that US Customs and Border Protection had raised allegations of human rights violations involving suppliers in ADM’s palm oil supply chain. ADM’s own publicly available grievance log confirms the specifics. Grievance ID 164: FGV Holdings Berhad, a Malaysian palm oil producer, reported by US CBP for deforestation and human rights violations. Grievance ID 210: Sime Darby Plantation, another Malaysian producer, reported by US CBP for human rights violations. Both were subjects of US Withhold Release Orders — the American enforcement mechanism that blocks goods from entering the United States on forced labour grounds. Both were in ADM’s supply chain when those orders were active.

ADM disclosed this to the Canadian government in a CEO-attested legal filing. It was the only company in the entire S-211 catalogue to disclose that a foreign enforcement authority had already flagged human rights violations in its palm oil supply chain.

Canada did nothing with that disclosure.

ADM’s 2025 filing — signed not by the President of ADM Agri-Industries but by Regina Bynote Jones, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the US parent company — contains no mention of the CBP allegations. No mention of FGV. No mention of Sime Darby. No mention of the grievance log. The disclosure that should have triggered a review had been quietly removed, replaced with boilerplate language about prison labour risks. The year-three filing, again signed by the global CLO and buried as a three-paragraph appendix in a multi-jurisdictional document that also covers the UK, Australia, and California, maintains the same silence. For the second consecutive year, ADM’s Canadian disclosure contains nothing that would require Canada to act.

It is worth noting what ADM’s global 2025 disclosure does acknowledge: that in 2024, independent media reports linked the company to the use of involuntary prison labour at two US facilities. ADM initiated an internal review, concluded it could not confirm full alignment with ILO standards, and began phasing out the program. That remediation disclosure — an actual finding, an actual response — is notable precisely because it is so rare in this corpus. It also does not appear in the Canadian section. Canada received the appendix. The accountability went elsewhere.

A year earlier, ADM told Canada’s government that US customs authorities had found human rights violations in its palm oil supply chain. The following year, ADM told Canada’s government nothing of the sort. No explanation was provided.

Did anyone ask why?

These are not isolated anomalies. They are a pattern. In both cases, a company made a specific, consequential disclosure in year one — the kind of disclosure the legislation was designed to surface — and removed it in subsequent years without explanation. In both cases, the government that received the original disclosure took no action.

The power to ask questions exists. Public Safety Canada has the filings. The discrepancies are visible to anyone who reads them side by side. The question is not whether Canada can demand an explanation. The question is why it hasn’t.

* * *

V. The Enforcement Gap

The silence inside the S-211 catalogue has a mirror image at the border.

Since Canada’s forced labour import prohibition came into force in July 2020, the Canada Border Services Agency has detained approximately 48 shipments suspected of involving forced labour. Two were blocked in 2025. Seven were voluntarily re-exported by importers who apparently decided not to fight the detention. The rest were released.

In the same year, US Customs and Border Protection blocked 8,170 shipments under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act alone.

Zero fines have ever been issued under Canada’s import prohibition. Not one. The maximum penalty is $250,000 per violation. It has sat unused for five years.

None of the detained shipments involved palm oil. None of the blocked shipments involved palm oil. In five years of enforcement, not a single container of Malaysian or Indonesian palm oil — from a trade worth more than $311 million annually — has been detained, investigated, or flagged by Canadian border authorities.

This is not an accident. It is the predictable output of a system that was never pointed at palm oil.

CBSA does not independently investigate supply chains. It acts on intelligence provided by the Labour Program at Employment and Social Development Canada. ESDC conducts research and analysis on specific commodities and source countries, and shares those assessments with CBSA as the basis for enforcement action. As a CBSA official confirmed in Federal Court proceedings in 2022, it “works closely with ESDC to identify goods that have been produced by forced labour entering Canada,” and ESDC “conducts research and analysis on companies that are suspected to be using forced labour to produce goods and are importing them to Canada.” That research, the government acknowledged, can take six months or longer per complaint.

The system is complaint-driven. If no complaint is filed about a commodity, ESDC has no basis to research it. If ESDC produces no research, CBSA has no basis to act. And if CBSA never acts, nothing in the public record — no court decisions, no enforcement notices, no company names — ever surfaces to suggest the problem exists.

Palm oil has never triggered a formal complaint to ESDC’s Labour Program. Not when the US issued Withhold Release Orders against FGV Holdings in 2020. Not when Sime Darby was added to the list the same year. Not when ADM disclosed in a CEO-attested Canadian legal filing that US customs authorities had flagged both suppliers for human rights violations. Not when $311 million in annual palm oil imports continued to flow from the same geography the US had formally identified as tainted.

The Old Guardian has submitted formal evidence to ESDC’s Labour Program identifying FGV Holdings, Sime Darby, and their confirmed presence in Canadian import supply chains. ESDC has been asked whether any research on palm oil supply chains from Malaysia or Indonesia has ever been produced, and whether the ADM disclosure triggered any review. As of publication, ESDC had not responded.

The United States government has formed its own view of Canada’s enforcement record. The USTR’s 2026 National Trade Estimates report states explicitly that Canada “does not appear to be effectively enforcing its forced labor import prohibition, meaning goods made with forced labor may be able to enter and compete in Canada’s market.” Canada is now subject to a formal Section 301 investigation on that basis — the same legal mechanism the US uses to justify punitive tariffs against countries engaged in unfair trade practices.

John McKay, who built the legislative framework Canada is now being judged against, does not dispute the assessment. “I think so,” he said when asked whether the USTR’s finding reflected Canada’s enforcement reality. “I believe we do have a problem.” He added, with characteristic bluntness, that while the Americans are right, they are also “full of it” — their own enforcement record on forced labour is selective, politically driven, and in his view, hypocritical. “Trump could care less about forced labour,” McKay said. The Section 301 investigation is trade leverage dressed as human rights enforcement.

He is not wrong about the Americans. He is also not wrong about Canada.

* * *

VI. The Architecture of Silence

It would be tempting to read the findings in this investigation as a story about bad corporate actors — companies gaming a weak system to avoid accountability. That reading is too generous to the system.

The more uncomfortable truth is that the system was not designed to catch what it appears to be catching. It was designed to produce paper. And it is doing that very well.

S-211 created a disclosure obligation, not a due diligence obligation. Companies are required to describe what they are doing to identify and reduce forced labour risk. They are not required to actually find it. They are not required to stop sourcing from suppliers where it exists. They are not required to prove anything. They are required to file a document, have a senior officer sign it, and submit it to a government department that will publish it without reading it.

The CEO signature — which McKay rightly compares to an audit attestation — carries legal weight that the system never activates. A misleading S-211 filing is technically a punishable offence. The maximum fine is $250,000. It has never been imposed. Public Safety Canada has never publicly questioned the content of a single filing. The $250,000 ceiling exists in the legislation the way a speed limit exists on a road with no police — theoretically binding, practically irrelevant.

The import prohibition operates in a separate lane entirely. S-211 filings do not trigger customs reviews. A company can disclose in a CEO-attested legal document that its Malaysian palm oil supplier was flagged by US customs authorities for human rights violations — as ADM did — and continue importing from that supplier the following day without any intervention from CBSA. The two systems share a government but not a conversation.

The enforcement mechanism that does exist is complaint-driven, resource-intensive, and structurally incapable of proactive enforcement at scale. ESDC requires six months or more to analyze a single complaint. It has no standing research program on palm oil. CBSA cannot act without ESDC’s intelligence. And the public record of enforcement — the court decisions, the detention notices, the company names — is effectively sealed unless an importer voluntarily drags it into the light by filing a lawsuit.

This creates a system with a specific and predictable output: companies that find nothing, governments that ask nothing, and workers whose conditions remain invisible to the country importing the products of their labour. The logic is circular and self-sealing. CBSA is not asking, so companies are structurally never made “aware.” And because companies are never aware, there is nothing to report. The 91 percent of S-211 filers who reported finding no forced or child labour in their supply chains are not describing an absence of exploitation. They are describing an absence of inquiry.

The certification schemes — RSPO membership, third-party audits, supplier codes of conduct — are themselves part of the architecture of reassurance rather than accountability. They provide cover, not verification. Nestlé’s year-three filing claims 100 percent of its global crude palm oil was from RSPO-certified sources or covered by book-and-claim credits. Book-and-claim is a purchasing offset — it does not mean the physical oil flowing through a Canadian supply chain is traceable to a certified plantation. The 100 percent claim is accurate under the RSPO’s own rules. It is also compatible with sourcing oil from a plantation where workers are having their passports confiscated.

The limits of that cover have been documented in detail. A 2025 investigation by Reuters found that 60 percent of complaints to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil involve operations that certified auditors had already visited without flagging any violations. The auditors are paid directly by the companies they audit — a structural conflict of interest that experts describe as endemic to the system. Critically, Reuters confirmed that independent auditors had not flagged any violations of worker rights on certified Sime Darby plantations prior to the US ban — meaning certification provided no early warning for one of the most significant forced labour enforcement actions in the palm oil sector’s history.

What the system cannot survive is honest accounting. If every Canadian company importing Malaysian or Indonesian palm oil reported truthfully — acknowledging that 80 percent of plantation workers are documented migrants working in conditions that international monitors have repeatedly flagged, that two major Malaysian producers were subject to US enforcement actions, that debt bondage and wage theft are documented and widespread — the S-211 catalogue would read like an indictment of an entire industry. Instead it reads like a corporate wellness report.

That is not an accident. It is the architecture.

* * *

VII. The Co-Author’s Verdict

John McKay spent 27 years in the House of Commons. He did not seek re-election in 2025. He is no longer bound by caucus discipline or ministerial relationships, and he speaks about his own legislation with the candour that active politics rarely permits.

S-211, he is clear, was not a watered-down compromise. It was the strongest version of the bill that could be moved through Parliament. Previous attempts had failed entirely. Getting the disclosure obligation enshrined in law — getting CEOs to put their names to supply chain statements — was itself a significant achievement in a legislative environment where industry lobbying against supply chain transparency is vigorous and well-funded. “Direct conversations with ministers — your chances of getting your bill through are next to nothing,” McKay said. The bill that passed was the bill that could pass.

But he does not mistake what passed for what is needed. The legislation, he said, functions like a Voluntary Disclosure with teeth — companies are “more voluntold” than compelled, the CEO signature carries genuine legal weight, and the powers to seize records and compel responses exist in theory. The problem is not the instrument. The problem is that no one is picking it up.

“It’s more failure to enforce than lack of ability,” McKay said. The government has the tools. It is choosing not to use them.

He is equally direct about the political context in which that choice is being made. The Canadian government, he said, is “unenthusiastic about analyzing the reports, and ideas of enforcement.” That unenthusiasm has not gone unnoticed in Washington.

The US Trade Representative’s 2026 National Trade Estimates report states that Canada “does not appear to be effectively enforcing its forced labor import prohibition, meaning goods made with forced labor may be able to enter and compete in Canada’s market.” Canada is now formally named in a Section 301 investigation — the legal mechanism the US uses to justify punitive tariffs against countries it considers to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The April 28, 2026 USTR public hearing produced an even starker formulation: that Canada has not “adopted and effectively enforced a forced labor import prohibition to date.”

The investigation covers 60 economies. Canada is among them not because it tolerates forced labour domestically, but because Washington has concluded that Canada is not doing enough to keep forced-labour goods out of its own market — and that this creates an unlevel playing field for American producers competing against imports that carry no equivalent labour cost burden.

The stakes are not abstract. US Members of Congress have formally raised concern that goods rejected at the American border under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act are being diverted into Canada and re-exported back to the United States. A specific case involving solar panels — reportedly relabelled after US rejection and rerouted through Canada — was raised with Canadian ministers. Canada, in this framing, is not merely failing to enforce its own ban. It is functioning as a bypass route for goods that American enforcement has already flagged.

McKay is clear-eyed about what is driving Washington’s attention. “Trump could care less about forced labour,” he said. The Section 301 investigation is trade leverage, not human rights advocacy. The Americans are, in his assessment, “right and full of it” simultaneously — correct in their diagnosis of Canada’s enforcement failure, hypocritical in their deployment of that diagnosis as a tariff instrument. Their own enforcement record is selective, politically driven, and shaped by economic interest as much as moral conviction.

But the hypocrisy of the messenger does not change the accuracy of the message. Canada has a forced labour import prohibition. It is not enforcing it. And the commodity most visibly absent from that enforcement — flowing freely across Canadian borders at more than $311 million annually, from supply chains that American authorities have already acted against — is palm oil.

The question of what changes is where McKay and the advocates diverge. Bill C-251, introduced by Bloc MP Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay in October 2025, would create a rebuttable presumption of forced labour for goods from high-risk countries and sectors — shifting the burden of proof to the importer, as the US UFLPA does for Xinjiang goods. McKay is skeptical. “Bill C-251 is an illusion of a solution,” he said. “If S-211 is fully working, C-251 wouldn’t really be needed.”

His position is that the existing legislation already contains the tools required — the CEO attestation, the power to question disclosures, the connection to the import prohibition that a functioning enforcement system would activate. What is missing is not legal authority. What is missing is political will.

“If the government doesn’t call an importer to account,” McKay said, “it’s failing.”

* * *

VIII.

Somewhere on a palm oil plantation in Malaysia, there was a worker hotline.

Nestlé Canada told the Canadian government about it. A CEO signed his name to the disclosure. The hotline existed to give migrant workers — people far from home, working in conditions that international monitors have documented as ripe for exploitation — a safe way to report what was happening to them.

Then the program disappeared from Nestlé’s global human rights reporting. No explanation was offered. The Canadian government, which had received the original disclosure, did not ask for one.

The workers on that plantation do not know that a Canadian law required their employer to tell the Canadian government about the hotline designed to protect them. They do not know that the same law gave Canada the tools to ask what happened to it. They do not know that Canada chose not to ask.

They probably do not know that more than $311 million in palm oil flows from their region into Canada every year. They do not know that two of the largest producers in their industry were subjects of American enforcement actions for human rights violations, that those violations were disclosed in mandatory Canadian government filings by a Canadian importer, and that Canada did nothing with that information.

They do not know that the country importing the products of their labour looked at the evidence and looked away.

Canada’s forced labour import prohibition has been in force for five years. The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act has been in force for three. The tools exist. The evidence exists. The authority exists.

What does not exist — what has never existed in five years of enforcement, in three years of mandatory disclosure, in $311 million of annual trade from supply chains that America has already acted against — is a single Canadian enforcement action targeting palm oil.

The hotline is gone. Nobody asked why. That is the story.

* * *

Leave a comment

LONG-FORM EDITORIAL

Northstar Accord Standard | Author: Chris Allen

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

This piece has been a long time coming — not because the research was hard to find, but because naming it publicly carries a weight that most outlets aren’t willing to bear. The Old Guardian is.

What follows is not a polemic against women or feminism. It is an analytical examination of what happens when institutional infrastructure designed to address genuine injustice outlives the severity of the problem it was built to solve — and what the data reveals when you apply the same evidentiary standard in both directions without flinching.

I am a man writing about male disadvantage. I want to be precise about what that means and what it doesn’t. It does not mean female suffering was or is fabricated. It does not mean the legal exclusions women faced were acceptable or that the institutions built to address them were illegitimate. It means that after a century of compounding institutional investment in one direction, the data now shows a systematic asymmetry in how suffering is measured, named, resourced, and responded to — and that asymmetry has real consequences for real people who have never once been asked to account for it publicly.

This is my first piece explicitly naming and documenting male disadvantage with precision. It will not be the last. The false accusation thread, the conscription and civic obligation question, the happiness paradox, the intimacy gap — each of these deserves its own full treatment. Consider this the analytical foundation on which that work will be built.

To those who will read this as an attack: apply the Consistency Principle. If the reasoning wouldn’t hold when pointed in the other direction, it doesn’t run here. Every claim in this piece meets that standard. If you find one that doesn’t, bring the evidence. The Old Guardian corrects the record.

To those who will read this as validation for grievance: the framework here is not grievance. It is accountability applied without exemption. That cuts everywhere, including toward men.

The signal stays clean. The machine runs. Publish.

Chris Allen

Editor, The Old Guardian

THE OLD GUARDIAN

This editorial draws on peer-reviewed occupational psychology, governmental statistical agencies in both Canada and the United States, historical political science research, legal case documentation, and documented institutional budget data. Where contested findings are cited, the contestation is noted. The analytical standard applied throughout is singular: every claim is tested against the same question — would we accept this evidence if it pointed in the opposite direction?

I. The Challenge

Before you read further, consider one question honestly.

If the data showed that men were underrepresented in higher education by nearly 25 percentage points — that men were dying at work at ten times the rate of women — that men were killing themselves at four times the rate of women — that men were the victims in 92% of all workplace fatalities — and that the institutional response to all of it amounted to essentially nothing — would you call that a crisis?

You already know the answer. Of course you would.

Now consider that every one of those statements is factually accurate, sourced from government data in Canada and the United States, and has been true for years. The male university enrollment gap is real. The workplace fatality disparity is real. The suicide rate is real. The institutional non-response is real.

The question this editorial asks is not whether women’s suffering has been real — it has been, and in important respects continues to be. The question is why one category of human suffering generated a century of compounding institutional infrastructure, research funding, legislative action, and cultural conversation — while the other generated almost none.

The answer involves four things operating simultaneously: organizational asymmetry, a self-perpetuating funding mechanism, the selective application of measurement standards, and a political machinery that learned to define its own goalposts. Together they produced not just a policy imbalance — but an epistemological one. We do not simply respond differently to male and female suffering. We have built systems that make female suffering visible and male suffering statistically invisible.

That is the machine this editorial examines. Not to dismantle protections women legitimately need. But to ask whether the machine is still solving the problem it was built to solve — or whether it has become primarily an engine for its own perpetuation.

II. How the Machine Got Built

The machinery did not emerge from conspiracy. It emerged from a collision of genuine injustice, organizational genius, and the predictable logic of institutional self-perpetuation.

The injustices were real. Women were legally excluded from property ownership, professional licensing, higher education, and political participation in ways that were explicit, documented, and enforced by statute. These were not cultural preferences. They were laws. And laws have addresses — you can point to them, challenge them, and change them.

That legal visibility was the first and most consequential asymmetry. Women’s disadvantages had a form that could be converted into legislative action. Men’s disadvantages — dying in coal mines, drinking themselves to death, marching into wars they did not choose, prohibited by cultural conditioning from naming their own suffering as suffering — had no equivalent legal address. They were diffuse, structural, romanticized as nobility, and therefore invisible to the mechanisms that convert grievance into policy.

The women’s suffrage movement won the vote in the United States in 1920 and in Canada in stages between 1916 and 1940. What happened immediately afterward is instructive: feminist activists channelled energy directly into institutionalized legal and political channels. The Women’s Bureau was established as a federal agency in the United States in 1920 — the same year suffrage was achieved. It has operated continuously for over a century. There is no equivalent Men’s Bureau. There never has been.

That single asymmetry — one group building permanent institutional infrastructure immediately upon winning political rights, the other group having no equivalent organizational moment — compounded over a hundred years into the landscape we currently inhabit.

The men’s movement briefly existed. In the early 1970s, a genuine men’s liberation movement emerged that correctly identified rigid gender roles as harmful to men as well as women. It used the language of sex role theory to argue that the male gender role — provider, stoic, expendable — was as constricting as the female role. By the late 1970s it had effectively disappeared, having split along ideological lines: the conservative wing became an anti-feminist men’s rights movement, the progressive wing was absorbed into feminism. The original insight — that men also suffer under rigid gender expectations and that this suffering deserves institutional acknowledgment — was orphaned by both directions it could have traveled.

The women’s movement did not split. It built.

III. The Funding Mechanism

Institutions follow funding. Funding follows political will. Political will follows organized movements. And organized movements follow grievance infrastructure — the ability to name a problem, measure it, and convert that measurement into resource claims.

The gender advocacy apparatus has, over a century, constructed one of the most sophisticated grievance infrastructures in the history of democratic politics. That is not an accusation. It is an observation about organizational effectiveness. The question is what happens when the infrastructure outlives the severity of the original problem.

The NIH funding picture is illustrative — and more complicated than either side typically presents. Between 1998 and 2019, NIH consistently invested between 10% and 16% of its research budget in women’s health, while only 4.5% to 7.5% went to men’s health — averaging 13% for women versus 6% for men across that period, translating to $3.5 to $5 billion annually for women’s health versus $1.5 to $2.2 billion for men’s health in absolute dollars between 2005 and 2022.

The counter-argument — and it is a legitimate one that must be acknowledged — is that when normalized against disease burden, male-dominant diseases have historically received more funding per unit of suffering than female-dominant diseases like endometriosis and migraines. Both findings can be simultaneously true. The point is not that women’s health research is overfunded in absolute terms. The point is that the political and institutional infrastructure for advocating women’s health funding is vastly more developed, more organized, and more effective than any equivalent for men — producing a systematic bias in how research dollars get directed over time.

The academic infrastructure compounds this. Women and gender studies departments employed over 2,100 faculty members across American universities as of 2017, with total undergraduate enrollment exceeding 109,000 students. That is an enormous professional workforce whose academic legitimacy, grant eligibility, and institutional continuity depends on the ongoing primacy of gender-based female disadvantage as a research and policy category.

No department voluntarily funds research that renders its own existence unnecessary. No advocacy organization declares victory and dissolves. Every bureaucracy’s primary operational drive is self-perpetuation — and the gender advocacy apparatus is no different from any other bureaucracy in this respect.

The feedback loop it has constructed is elegant in its self-reinforcing design: political events generate institutional growth, institutional growth generates research, research generates statistics, statistics justify legislation, legislation generates government offices, government offices generate grant programs, grant programs generate NGOs, NGOs generate advocacy, advocacy generates political events. The loop closes. The machine runs.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, professors of women’s and gender studies directly and publicly attributed enrollment increases to the Dobbs decision. The political crisis produced institutional growth. That is not advocacy responding to need. That is an industry responding to market conditions.

IV. The Clinical Trials Complication

When the Knowledge Gap Argument Is Legitimate

A challenge frequently levelled at the NIH funding disparity argument is that women’s health is genuinely less understood than men’s — and that increased funding is therefore corrective rather than preferential. The evidence supporting that claim is real, and intellectual honesty requires saying so plainly.

In 1977, the FDA created a guideline to exclude women of reproductive potential from participating in early phase clinical research except for life-threatening conditions. The trigger was the thalidomide tragedy — thousands of pregnant women who took the drug for morning sickness in the previous decade delivered babies with severe birth defects. The intent was protection. The effect was systematic exclusion from knowledge generation. Good intentions produced bad outcomes — a meaningfully different analytical frame from deliberate discrimination, but a harmful outcome either way.

The consequences were measurable and serious. Prior to the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 — which finally mandated inclusion of women in NIH-funded clinical trials — women were excluded from most biomedical clinical trials entirely. Conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological and autoimmune disorders were not studied in women for the most part until the mid-1990s. A study of over 513,000 patients estimated that women experience a 1.5 to 1.7 times greater risk of developing adverse drug reactions than men — a direct consequence of drugs being tested on male physiology and dosing guidelines built from male data.

However — and this is the layer that neither side discusses — the 1993 mandate applied to human clinical trials only. The foundational research layer beneath those trials has never been equivalently corrected. As of recent analysis, approximately 80% of non-clinical studies still use only male animals. Less than half of scientific studies report the sex of their cells at all — and where they do, 70% use cells from males.

This produces a paradox the funding debate almost never confronts: more money is being spent on women’s health research built on a male-biology foundation. The clinical-level investment is real. The pipeline it funds is still biased at the preclinical level. Spending more at the top of a skewed pipeline does not automatically close a knowledge gap generated at the bottom.

The honest accounting therefore requires holding two things simultaneously. The historical exclusion of women from clinical research was real and produced documented harm that justifies corrective funding. And the narrative that increased NIH dollar allocation solves the knowledge gap is incomplete — because the knowledge gap lives primarily in research culture and methodology assumptions baked into decades of foundational science, not primarily in the budget line. That is a research design problem, not a funding problem. Conflating the two conveniently generates ongoing budget justification while the actual structural bias at the preclinical level remains substantially unaddressed.

V. The Measurement Problem

The most consequential asymmetry is not in funding or institutions. It is in measurement itself. We have built extensive, sophisticated tools for measuring female disadvantage. We have built almost none for measuring male disadvantage. And what you do not measure, you cannot respond to.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics 2023 fatal occupational injuries report dedicated two separate bullet points to discussing female fatalities — including specific analysis of which industries women died in most. A word search of the entire ten-page report produced one mention of ‘male’ or ‘men’ — buried in a data table. Men account for between 91% and 93% of all fatal occupational injuries every year. The report did not discuss this. It reported the number and moved on.

In 2017, more than twelve men died on the job for every one woman who died while working. This disparity has held consistent for over a decade. It generates no federal task force, no dedicated research stream, no legislative response, and no cultural conversation comparable in scale to disparities of equivalent magnitude affecting women.

The suicide data follows the same pattern. Men represent approximately 80% of all suicide deaths in the United States annually. Researchers describe what they call a gender paradox: women report more suicidal ideation and more non-fatal attempts, yet men die by suicide at four times the rate. Cross-national research links this gap specifically to cultural dimensions — individualism and masculinity norms that reduce men’s help-seeking behaviour and elevate their fatality risk. Current depression diagnostic inventories may not adequately capture typical male symptom presentation — meaning men are likely being under-diagnosed by the measurement tools themselves, compounding the treatment gap.

The educational picture inverts the standard underrepresentation narrative entirely. Women now represent nearly 60% of total undergraduate enrollment in the United States — approximately 8.3 million female undergraduates versus 6.1 million male in fall 2022. In Canada, 59% of undergraduate students are women, with female overrepresentation in almost every faculty except engineering, computer science, and physical sciences. There are now 142 women enrolled in graduate programs for every 100 men in the United States.

Men are the underrepresented group in higher education. By a substantial and widening margin. The institutional apparatus built to address female underrepresentation in education is now operating in a system where its original mandate has not just been achieved — it has been reversed. The machine did not stop. It kept running. Nobody redirected the funding.

VI. The Stoicism Trap: Why Men Never Built the Machine

The absence of equivalent institutional infrastructure for male disadvantage is not explained by the absence of male disadvantage. It is explained by the mechanism that produced male disadvantage in the first place.

Men were culturally conditioned to not identify their suffering as suffering. The provider role, the warrior role, the stoic role — these were not just social expectations. They were identity structures. A man who said ‘this is killing me and it is wrong’ was not just complaining. He was, by the cultural logic of his era, failing to be a man. The psychological cost of naming the problem exceeded the cost of enduring it.

Women’s legal exclusions were external impositions on an identity that existed independently of those exclusions. A woman denied the vote was still a woman. A man who refused the provider role was — within the cultural framework that structured his worth — nothing. This asymmetry meant that women could collectively name their oppression and organize around it. Men were culturally forbidden from performing the first step.

Research confirms this is not historical artifact. Current evidence shows that masculine gender norms continue to reduce help-seeking behaviour, that men are under-diagnosed by depression instruments built around female symptom presentation, and that engaging with the emotional lives of men remains as culturally problematic today as it was fifty years ago.

The Intimacy Gap

The connection deprivation layer compounds this further — and it is the one most rarely named. Peer-reviewed research surveying 467 men across all generational cohorts found a significant and consistent gap between the amount of physical intimacy men experience in their same-sex friendships and the amount they report being open to. Men consistently want more platonic physical connection with male friends than they are actually getting. This gap exists across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers simultaneously — meaning it is not a generational problem resolving itself over time. It is a structural one.

The mechanism driving that gap is identified in the research as homohysteria — the fear of being perceived as gay — operating alongside normative male alexithymia, the difficulty identifying and expressing emotion. Masculine identity is structured as an achievement so fragile that a single perceived unmanly act can temporarily reverse a man’s gender status regardless of his prior behaviour. Every act of physical affection between male friends therefore carries a social cost that must be consciously calculated before it can be expressed. That cognitive overhead — the perpetual self-monitoring — is itself a barrier to genuine connection independent of whether the act ever occurs.

Women’s friendship networks function as distributed mental health support systems — emotional processing, physical touch, verbal vulnerability, mutual accountability. Women hug their friends, touch each other’s arms in conversation, say ‘I love you’ without cultural negotiation. None of that requires social cost calculation. For men every one of those gestures carries potential reputational consequences that have to be pre-cleared. Research confirms that emotional restraint and homophobia provide the most explanatory power for why men’s best same-sex friendships are consistently less intimate and less supportive than women’s — not preference, not biology, but a culturally imposed tax on connection.

The intergenerational transmission mechanism makes this self-sealing. Boys learn from men. Men learned from their fathers. Their fathers learned from theirs. Nobody in that chain had permission to model anything different. Boys who never see men with close friendships — where there are no visible models of intimacy in a man’s life beyond his spouse — grow up to replicate the same emotional distance and pass the trap intact to the next generation.

The stoicism trap is not just a wound. It is a wound with a built-in reproduction mechanism. Men are not emotionally isolated because they don’t want connection. They are isolated because connection was made to carry a cost most men unconsciously calculate as too high.

VII. The Underrepresentation Claim: Anatomy of a Shifting Goalpost

The underrepresentation argument deserves its own examination because it is the most publicly visible expression of the institutional machinery at work — and because it demonstrates, with unusual clarity, how goalposts move when an advocacy apparatus needs new problems to justify its continued existence.

The argument is structurally unfalsifiable. When women were underrepresented in higher education overall, that generated funding and institutional response. When women achieved parity and then dominance in higher education overall, attention shifted to specific fields. When women dominate fields like psychology, social work, health sciences, and education — representing 77% to 82% of enrollment in some categories — no corrective action is proposed. The equity framework activates only where men currently lead.

This is not a standard. It is a directional preference dressed as a standard.

The STEM gender gap is the canonical example. Women represent approximately 23% of engineering graduates and 26% of mathematics and computer science graduates — figures representing genuine gaps relative to population parity. The standard advocacy framing attributes these gaps to discrimination, stereotype threat, and hostile professional culture. Fix those, the argument goes, and parity follows.

The problem is that the most rigorous research in occupational psychology points in a different direction. A meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin measured sex differences in vocational interests across decades of data and found an effect size of 1.11 for gender differences in engineering interest specifically. In social science, an effect size of 1.11 is classified as very large. It is one of the most robust findings in occupational psychology, replicated across inventories, studies, and time periods.

The gender equality paradox compounds this. Research published in Psychological Science examining 67 countries found that nations with the highest levels of gender equality — Finland, Norway, Sweden — have some of the largest STEM gender gaps. Nations with lower gender equality have significantly more women in STEM proportionally. The explanation is straightforward: in less equal countries, economic necessity overrides preference. In countries with genuine freedom of choice, preferences assert themselves — and women, when free to choose, disproportionately choose people-oriented over thing-oriented fields.

The logical implication is uncomfortable: if discrimination and hostile culture were the primary drivers of the STEM gender gap, removing them should close the gap. The evidence shows that removing them widens it. The freest, most equal societies on earth produce the largest divergence in occupational choices by gender.

This does not mean no discrimination exists in STEM fields. Individual bad actors exist in every system. It means the gap itself is not primarily a discrimination story — and that the policy apparatus built on that story may be solving a problem that does not exist in the form assumed, while billing the public for the privilege.

VIII. The Political Monolith That Isn’t

The institutional claim to represent ‘women’s interests’ rests on an assumption that women constitute a politically coherent bloc with unified interests that a single advocacy apparatus can authentically represent. The voting data makes this assumption untenable.

A majority of white women have voted Republican in every presidential election since 2000 — 51% for Trump in 2016, 52% in 2020, 53% in 2024. The overall gender gap favouring Democratic candidates is driven almost entirely by women of colour, particularly Black women who have voted Democratic at 90% to 97% rates consistently. In the 2024 election, Trump won women by more than 30 percentage points in some community types while losing them by more than 20 points in others — a 50-point swing within a single demographic category.

Before 1980, women voted more conservatively than men on average. The modern gender gap in voting preference — women trending left of men — emerged in the 1980 presidential election and has existed for less than fifty years. The institutional apparatus claiming to represent women’s political interests was built before a distinct female political preference demonstrably existed.

Women are divided by race, education, geography, age, religion, and economic circumstance into groups with substantially different and sometimes opposed political preferences. The college-educated urban progressive woman and the rural religious conservative woman do not share a political interest set that any single institution can represent. Claiming otherwise is not advocacy. It is a specific demographic using institutional infrastructure to project its preferences onto 51% of the population.

In Canada, the pattern holds. Female voting behaviour divides along regional, linguistic, and economic lines in ways that make ‘women’s political interests’ as a unified category analytically incoherent. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women — once Canada’s largest feminist umbrella organization — collapsed in the early 2000s partly under the weight of internal disagreements about whose interests it actually represented. The fracture was real. The institutional claim to unified representation was not.

IX. The Happiness Paradox: What the Machine Never Measured

The institutional apparatus spent fifty years measuring success in objective terms — wages, representation, legal rights, educational access. Those metrics improved. The machine declared progress. Meanwhile the subjective metric moved in the opposite direction across the entire period and across every industrialized country studied.

Stevenson and Wolfers, writing in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy (2009), documented what they called the paradox of declining female happiness. Despite 35 years of objective improvements in women’s lives, measures of subjective well-being showed women’s happiness declining both absolutely and relative to men. Women who reported higher happiness than men in the 1970s had by the 2000s fallen behind. The decline held across every age group, every education level, every employment category, and every industrialized country that measured it simultaneously.

Blanchflower and Bryson (2022) added a second layer: women score worse than men universally on all negative affect measures — anxiety, depression, loneliness, anger — while simultaneously reporting comparable or higher life satisfaction on global metrics. Women’s wellbeing is more complex, more seasonally variable, and more difficult to capture than the standard instruments assume.

The most analytically significant finding in Stevenson and Wolfers is one that is almost never cited in the policy debate: happiness declined equally across employed and non-employed women. Working did not cause the unhappiness. Not working did not fix it. Which eliminates both the ‘work burdens women’ and the ‘work liberates women’ explanations simultaneously — and points instead toward a loss of genuine agency as the operative variable.

The economic trap argument follows directly. A woman choosing to work in 1965 was genuinely choosing. A woman ‘choosing’ to work in 2025 under structural mortgage pressure is operating under economic coercion. The vocabulary of choice persists. The actual optionality has been largely eliminated — not by discrimination, but by cost-of-living conditions that now require two incomes in most households as a structural baseline. The institutional apparatus expanded women’s formal rights while the economic conditions it operated within eliminated the real-world optionality those rights were supposed to enable.

The Scandinavian evidence strengthens this interpretation and simultaneously limits it. In the most gender-equal societies on earth — Norway, Sweden, Finland, with world-class safety nets, free childcare, and eliminated legal barriers — the preference gap between men and women in career choices is wider, not narrower, than in less equal countries. Remove every structural barrier and the divergence increases. This is consistent with genuine preference divergence asserting itself more strongly under conditions of freedom. But even Scandinavia has not eliminated two-income mortgage pressure. Which means every preference dataset ever collected — including the Scandinavian data — is still measuring constrained choice. We have never once run a genuinely unconstrained female preference experiment. Every number in this debate is contaminated by residual economic pressure to some degree.

The machine measured formal rights. It did not measure genuine agency. And genuine agency — not legal access — is what the happiness data shows women actually lost across the same fifty years the institutional apparatus was declaring progress.

The evidence points toward a deeper possibility that the institutional apparatus has never seriously engaged: that women are not wired for the same happiness inputs as men, that the modern economic and professional framework was architecturally designed around male fulfillment patterns, and that the liberation movement may have universalized the experience of women who genuinely thrived within that framework — then applied it as a template to all women regardless of whether it fit.

Society built a liberation movement on the preferences of its outliers, applied it universally, then spent fifty years diagnosing the resulting unhappiness as evidence of insufficient liberation. The data has been quietly suggesting something more complicated. Nobody in the apparatus particularly wanted to hear it.

X. Equal Rights, Unequal Obligations: The Draft as Stress Test

Every analytical framework reveals itself most clearly under pressure. The consistency principle — would we accept this reasoning if it pointed in the other direction — has been applied across every domain in this editorial so far. The conscription question is where it gets tested under live political conditions with identifiable actors making real decisions in real time.

The historical connection between voting rights and military obligation is not rhetorical. It is constitutional. The 1917 US Supreme Court ruling on Selective Service explicitly held that ‘the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen’ — establishing the constitutional link between civic rights and civic obligations. Voting rights were historically extended to groups as they became eligible for conscription. The quid pro quo was not incidental. It was structural.

The current legal reality is straightforward: an 18-year-old man must register for the Selective Service as a condition of citizenship — with failure to register constituting a felony carrying potential fines up to $250,000 and loss of federal employment eligibility, student aid, and pathway to citizenship for immigrants. An 18-year-old woman faces none of these obligations. Both vote equally on decisions about war, military budgets, and conscription policy itself.

A federal commission formally recommended that Congress eliminate male-only registration and expand draft eligibility to all citizens, citing that current disparate treatment unacceptably excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation and reinforces stereotypes about women’s roles. The Biden administration endorsed this recommendation. Congress has refused to act on it four times between 2016 and 2024.

The political response to each refusal is where the analysis becomes most revealing. Senator Josh Hawley led Republican colleagues — including Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and six others — in opposing any NDAA provision requiring women to register, describing women’s military service as having ‘always been voluntary’ and framing mandatory registration as something that should be ‘defeated once again.’ Twenty-two Republican House members signed a letter calling the female draft ‘an affront to our nation’s values.’

The National Organization for Women responded to proposals to extend registration to women by passing a resolution calling for abolishing Selective Service registration entirely — choosing to eliminate the obligation rather than share it.

Every political actor in this debate abandoned the consistency principle the moment it became personally inconvenient. Republican senators who oppose feminist framing invoked female protection from compulsion the moment conscription entered the conversation. The primary feminist institutional organization chose abolition over equality. The federal commission and the Biden administration were the only actors who applied the equal rights equal obligations framework consistently — and Congress ignored them.

The 2025 NDAA did automate Selective Service registration — but only for men. The gender question was left unresolved. Women remain ineligible for the draft in December 2026 exactly as they were in 1973. The administrative efficiency improved. The civic asymmetry did not.

What the draft debate reveals isn’t that women oppose equality. It’s that the equality framework as institutionally constructed was never actually about equal obligation — it was about equal access to advantage with continued exemption from burden. When the burden is workplace death, the institutional silence is deafening. When the burden is military registration, the opposition is immediate and bipartisan. The honest word for equal rights without equal obligations isn’t equality.

It is privilege. And the consistency principle requires us to say so regardless of which direction it runs.

XI. The Consistency Principle

Every claim in this editorial can be tested with a single instrument: apply the same standard to both sides and see if it holds.

If 23% female engineering enrollment is a crisis requiring federal intervention, dedicated research funding, and mandatory equity audits — then 18% male nursing enrollment is an identical crisis by the same standard. It is not treated that way.

If the gender gap in corporate board representation warrants legislation and mandatory disclosure requirements — then the gender gap in workplace fatalities, where men account for 92% of deaths, warrants equivalent legislative urgency. It does not receive it.

If women being underrepresented in higher education would constitute a systemic emergency requiring immediate corrective action — then men being underrepresented in higher education by nearly 25 percentage points is a systemic emergency. It is described, where it is described at all, as a puzzling trend.

If the suicide rate among any demographic group reaching four times the rate of the general population would generate dedicated research streams, public health campaigns, and policy responses — then the male suicide rate, which has held at approximately four times the female rate for decades, should have generated those responses long ago. It hasn’t.

If women voting as a bloc for one political party is treated as evidence of unified political consciousness deserving institutional representation — then women voting as a bloc for the other political party, which a majority of white women have done consistently for two decades, deserves equivalent acknowledgment. It doesn’t receive it.

If equal civic rights require equal civic obligations — and they do, under every serious theory of democratic citizenship — then women’s exemption from Selective Service registration while bearing full voting rights over decisions that send men to die is an asymmetry the consistency principle cannot resolve without action. It has not received action.

Apply the standard consistently. The structure does not survive the application.

This is not an argument that women’s protections should be dismantled. It is an argument that the consistency principle — the most basic test of whether a standard is a standard or merely a preference — has been systematically suspended in this domain. And that suspension has costs: to men whose suffering goes unmeasured and unaddressed, to women whose genuine interests are misrepresented by institutions claiming to speak for all of them, and to the public discourse that cannot honestly examine either because the machinery has made honest examination politically hazardous.

XII. Conclusion: What an Honest Standard Requires

The institutional machinery built around gender advocacy in Canada and the United States was constructed to address real injustices. That origin is legitimate and should not be obscured. The legal exclusions were real. The structural disadvantages were real. The suffering that generated the movement was real.

The question is not whether the machine was necessary. The question is whether it is still solving the problem it was built for — or whether it has become primarily a mechanism for measuring, naming, and resourcing one category of human suffering while systematically ignoring another of equivalent scale.

The data presented in this editorial does not support the conclusion that women have achieved perfect equality and further advocacy is unnecessary. Individual discrimination exists. Genuine gaps remain in specific contexts. Some legislative failures produce documented harm to real people that requires correction.

What the data does not support is the conclusion that the current institutional apparatus — in its scale, its framing, its funding structures, and its political claims — is proportionate to the problems it is addressing. It is an apparatus built for a different moment, running on the momentum of genuine historical injustice, having developed sufficient organizational complexity to sustain itself independent of whether the original problem still exists at the scale that justified its creation.

An honest standard requires acknowledging male occupational death at the same volume we acknowledge female workplace discrimination. It requires treating male educational underrepresentation with the same urgency we apply to female underrepresentation in specific fields. It requires measuring male mental health outcomes with the same methodological investment we apply to female health research. It requires acknowledging that ‘women’s interests’ is not a coherent unified category that any single institution can represent. It requires extending civic obligations equally to those who hold equal civic rights.

And it requires something harder than any of those things: the willingness to apply the consistency principle even when the results are uncomfortable — to ask, of every claim, every statistic, every institutional budget, and every policy proposal, the same question we should ask of everything that passes through a newsroom operating under the Northstar:

Would we accept this evidence if it pointed in the other direction?

If the answer is no — the evidence is not evidence. It is a conclusion in search of data.

The machine runs. The signal must stay clean.

SOURCES

Bureau of Labor Statistics — Fatal Occupational Injuries data (annual series)

NIH research funding analysis — Woitowich et al., peer-reviewed (1998–2022 data)

NIH Revitalization Act 1993 — clinical trial inclusion mandate, legislative history

Applied Clinical Trials — gender bias in clinical drug evaluation, adverse reaction risk data (513,000 patient study)

Medical Research Foundation UK — sex bias in preclinical and animal research (80% male animal studies)

Psychological Bulletin — Su, Rounds & Armstrong, meta-analysis on occupational interests (effect size 1.11 engineering)

Psychological Science — Stoet & Geary, gender equality paradox study (67 countries)

U.S. Census Bureau — Current Population Survey post-secondary enrollment data (fall 2022)

Statistics Canada — Post-secondary enrollment reports

Pew Research Center — Voter turnout and gender gap analyses (2000–2024)

Cross-national suicide gender paradox research — Möller-Leimkühler

PRRI American Values Survey

Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Justin — ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,’ American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, August 2009, pp. 190–225. NBER Working Paper No. 14969.

Blanchflower, David G. and Bryson, Alex — female negative affect universality, wellbeing complexity and seasonal variability (2022)

Granderson, R.M. et al. — ‘An Intimacy Gap: Exploring U.S. Men’s Experience with and Capacity for Physical Intimacy in Their Same-Sex Friendships,’ APA Division 51 / NSF-funded, 2024

Psychology of Men and Masculinities — homohysteria, precarious manhood, and physical intimacy suppression in male same-sex friendships (2025)

Kindlon, Dan and Thompson, Michael — Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys

U.S. Supreme Court — Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917)

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service — Final Report (2020)

FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act — Section 535, automatic Selective Service registration (signed December 18, 2025)

Congressional Research Service — FY2025 NDAA: Selective Service Registration Proposals (IN12450)

Hawley, J. et al. — Opposition letter to NDAA female draft provision (December 2024)

National Organization for Women — Resolution on Selective Service registration (2022 national convention)

ScienceDirect — barriers and solutions in women’s health research (Mauvais-Jarvis et al., 2025)

Corrections and sourced challenges are welcomed at The Old Guardian — theoldguardian.ca

Leave a comment

Toronto’s public school lands have become a battleground.

Not in the way school communities usually fight — through elected trustees, public board meetings, and the slow machinery of democratic governance. Those mechanisms are no longer available to the communities that depend on them.

This battle is happening at the Ontario Land Tribunal. The next hearing is September 9.

What’s at Stake

In late 2025 the City of Toronto approved a pilot project — the Avenues policy — allowing developers to build mid-rise buildings of up to 14 storeys along major streets in two wards. School properties were initially exempted after community pushback. Residents understood that opening school lands to development signals to the market that those properties are available. And once public school land is sold it is almost impossible to get back.

That exemption is now under attack.

The Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board — both governed by provincial supervisors appointed by Education Minister Paul Calandra — have filed an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal to remove the exemption and redesignate school properties for mid-rise development.

Calandra publicly supports the appeal.

“What the TDSB is doing is ensuring that the asset value — its asset value — is maintained to the highest level,” he told CityNews.

The supervisors who filed the appeal answer only to the Minister who supports it. The elected trustees who would have challenged this on behalf of communities cannot govern. Under the supervision orders in place at both the TDSB and TCDSB their governing authority is suspended — and Calandra has confirmed that trustees elected in October will not return to a governance function either. The suspension has no end date.

A publicly available analysis compiled by the protectschoollands.ca campaign documents more than 200 Toronto school properties across all 25 city wards potentially affected by the appeal — TDSB and TCDSB schools fronting on, adjacent to, or within assembling distance of newly designated Avenue corridors.

Among them: Bowmore Road Junior and Senior Public School in Ward 19 Beaches-East York. Ossington Old Orchard Junior Public School in Ward 9 Davenport. Schools in Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, and every corner of the city.

If the appeal succeeds the exemption protecting those properties is removed. Redesignation doesn’t mean immediate sale. But it increases land value, creates pressure to dispose of properties when enrollment is low, and signals to developers that school land is in play.

The Toronto Lands Corporation — the TDSB’s real estate arm, now operating under the supervisor — has already developed redevelopment concepts for specific school sites. At Georges Vanier Secondary School in Don Valley North the TLC notes envision a development plan including hundreds of housing units. At the former Sir Robert L Borden site in Scarborough early concepts already include hundreds of housing units, a job skills training facility, and public realm improvements.

The machine is already moving.

The Community Response

Virginia Johnson noticed what was happening before most people did.

A Toronto parent and member of the Lakeview Avenue Neighbourhood Association, Johnson launched a petition opposing the OLT appeal. It has now gathered over 6,000 signatures — a number that has nearly tripled since the campaign began. She helped organize legal representation for the community at the tribunal. She co-organized a town hall on May 6 at 14 Division Community Room that drew a standing room crowd — Ontario NDP Leader Marit Stiles, MPP Jessica Bell, City Councillor Alejandra Bravo, and TDSB Trustee Alexis Dawson all attended.

“So many people just don’t know what’s happening,” Johnson told TOG. “Parents. Teachers. The gap between what’s being decided and what the community knows about it is enormous.”

The mood at the town hall was what Johnson describes as hungry and highly motivated — people asking what they can do, expressing deep concern about the lack of transparency around school lands, and voicing their distrust that the Ford government is making these decisions with community interests in mind.

Johnson is direct about the uncertainty at the heart of the legal fight.

Asked what winning looks like she paused.

“I don’t know how to answer that,” she said. “Will the board withdraw their appeal? I don’t know. We’re fighting something that keeps moving.”

What she does know is why it’s worth fighting.

“These green spaces — kids grow up on these schoolyards. They come back with their own children. They come back on their own. There’s a sense of ownership, a sense of belonging that develops on these lands over generations. In a dense urban city where we already have insufficient park space that matters enormously. And as the city gets denser it will matter more, not less.”

The Case Management Conference was held May 26. The next hearing date is September 9, 2026.

Community members can still request participant status with the Ontario Land Tribunal. The tribunal has confirmed it will continue to accept requests beyond the original deadline. Individual statements are preferred over templates. Participant status requires attending the hearings. Every registered participant signals to the tribunal the scale of community concern — and community numbers matter to the OLT.

To request participant status: protectschoollands.ca

Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109 and OLT-26-000335

The Planning Gap

The appeal exposes a fundamental misalignment between how the City plans and how the school board plans.

The City of Toronto plans for growth 50 years out. The Avenues policy is designed to accommodate density along major streets for decades to come. New residents moving into mid-rise buildings on Ossington, Gerrard, Finch, and Lawrence will have children. Those children will need schools.

The TDSB plans enrollment approximately 10 years out. The board projects nearly 5,000 fewer students in 2026-27. That declining enrollment — produced in part by families leaving a city they can no longer afford, choosing alternatives to a public system under provincial supervision, or both — is being used to justify positioning school land for development.

The numbers tell a striking story. The Durham District School Board — one of the regions families are moving to — grew from 70,000 students in 2019 to 79,000 in 2023, a 12.8% increase in four years driven by new development and families relocating from Toronto. Durham is struggling to build new schools fast enough to accommodate that growth. In some communities it takes seven to ten years after new homes are built for a new school to open.

Toronto is losing the students Durham is gaining.

The families who left took their children with them. The land those children would have used is being sold based on their absence. When density returns to Toronto’s avenues — and the City’s 50-year planning horizon assumes it will — the schools won’t be there.

Johnson points to the absurdity already emerging at new development sites across Toronto — buildings going up along avenue corridors where marketing materials acknowledge there are no schools nearby to accommodate children.

The city is adding density. The schools that density will eventually need are being positioned for sale.

What a Trustee Sees

TOG notified TDSB Trustee Michelle Aarts, Ward 16 Beaches-East York, that Bowmore Road Junior and Senior Public School appears on the protectschoollands.ca property analysis. Her response drew on her direct knowledge as the elected trustee for that ward.

Most schools in Beaches-East York and Toronto-Danforth are currently over capacity with little to no options to move students to nearby schools. Most sit on constrained properties — too small to accommodate portables.

The Avenues policy is adding density to streets in communities where schools are already full and physically cannot expand. The land those schools sit on is being positioned for potential redesignation under the OLT appeal — in communities that will need more school space not less.

One school concerns Aarts most directly.

Eastdale Collegiate Institute on Gerrard Street East was built as a small school with a capacity of less than 400 students. It has operated as an intentionally small school serving at-risk students and students with special education needs. It has life skills training facilities, a rooftop garden, and a culinary program — resources designed specifically for students who struggle in larger institutional settings and who have few other options in the system.

The TDSB has cancelled Grade 9 enrollment at Eastdale for September 2026. No new students will enter the school this fall. Aarts fears the supervisor is positioning the school for closure and eventual sale — leaving the students it serves without the specialized environment built for them.

“The one school that is at risk is Eastdale Collegiate,” Aarts told TOG. “It is physically too small to be a regular secondary school and has operated as an ‘intentionally small’ school for at-risk students and special education students. It has great facilities for life skills training, a rooftop garden, and a culinary program. The TDSB has cancelled grade 9 enrolment for September and it is feared that the Supervisor is looking to close the school and sell it, leaving the students it serves at risk.”

It is also the site of Degrassi Junior High — a school with forty years of community identity in Toronto’s east end.

The Legislative Architecture

This appeal did not emerge from a vacuum. It is the logical endpoint of three pieces of legislation passed over three years.

Bill 98, the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023 — gave the Minister reporting rights over school board property and the power to direct decisions about acquisition, sale, lease, and disposition.

Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act, November 2025 — gave the Minister power to supervise boards and remove elected trustees entirely.

The Putting Student Achievement First Act, April 2026 — gave the Minister power to oversee, redirect, or cancel capital projects and appoint third parties to control them.

Three bills. Three years. A complete legislative transfer of control over approximately $20 billion in public school land from democratic community governance to a single Minister.

That Minister publicly supports the appeal to remove the protection keeping school lands out of the development market.

The supervisors who filed the appeal answer only to him.

The Accountability Gap

Before supervision this appeal would have faced democratic challenge.

Elected trustees would have debated it in public board meetings. The community would have had elected representatives to call. The TLC projects — affordable housing, community hubs, long-term care facilities — that were underway when supervision was imposed in June 2025 reflected a community-benefit mandate developed with elected trustee oversight.

That mandate still reads: preserve public assets, collaborate to build complete communities where people live, learn, work and play.

The appeal filed by the supervisors moves in the opposite direction. And there is no elected democratic voice with governing authority challenging it on behalf of communities whose schools are on the list.

So the community organized itself.

A petition now carrying over 6,000 signatures. A legal team. A town hall with the Official Opposition. A participant registration campaign that the Ontario Land Tribunal is still accepting.

As the protectschoollands.ca campaign states plainly: given that Toronto school boards are now under the direct control of the province, instead of locally-elected school trustees, the local community’s interests are no longer represented.

Trustee Dan MacLean, who announced this month that he will not seek re-election in October, put the democratic failure precisely in a public statement: candidates are being asked to step forward for the October trustee election without knowing whether they will ever be allowed to do the job. Supervision has no end date. Trustees elected in October will not return to a governance function. The Minister confirmed it himself.

What You Can Do

The next Ontario Land Tribunal hearing is September 9, 2026.

Community members can still request participant status. The OLT has confirmed it will continue to accept requests. Individual statements carry more weight than templates. Participant status requires attending the hearings — your presence signals to the tribunal that this community is watching and engaged.

To request participant status and for updated guidance: protectschoollands.ca

Sign the petition. Write to Premier Ford and Minister Calandra directly. Tell your neighbours. Bring it to your school council. Contact your ward councillor.

Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109 and OLT-26-000335

Our schools were paid for by the public. Once those lands are gone they do not come back.

Sources

ProtectSchoolLands.ca — School Properties Analysis, accessed May 2026

ProtectSchoolLands.ca — Participant Registration Campaign, accessed May 2026

Virginia Johnson — community organizer, protectschoollands.ca — in direct communication with TOG, May 2026

Trustee Michelle Aarts, Ward 16 Beaches-East York — in direct communication with TOG, May 2026

Trustee Dan MacLean, Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre — TorontoToday op-ed, May 2026

Beach Metro Community News — Cut in number of Toronto school trustees raises concerns, May 14, 2026

Durham District School Board — Enrollment Growth and Building New Schools — ddsb.ca

TorontoToday — TDSB enrollment and teacher cuts, April 7-14, 2026

CBC News — TDSB enrollment decline and teacher cuts, April 7-8, 2026

CityNews — Calandra asset value quote, 2026

Village Report — Calandra confirms trustees elected in October will not return to governance function, April 13, 2026

Ontario Land Tribunal — Case Nos. OLT-26-000109 and OLT-26-000335

Bill 98, Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023

Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025

Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026

TLC 2025-26 Annual Plan — torontolandscorp.com

TLC Project Updates, June 2025 — torontolandscorp.com

The Old Guardian — TDSB Governance Investigation, September 2025 — May 2026

Leave a comment

When my son began repeating things at home that no child should be saying — statements dismissing women, reducing them to stereotypes — I did what engaged parents are supposed to do. I documented. I requested a meeting. I read the policies. I showed up prepared.

And then, in that meeting, I made an inference about where my son likely heard these things. I was wrong. And in a room already primed to find fault with my framing, that mistake became the story instead of my son.

I own that. Fully.

But what happened in the weeks that followed is worth examining — because it says something not about one father’s misstep, but about how institutions respond when parents show up with documented concerns and inconvenient questions.

The hardest part of being a parent today is not danger. It’s uncertainty.

Most parents understand instinctively that schools cannot eliminate all conflict, cruelty, or behavioural problems. Children are human beings, not programmable machines. They argue, lash out, test boundaries, say inappropriate things, and sometimes hurt each other. None of that is new.

What has changed is the framework surrounding those moments.

Modern schools increasingly operate through the language of restoration, regulation, inclusion, progressive discipline, trauma-informed practice, and behavioural support. On paper, many of these ideas are compassionate and reasonable. Few people genuinely want children unnecessarily criminalized, publicly shamed, or permanently branded for mistakes made during emotional immaturity.

But somewhere along the way, many parents stopped understanding where certainty fits inside the system.

When a serious behavioural incident occurs in a school today, parents are often introduced to a strange new emotional reality: they are expected to trust processes they are not allowed to see.

They hear phrases like:

“Appropriate measures are being taken.” “Monitoring is in place.” “Student privacy prevents further disclosure.” “Restorative conversations are underway.” “Progressive discipline has been applied.”

And to be fair, schools are often telling the truth. In my own situation, the school did implement a safety plan, contacted the other family, and scheduled follow-up meetings. My son, when asked directly, said he felt safe. Those are real responses and they deserve honest acknowledgment.

The problem is that parents do not emotionally experience these situations as policy exercises.

A school may view a troubling incident as one behavioural data point among hundreds encountered over a career. A parent hears: someone threatened my child.

Those are not the same emotional realities.

This is where institutional trust begins to erode.

Not necessarily because schools are malicious. Not necessarily because administrators are lazy. Not even necessarily because the system is failing entirely.

Trust erodes because parents increasingly feel locked outside the decision-making process while still being expected to absorb the emotional consequences of uncertainty.

Modern educational systems are built heavily around preventing exclusion. Suspensions are rarer. Expulsions are rarest of all. Schools are encouraged to intervene, restore, redirect, regulate, and support before removing students from learning environments.

There are understandable moral reasons for this shift. Older disciplinary systems often punished symptoms without addressing causes, disproportionately removed vulnerable students, and sometimes escalated children into worse outcomes.

But every correction introduces a new imbalance.

Today, many teachers privately admit they are expected to maintain classroom order with fewer meaningful tools than previous generations possessed. Many parents quietly feel the threshold for visible consequences has become almost impossibly high. And schools often cannot disclose what interventions are occurring with another child due to privacy legislation, leaving families to infer effectiveness through observation and time.

So parents wait.

They wait to see if incidents repeat. They wait to see if supervision improves. They wait to see if their child still feels safe.

And in that waiting, a deeper cultural tension reveals itself.

Schools now speak largely in therapeutic and procedural language. Parents still think in primal language.

Institutions discuss behavioural supports, restorative practice, emotional regulation, de-escalation.

Parents think: Can my child be harmed?

Neither side is entirely wrong. But the emotional distance between those worldviews is enormous.

What makes this tension especially difficult is that no one involved necessarily feels fully satisfied with the current system.

Teachers feel underpowered. Administrators feel constrained. Parents feel uncertain. Students with behavioural struggles are often carrying burdens invisible to outsiders. And the students around them are expected to continue learning while adults attempt to balance compassion with order in real time.

This is not an argument for cruelty. It is not an argument for mass suspension. It is not nostalgia for every disciplinary practice of previous decades.

It is an acknowledgment that trust requires visibility, clarity, consistency, and confidence. Increasingly, many families feel the system can only offer process.

My son, through all of it, did everything right. He walked away. He reported. He came home and told us the truth. He trusted the adults around him to handle it.

That trust is not guaranteed forever. It has to be earned, continuously, by institutions willing to be accountable not just to their own policies — but to the families waiting outside the door.

Perhaps that is the quietest fear modern parents carry: not that schools do not care, but that the systems themselves no longer possess the authority, certainty, or capacity to reassure anyone completely.

And the children are watching to see if we figure it out.

There is lead in the water at 53 Toronto public schools.

Not trace amounts. Not levels that require monitoring. Levels that exceed the federal Health Canada standard of 5 parts per billion — the threshold at which the government of Canada says action is required to protect human health.

At 30 of those schools the lead levels exceed Ontario’s own standard of 10 parts per billion.

At Central Technical School in Toronto’s west end a single test recorded 1,200 parts per billion. The federal safety limit is 5. That is 240 times the federal standard at one school.

The province knows. The supervisor knows. The bill that restructured Ontario’s entire education governance system in April 2026 says nothing about lead in school drinking water.

The water is still there. The children are still drinking it.

What Lead Does

Lead is a neurotoxin. There is no safe level of exposure for children.

The health effects of lead exposure are not reversible. They are not treatable after the fact. Lead affects cognitive development, neurological function, and behavioral outcomes. Children exposed to lead perform worse academically. They have higher rates of attention disorders. The damage done in early childhood cannot be undone in adolescence.

This is not a contested scientific finding. It is the established consensus of Health Canada, the World Health Organization, and every major public health body in the world.

The province of Ontario has internal documents — obtained by the Canadian Environmental Law Association through freedom of information requests — confirming that it has internally acknowledged there is no safe level of lead.

It has taken no action to remove exemptions based on levels now recognized as harmful.

It has not adopted Health Canada’s 5 parts per billion standard. Ontario’s own standard remains 10 parts per billion — double the federal threshold. Schools exceeding 5ppb but below 10ppb are not required under Ontario’s standard to take action.

The province knows the federal standard is more protective. It has not adopted it. And 53 TDSB schools exceed the standard the province has not adopted.

The False Safety of Flushing

Ontario’s primary response to lead in school drinking water is a flushing protocol. Run the taps before use. Let the water flow. Dilute the lead before children drink.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association’s report documents why this approach is inadequate.

Lead concentration in water can return to dangerous levels minutes or hours after flushing a fixture. The protocol that Ontario relies on as its primary mitigation strategy does not protect children who drink water from a tap that was flushed an hour ago.

The protocol is not a solution. It is an appearance of action in the absence of action.

Real remediation requires replacing the lead-containing pipes, fixtures, and solder that are producing the contamination. That requires capital funding. The TDSB has a $4.5 billion maintenance backlog. 84.1% of its buildings are below good repair. Lead contamination is not an isolated problem — it is a symptom of a system starved of capital funding for decades.

The province that created that funding gap is the same province now overseeing the board through a supervisor who has not fixed the water.

The Supervision Contradiction

On June 27, 2025, Minister Paul Calandra placed the Toronto District School Board under provincial supervision. The stated purpose: fix financial mismanagement and governance failures. Restore the board to proper functioning. Put resources back into classrooms.

The supervisor appointed to achieve those goals earns up to $400,000 per year — billing through a private company and adding HST.

53 TDSB schools still have lead in the water exceeding the federal standard.

The Putting Student Achievement First Act — tabled April 13, 2026 and moving toward passage — restructures trustee governance, bargaining, attendance requirements, assessment practices, capital project oversight, and communication policies across Ontario’s school boards.

It says nothing about lead remediation.

It does not require the publication of a remediation plan. It does not set a timeline for fixing the water. It does not direct the supervisor to address lead contamination as a priority. It does not adopt Health Canada’s 5 parts per billion standard. It does not address the $4.5 billion maintenance backlog that is the structural cause of the contamination.

The bill is 147 pages long.

Lead in school drinking water does not appear in any of them.

Ontario Is Not Alone — But It Is Among the Worst

The TDSB is not the only board with a lead problem. But the scale of the problem in Toronto is significant.

The CELA report ranks Ontario school boards by lead contamination levels. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board ranks first — 104 schools exceed 10 parts per billion. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board ranks second — 40 schools exceed 10 parts per billion. The Toronto District School Board ranks third — 30 schools exceed 10 parts per billion and 53 exceed the federal standard of 5 parts per billion.

Three of the four worst boards in Ontario for lead contamination are boards currently under provincial supervision.

The supervisor appointed to fix those boards has not fixed the water.

Parents in Ottawa are already organizing. Following the CELA report CBC News documented Ottawa parents calling on the province to address lead levels at schools in their city after finding some of the highest concentrations in Ontario.

The story is the same in every community where it’s being told. Schools built decades ago. Aging infrastructure. Lead in pipes and fixtures and solder that was standard when the buildings were constructed. A maintenance backlog that has grown for a generation. A province that knows and has not acted.

The Accountability Gap

Before supervision parents in TDSB communities had mechanisms.

They could bring concerns about school safety to elected trustees who had both the authority and the obligation to respond. They could attend public board meetings and demand answers about remediation timelines and capital repair plans. They could escalate through a formal parent concern protocol to elected representatives who could vote on how resources were allocated.

Under supervision those mechanisms do not exist.

The supervisor cannot speak to media. Calandra confirmed it: supervisors are not media personalities, they are there to get the job done.

The trustees cannot govern. Their authority has been suspended with no restoration timeline. Calandra has confirmed that trustees elected in October will not return to a governance function.

The public board meetings where lead remediation would have been debated and demanded are not happening.

The advisory committees that monitored school safety and student wellbeing have been cancelled.

Parents who want to know whether their child’s school has lead in the water — and what is being done about it — have a business help desk email address.

That is the accountability gap. And it is not incidental to the lead contamination story. It is central to it. Without democratic accountability there is no mechanism to demand remediation. Without a mechanism to demand remediation the water stays unaddressed.

The supervisor bills $400,000. The water stays at 1,200 parts per billion at one school. And the bill restructuring governance across Ontario’s education system says nothing about either.

The Demand

TOG is not a regulatory body. TOG cannot order remediation or compel disclosure. But TOG can document what the evidence requires and name what the people responsible have not done.

The province must publish the complete list of affected schools — by name, by specific test results, by remediation status. Parents cannot protect their children from a risk they cannot see. The affected schools are known. The results are documented. The public is entitled to know which schools their children attend.

The province must adopt Health Canada’s 5 parts per billion standard. Ontario’s 10 parts per billion threshold is not protective. The province’s own internal documents acknowledge there is no safe level of lead. The standard must reflect that acknowledgment.

The province must publish a remediation plan with named schools, specific actions, funded timelines, and completion dates. Not a flushing protocol. An actual infrastructure remediation plan that addresses the source of contamination rather than diluting it temporarily.

The supervisor must be directed to address lead contamination as an immediate priority. If the supervisor’s mandate is student achievement — and that is what the legislation is called — explain how children achieve while drinking water that exceeds federal safety limits by 240 times at one school.

The maintenance backlog must be funded. $4.5 billion. 84.1% of buildings below good repair. Lead contamination does not exist in isolation. It is the visible, measurable, documented symptom of a system starved of capital investment for a generation. The province created that funding gap. The province is responsible for closing it.

A Note on What This Is

This is not a story about one bad test result at one school. This is a story about a system — a funding formula that starved boards of capital, a maintenance backlog that grew for decades, a supervision regime that removed democratic accountability, and a government that passed 147 pages of education legislation without addressing lead in the drinking water of 53 schools serving hundreds of thousands of children.

The province knows. The supervisor knows. The Minister knows.

The water is still there.

The children are still drinking it.

That is the record. And the record demands an answer.

Sources

Canadian Environmental Law Association — Lead Contamination Report, 2026 — cela.ca

CBC News — Ottawa parents calling for action on lead levels in school drinking water, April 27, 2026

TDSB — 53 schools documented exceeding Health Canada 5ppb standard

Health Canada — Federal drinking water guideline, 5 parts per billion

Ontario drinking water standard — 10 parts per billion

TDSB Budget Appendix A — $4.5 billion maintenance backlog, 84.1% of buildings below good repair — provided to TOG by Trustee Michelle Aarts, September 2025

CBC News — supervisor media ban, April 28, 2026

Village Report — Calandra confirms trustees elected in October will not return to governance function, April 13, 2026

Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026

Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025

PwC Financial Investigation Report — June 2025, page 61

The Old Guardian — TDSB Governance Investigation, September 2025 — May 2026

Leave a comment

The governance story of Ontario’s supervised school boards has been told largely from the outside.

Trustees locked out of their roles. Supervisors billing $400,000 through private companies. Advisory committees cancelled. Budgets removed from public view. A Minister who says restoration could take a decade and whose appointed supervisors cannot speak to media.

That story is documented. TOG has been reporting it since September 2025.

But governance has a classroom side. And the classroom side doesn’t appear in budget appendices or ministerial press releases or PricewaterhouseCoopers investigation reports.

It appears in the daily experience of the people whose job it is to show up, close the door, and teach.

This piece asks what that experience looks like. It asks because the documented institutional record raises the question. And it asks because the answer — whatever it turns out to be — matters for every family whose child sits in one of those classrooms.

What the Record Documents

The Toronto District School Board is losing 607 teaching positions for 2026-27 by union count. 289 by the board’s own figure. The discrepancy between those two numbers reflects a transparency gap that has characterized supervision from the beginning — decisions made without public debate, without trustee oversight, and without a mechanism for parents or educators to challenge what they cannot see.

40 vice-principal positions have been eliminated. Some schools now share administrators across multiple buildings. The people responsible for day-to-day school leadership — handling safety incidents, supporting teachers, communicating with families — are stretched across more schools with less time for each.

186 support worker positions are being eliminated. Early childhood educators. Lunchroom supervisors. Office staff. Safety monitors. The people who keep schools functioning below the level of classroom instruction.

The Model Schools program — designed specifically to support students in Toronto’s highest-needs communities — is losing 145 full-time equivalent positions. Nutrition programs. Vision and hearing testing. Paediatric clinics. Beyond 3:30 programming. Museum partnerships. The resources that for many students represented their only access to enrichment and basic health services.

Special Education Advisory Committees have been cancelled. Parent Interest Advisory Committees displaced. The formal mechanisms through which families with complex-needs children communicated their experiences to the system no longer function.

At the April 13, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee forum — a meeting that board staff reportedly did not want held — parent after parent described children being denied proper support. Students on modified schedules. Students excluded from classrooms. Students whose Individual Education Plans were no longer being implemented in the way educators had previously handled them informally and effectively.

That is the documented institutional record.

What the Record Raises

When governance is removed from a community and decisions flow from a provincial supervisor through administrators to schools — what happens inside those schools?

When 607 teaching positions are cut, 40 vice-principals eliminated, and 186 support workers removed — what does a school day feel like for the educators still in the building?

When advisory committees are cancelled and the formal mechanisms for professional input into board decisions are removed — what happens to the culture of staff meetings? Do the conversations that used to happen openly move somewhere else? Do they happen at all?

When decisions arrive from above rather than emerging from the collaborative professional culture that experienced educators have built over careers — what happens to the professional judgment those educators have spent decades developing?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are the questions the documented institutional record raises. And they are questions TOG has been working to answer.

What the Staffroom Knows

Ontario’s tiered support model defines three levels of educational intervention.

Tier 1 is universal classroom instruction — the baseline teaching every student receives.

Tier 2 is targeted small group support — additional intervention for students who need more than universal instruction provides.

Tier 3 is intensive individualized one-on-one intervention — the highest level of support, designed for students with the most complex learning needs. Students whose IEPs require specialized attention. Students for whom the classroom alone is not enough.

Tier 3 support is designed to be delivered by specialized staff. Educational assistants. Child and youth workers. Special education resource teachers. People trained specifically for this work.

The TDSB is eliminating 186 support worker positions for 2026-27. 40 vice-principal positions are gone. The Model Schools program — which provided specialized support staff to the board’s highest-needs schools — is losing 145 full-time equivalent positions.

When specialized staff disappear the support they provided does not disappear with them.

It lands somewhere.

The documented record raises the question of where. What happens when a classroom teacher — already managing a larger class with fewer colleagues in the building — is expected to deliver not just Tier 1 universal instruction but Tier 2 and Tier 3 support simultaneously for students whose needs require individualized intervention?

The AODA Alliance documented what this produces from the student side at the April 13 SEAC forum. Parent after parent described children being excluded from proper support. Students on modified schedules. IEPs not being implemented. The system’s most vulnerable students falling through gaps that opened when supervision replaced the structures that had previously caught them.

What the forum documented from the parent and student side — TOG is still working to fully understand from the educator side.

The ETT School Climate Survey measures exactly this terrain. School climate. Professional relationships. Whether teachers feel valued, supported, and free to raise concerns. Whether the conditions exist for the kind of collaborative professional culture that effective teaching requires. Results for 2026 were released April 23. TOG has formally requested those results. They have not yet been provided.

When they arrive they will either confirm or challenge what the institutional record suggests.

Until then the questions stand.

What Experience Represents

Ontario is simultaneously cutting teacher positions and shortening teachers’ college to address a teacher shortage.

Those two facts exist in the same policy environment at the same time.

The province needs more teachers. The province is cutting the positions those teachers would fill. The province is accelerating the path into a profession while the documented operational record suggests it is making the conditions of that profession harder to sustain.

Institutional pressure has documented effects. When professional judgment is consistently overridden. When the tools educators relied on are removed without replacement. When the culture of a workplace shifts from collaborative to directive. When raising concerns carries risk that it did not carry before.

Experienced educators leave. Not always loudly. Not always with explanation. The language institutions accept — and the language that protects the people using it — tends toward the neutral and the personal. Closer to home. Time for a change. Health reasons.

What sits beneath that language is not always visible in data. But its effects accumulate. In classrooms with fewer experienced hands. In schools with institutional memory walking out the door. In a profession that is simultaneously being told it needs more people and being given fewer reasons to stay.

The human cost of what the operational record documents does not appear in any budget appendix. But it shows up somewhere. And the province’s own teacher shortage data suggests it is showing up in ways that no shortened teachers’ college program will fix.

At the end of all of these changes it is the students who are losing out.

That is not an editorial opinion. It is the conclusion the documented record produces. Fewer specialized staff. Larger classes. Eliminated supports. Cancelled advisory committees. Teachers asked to deliver every level of intervention simultaneously with fewer resources and less professional autonomy than they have ever had.

The students in Ontario’s highest-needs schools — the ones who most depend on the system working — are the ones absorbing the cost of it not working.

What Comes Next

The Putting Student Achievement First Act is moving through the Ontario legislature. Committee hearings have concluded. The bill is expected to pass largely unchanged.

The eight supervised boards remain under provincial control with no restoration timeline. The Minister has said it could take one year. Or two years. Or ten.

The people making decisions in those boards cannot speak to media.

The elected trustees who might have asked questions on behalf of communities cannot exercise their authority.

And the educators inside those schools — the people who know what the classroom side of this story actually looks like — are navigating an environment where what they know and what they can say are not always the same thing.

TOG will keep asking the questions the record raises.

And TOG will keep listening for the answers.

Sources

AODA Alliance — TDSB SEAC forum video, April 13, 2026

TorontoToday — TDSB teacher and support worker cuts, April 7-14, 2026

CBC News — VP position eliminations, April 1-2, 2026

ETT School Climate Survey 2026 — results requested by TOG, April 2026

GTA School Councils — Model Schools documentation, May 2026

CBC News — supervisor media ban, April 28, 2026

Ontario Ministry of Education — Tiered Support Model documentation

Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026

Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025

The Old Guardian — TDSB Governance Investigation, September 2025 — May 2026

Leave a comment

This piece does not allege a conspiracy.

It documents a sequence.

It presents that sequence without editorial conclusion and asks a question the people responsible for it have not answered.

The reader can draw their own conclusion. That is how it should work.

The Funding Record

Ontario’s public education system has been underfunded by an estimated $6.3 billion since 2018. That figure comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, cited by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario — not from an opposition party or an advocacy campaign, but from economists examining the funding formula against actual board operating costs.

The Toronto District School Board’s own budget analysis — Appendix A, provided to TOG by Trustee Michelle Aarts in September 2025 — documents a structural shortfall of $389.4 million. Of that, $112.6 million represents costs entirely outside the board’s control. Unfunded statutory benefits. Teacher salaries set above Ministry benchmarks. ECE wages funded at rates that don’t match reality.

These are not the product of mismanagement. They are the product of a funding formula that does not cover the actual cost of running a school board.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers investigation commissioned by the Ministry of Education confirmed this. Page 61 of the PwC report states directly: throughout the work conducted, investigators did not find any examples of reckless or deliberate wrongdoing, lack of financial oversight or governance, or actions resulting in potential reputational damage.

No wrongdoing. A structural deficit caused by years of provincial underfunding.

That deficit was used to justify supervision.

The Supervision Trigger

In June 2025, Minister Paul Calandra placed the Toronto District School Board under provincial supervision, citing financial mismanagement and governance failures.

The Ministry’s own investigator found no financial mismanagement.

The governance failures cited were real but disputed. The TEAN fact-check of Calandra’s year-end letter to TDSB families documented that several changes attributed to supervision had been approved by elected trustees before supervision was imposed.

Bill 33 — the Supporting Children and Students Act, passed November 2025 — expanded ministerial authority to intervene in school boards experiencing financial challenges. It removed the requirement for cabinet approval of supervision and eliminated the financial mismanagement threshold that had previously governed when intervention was permitted.

The province created the conditions that produced the deficits. The province then used those deficits to justify removing the elected representatives who might have challenged them.

That is the documented sequence.

Whether it was intended is a question TOG cannot answer. It is a question the Minister has not been asked to answer directly. And it is a question the public deserves to have answered.

What Happened Under Supervision

Since supervision was imposed at the Toronto District School Board on June 27, 2025, the following has been documented:

607 teacher positions eliminated for 2026-27 by union count. 289 by the board’s own figure. The discrepancy itself reflects a transparency blackout — decisions made without public debate, without trustee oversight, and without accountability.

40 vice-principal positions eliminated. Some schools now sharing administrators across multiple buildings.

186 school-based support worker positions eliminated — early childhood educators, lunchroom supervisors, office staff, safety monitors.

The Model Schools program — designed specifically to support students in high-needs communities — is losing 145 full-time equivalent positions. The program provided nutrition support, vision and hearing testing, paediatric clinics, Royal Ontario Museum and McMichael Art Gallery partnerships, and beyond 3:30 programming to schools serving Toronto’s most vulnerable students.

Individual school budgets were removed from the TDSB website. The stated reason: working documents posted without context can create confusion. Parents who want to know how their school’s money is being spent are directed to a business help desk email address.

Special Education advisory committees were cancelled. Parent Interest Advisory Committees were displaced. The mechanisms by which families with complex-needs children communicated their experiences to the system no longer function.

The Putting Student Achievement First Act — tabled April 13, 2026 — introduced a mandatory attendance requirement tying 15% of a high school student’s final grade to physical presence in school. It does not account for disability, mental health, poverty, or the documented reality that the students least able to attend consistently are the students who most need the system’s support.

53 TDSB schools have lead in their drinking water exceeding the federal Health Canada standard of 5 parts per billion. 30 exceed Ontario’s own standard of 10 parts per billion. Internal provincial documents obtained by the Canadian Environmental Law Association through freedom of information requests show that the province has internally acknowledged there is no safe level of lead — and has taken no action to remove exemptions based on levels now recognized as harmful.

The supervisor overseeing these conditions earns up to $400,000 per year. The elected trustees he replaced earned approximately $25,000.

The supervisor cannot speak to media. The Minister has said so explicitly.

The Credential Consequence

The Ontario Secondary School Diploma is not simply a piece of paper. It is the documented gateway to employment, post-secondary education, trades apprenticeships, regulated professional licensing, and in many cases immigration credential assessment in Canada.

Every university in the country. Every college. Every employer requiring proof of secondary education. Every trades licensing body. Every immigration assessment process. The OSSD is the standard against which all other credentials are measured.

Home schooling is legal in Ontario. The legal framework is among the most permissive in Canada. No mandatory curriculum. No government registration required. No reporting obligations.

But the credential home schooling produces — a homeschool diploma — is not a government-issued OSSD. It is not universally recognized by employers. It does not automatically satisfy post-secondary admission requirements. It does not qualify for trades apprenticeships without additional accredited coursework.

Families who can afford private school receive an OSSD through accredited private institutions. Families who can afford accredited online schools receive OSSD credits through those institutions.

Families who cannot afford either — who depend entirely on the public system — receive whatever credential that system produces.

The public system is currently producing it with 607 fewer teachers, 40 fewer vice-principals, 186 fewer support workers, eliminated equity programs, cancelled advisory committees, lead in the drinking water, and governance by people who cannot be questioned by the public.

The families most dependent on that system are the families with the fewest alternatives.

The Property Question

The Toronto District School Board owns approximately $20 billion in public school land across Toronto. That land was acquired over generations through public investment. It was held in trust for the communities whose children attended the schools built on it.

Three pieces of legislation passed over three years have transferred effective control of that land from elected community representatives to a single Minister.

Bill 98 — the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023 — gave the Minister reporting rights over school board property and the power to direct decisions about acquisition, sale, lease, and disposition.

Bill 33 — the Supporting Children and Students Act, November 2025 — gave the Minister power to supervise boards and remove elected trustees entirely.

The Putting Student Achievement First Act — April 2026 — gave the Minister power to oversee, redirect, or cancel capital projects and appoint third parties to control them without placing an entire board under supervision.

Three bills. Three years. A complete legislative transfer of control over $20 billion in public land from democratic community governance to a single Minister — with no elected oversight, no community voice, and no restoration timeline.

The Toronto Lands Corporation — the body managing TDSB property — had active community-benefit projects underway the week before supervision was imposed in June 2025. A 29-year community commitment at 705 Progress Avenue integrating affordable housing, a new school, a community hub, and a city park. A podium school with affordable housing at 50 Ethennonnhawahstihnen’ Lane. A new school with long-term care at St. Margaret’s. A city-wide affordable housing memorandum of understanding covering eight TDSB properties.

All of those projects are now subject to ministerial direction. None of them have a public status update under supervision.

Calandra described school properties as assets whose value must be maintained to the highest level. He said he expects the TDSB to go in and protect those assets.

He said this to a reporter who was later fired on the day the bill giving him control of those assets was tabled.

TOG notes the timeline. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

The National Pattern

Ontario is not doing something new.

Nova Scotia eliminated elected school boards in 2018. Five years later public consultation revealed that residents were asking for their return. PISA assessment scores declined. Communities reported that the Regional Centres for Education that replaced boards had become one-way communication channels with no mechanism for local input.

New Brunswick eliminated elected school boards. Then brought them back.

Prince Edward Island eliminated elected school boards. Then brought them back.

Alberta’s Bill 25 — tabled the same week as Ontario’s Putting Student Achievement First Act — would allow the Alberta Minister of Education to give empty school buildings to charter or private schools and would require ministerial approval for any new school superintendent contract.

In every jurisdiction that has gone down this road the pattern is the same. Democratic oversight removed. Centralized authority expanded. Community voice eliminated. And in the cases where the damage became undeniable — democratic governance eventually restored.

Ontario is further down this road than any of those provinces went.

The Question

TOG has been documenting this governance shift since September 2025. What began as an investigation into a single school board has become a documented record of a province-wide transfer of democratic authority over public education.

The funding formula produced deficits. The deficits justified supervision. Supervision eliminated trustees. Without trustees decisions were made without public accountability. Programs were cut. Teachers were fired. Equity supports were eliminated. Property worth $20 billion came under ministerial control. The credential students need to access employment and post-secondary education is now being produced by a system with fewer resources, less accountability, and no democratic recourse for the families most dependent on it.

The families with the most resources have alternatives. Private school. Accredited online schools. Catholic and French boards left largely untouched by these changes.

The families with the fewest resources have the public system. Which is governed by people who cannot be questioned by the public. Which may not be returned to democratic control for a decade. By a Minister’s own words.

TOG does not allege that this outcome was planned.

TOG documents that this outcome was produced.

And TOG asks the question that the people responsible for producing it have not been asked to answer on the public record:

Is this where you intended to go?

If not — what will you do differently?

And if the answer is nothing — then the public is entitled to decide for itself what the record shows.

Sources: CCPA via ETFO — $6.3 billion education underfunding since 2018 TDSB Budget Appendix A — provided to TOG by Trustee Michelle Aarts, September 2025 PwC Financial Investigation Report, June 2025, page 61 Toronto Education Advocacy Network Fact-Check — https://linktr.ee/forpublicschools Bill 98, Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023 Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025 Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 TLC 2025-26 Annual Plan — torontolandscorp.com TLC Project Updates, June 2025 — torontolandscorp.com CELA Lead Contamination Report, 2026 — cela.ca CBC News, April 28, 2026 — School board supervisors won’t be allowed to speak with media TorontoToday, April 7-14, 2026 CBC News, April 1-13, 2026 Nova Scotia Regional Centres for Education — documented outcomes Alberta Bill 25, 2026 PPM 131, Ontario Ministry of Education Ontario Secondary School Diploma requirements — Ontario Ministry of Education Calandra school lands interview — CityNews, reported by Tina Yazdani GTA School Councils Facebook group — Model Schools documentation The Old Guardian — TDSB Governance Investigation, September 2025 — May 2026

Asked when the eight school boards currently under provincial supervision might be returned to their elected trustees, Calandra did not give a timeline. He gave a range.

“If it takes me one year or two years or 10 years, I’ll take the time that’s needed to put these boards back on track.”

Ten years.

The word supervision implies something temporary. A problem identified. A fix applied. Authority restored. That is how supervision was sold to Ontarians when it began. An emergency measure. A course correction. A bridge back to democratic governance.

Calandra just described a bridge that might not have an other side.

The People Making the Decisions

Eight school boards are currently governed by provincial supervisors — unelected officials appointed by the Minister, billing through private companies, earning up to $400,000 per year.

These supervisors have fired teachers. Eliminated programs. Removed school budgets from public view. Cancelled advisory committees. Imposed teaching model changes without consultation. Made decisions that in a functioning democratic system would require public debate, trustee votes, and community input.

They have done all of this without public accountability.

And on April 28, Calandra made that lack of accountability explicit.

Asked about supervisor media availability, Calandra said their mandates do not include speaking with the media.

“Supervisors are not media personalities. They are there to roll up their sleeves and get the job done.”

Getting the job done. Behind closed doors. Without explanation. Without questions. Without accountability to the communities whose children attend the schools they are governing.

The supervisors appointed to run public institutions are not beholden to the public.

What Accountability Looks Like

Before supervision, the chain of accountability in Ontario school governance was imperfect but visible.

Parents elected trustees. Trustees governed the board in public meetings. Administrators ran daily operations under trustee oversight. Decisions were debated. Budgets were published. Advisory committees met. Parents could escalate concerns to elected representatives who had both the authority and the obligation to respond.

That chain has been severed.

In its place: a Minister-appointed supervisor who answers to the Minister. A Minister who sets no restoration timeline. A supervisor who cannot be questioned by media. A board whose budget documents have been removed from public view. Advisory committees that no longer meet. Trustees who are suspended.

And a Minister who says this arrangement might last a decade.

When the people making decisions about your child’s school cannot be questioned by journalists, cannot be held accountable by elected trustees, and report only to a single Minister who answers questions about restoration timelines with the word “ten” — that is not supervision.

That is unaccountable permanent administration of public institutions.

What the Public Deserves

Ontario families are not asking for perfection. They are asking for basic democratic accountability.

They are asking: who made the decision to eliminate this program? Who approved cutting these teaching positions? Who decided to remove school budgets from the website? Who is responsible for the lead in my child’s drinking water at school?

Under the current system the answer to every one of those questions is the same.

Not the supervisor — they don’t speak to media.

Not the trustees — they’re suspended.

Not the board — it’s under ministerial control.

The Minister. Always the Minister. Who may or may not choose to answer. And who has just told Ontario that this arrangement could last ten years.

The Old Guardian has been documenting this governance shift since September 2025. What began as a reported investigation into the Toronto District School Board has become a documented record of a province-wide transfer of democratic authority over public education to a single elected official — with no restoration timeline, no performance metrics, and no public accountability for the people making decisions in his name.

The supervisors are not beholden to you.

That is not a flaw in the system.

Under this government, it appears to be the point.

Sources: CBC News, April 28, 2026 — School board supervisors won’t be allowed to speak with media CP24, April 28, 2026 — Ontario may ban cellphones outright in schools The Old Guardian — TDSB Governance Investigation, September 2025 — May 2026 Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025

Independent Investigative Journalism

Investigative Report

By Chris Allen | The Old Guardian (TOG) | April 14, 2026

Classification: Verified Facts / Commentary Separated / Sources Cited

What Happened

On April 13, 2026, Tina Yazdani confirmed on social media that she was no longer employed by CityNews. She had been covering Queen’s Park for Rogers Sports and Media since 2018, earning a reputation as one of the more tenacious reporters on the Ontario political beat. Her statement was short: she was proud of her journalism, she stood by her reporting, and she would have more to say later.

CityNews acknowledged her departure late that same night. They offered no explanation for why she was let go. Neither did Rogers.

What CityNews did not acknowledge -- and has not explained -- is why at least two of her stories about the Ford government quietly disappeared from their website in the days surrounding her termination. One of those stories covered a March 2026 memo from Education Minister Paul Calandra directing school boards to ensure graduation ceremonies did not express political views or engage in what he called divisive or contentious issues of any kind. The story included on-camera footage of Calandra, in a heated scrum exchange, telling Yazdani directly: “Don’t interrupt me. Let me finish and then I’ll get to you.”

The next day, Yazdani covered the Ford government’s budget. It was her last on-air appearance. The Calandra story was removed from the CityNews website. Days later, her employment was terminated. Her biography was scrubbed from the site. Emails to her Rogers address returned an automated reply confirming she was no longer with the company.

The story itself survived. The CBC covered the same Calandra memo. What did not survive was the footage -- and the reporter most likely to keep producing more of it.

[ EDITOR’S NOTE: The content of the deleted CityNews story is reconstructed here from secondary sources including CBC News, Policorner, and Muck Rack byline records. The original CityNews URL is no longer accessible. A Wayback Machine search for archived versions of the deleted articles is recommended and ongoing. ]

The Sequence That Matters

Investigative analysis requires attention to sequence. The events here follow a pattern that warrants documentation:

In late March 2026, Calandra issued a memo to school boards warning against political expression at graduation ceremonies. The context matters: the previous year, a student in Ottawa was told to stay home after making pro-Palestinian remarks in her valedictorian speech. The OSSTF president called Calandra’s letter out of touch. A TDSB trustee called its language harsh. It was a legitimate and newsworthy story.

Yazdani covered it. She also captured Calandra’s reaction to being pressed -- on camera, in public, at a government scrum. That footage was not a minor detail. It was the story within the story: a sitting Education Minister losing composure with a reporter doing her job.

The Calandra story was removed from CityNews. Yazdani’s final on-air appearance followed. Her termination followed that. Her biography was scrubbed. The sequence from confrontation to erasure spans a matter of days.

The sequence does not prove direction. It does not establish that a call was made from Queen’s Park to a Rogers executive. What it establishes is tight timing, documented motive, and a result that served specific political interests. Those three elements together constitute a pattern worth pursuing.

[ EDITOR’S NOTE: TOG position: The evidence currently supports ‘suspicious timing and plausible motive.’ It does not yet support ‘directed action.’ That distinction matters. We will not overstate what the record shows. ]

Why Her, Specifically

The Calandra memo story was not unique to Yazdani. CBC covered it. Other outlets touched it. The story itself was not suppressed -- it remains accessible through multiple sources.

What was unique to Yazdani was the footage of Calandra’s reaction. That clip was exclusive to her. It was visual, it was damaging, and it was the kind of material that circulates. A text story about a policy memo is one thing. A sitting Education Minister telling a reporter to stop asking questions, on camera, is categorically different.

Beyond the clip, her record against Calandra specifically was substantial. Muck Rack’s byline archive -- which survived the CityNews purge -- shows a sustained pattern of adversarial coverage: trustee elimination, school board spending, Calandra’s threat to take over boards, the firing of a TDSB director by a Ford-appointed supervisor with no education background. She was not rotating targets. She was staying on him.

She also had reach. She had built an audience on social media including TikTok -- she was not easy to ignore at a scrum, and she was not someone whose work stayed inside a single news cycle. A reporter with that profile amplifying an on-camera Calandra confrontation represented a specific and compounding threat.

The firing did not erase the information. It erased the person most equipped to keep developing it -- and the footage that couldn’t be replicated.

Rogers: Corporate Interest, Not Ideology

CityNews is not a right-wing outlet. Media bias trackers consistently rate it as centrist with low editorial bias. Yazdani herself was producing aggressive Ford-critical journalism until the final days of her employment. The framing of this as ideological alignment misses the more important structure.

Rogers Communications is a regulated empire. Its interests span wireless spectrum, broadcast licensing, CRTC proceedings, broadband infrastructure approvals, and real estate for network expansion. Rogers does not need to share Doug Ford’s politics to have strong institutional reasons to avoid being a problem for his government.

The Ontario regulatory environment is not hospitable to friction. Unlike the federal lobbying system, Ontario does not require lobbyists to file communication reports detailing their meetings with public officials. The Ford government is actively working to extend that opacity further -- legislation has been proposed to eliminate the public’s ability to FOI the premier’s office, cabinet ministers, and their staff, and the proposed changes would apply retroactively. That means records that already legally exist could be sealed.

Rogers has a Government Relations director listed in federal lobbying registrations as having held prior public offices. The company is active on spectrum policy, CRTC wholesale decisions, and broadband expansion -- all areas where provincial and federal government goodwill matters directly. They have structural incentives to manage their relationships with sitting governments carefully.

One theory circulating in the aftermath of Yazdani’s firing is that Ford government advertising spending -- reported to be over $100 million -- flows significantly to Rogers-owned properties, creating financial dependency that shapes editorial decisions. This is unverified. It is, however, FOI-able. Provincial advertising expenditure records are accessible through Ontario’s public accounts. That inquiry is flagged here as a recommended next step.

[ EDITOR’S NOTE: TOG flags the government advertising spend angle as an active research question, not a confirmed finding. The mechanism -- if it exists -- would not require any direct instruction to suppress specific stories. Financial dependency produces editorial self-censorship without a phone call ever being made. That distinction matters analytically. ]

The Broader Pattern: A Government Under Accountability Pressure

The Yazdani situation does not exist in isolation. It is one data point in a pattern of behaviour by the Ford government that merits documentation as a whole.

The proposed FOI legislation -- which would retroactively shield the premier’s office from records requests -- follows a court loss. Global News had fought for access to Ford’s personal phone records, which the Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled should be public given Ford uses his personal device for government business. Ford’s government attempted to overrule that ruling in court and failed. The retroactive legislation is, in effect, an attempt to accomplish through legislation what the courts refused to allow.

Separately, the Ford government’s education record under Calandra includes the provincial takeover of four school boards including the TDSB and TCDSB, the sidelining of elected trustees, the installation of a supervisor with no education background who proceeded to fire an experienced director of education, and the issuance of a directive to control speech at graduation ceremonies. Each of these actions reduced the scope of democratic accountability at the school board level and concentrated decision-making authority in the minister’s office.

The question worth asking is not whether any single action constitutes a definitive pattern. The question is what the cumulative effect of these actions looks like when documented together: a reporter covering education accountability is fired and her work is scrubbed; the mechanism that would allow the public to discover who is meeting with the premier is being retroactively sealed; the elected officials closest to parents and students are being removed and replaced with provincial appointees.

Omnipotent governments do not need to scrub websites or fire reporters. What this looks like is a government generating accountability-worthy material faster than it can manage the narrative -- and reaching for whatever tools are available to slow that down.

What Remains

Yazdani has said she will have more to say. That statement carries weight. A reporter who says she stands by her reporting and signals more to come is not someone who left quietly or on good terms. What she says next will likely clarify whether the sequence described here reflects directed action or institutional self-preservation. Either answer is significant.

The Trillium published a story under her byline the same day news of her firing broke -- about Ford government plans to reduce and restrict school board trustees. She landed on her feet, at least editorially. The story she was pursuing did not stop.

The questions that remain open for this investigation:

What were the specific contents of the deleted CityNews story on the Calandra memo, beyond what secondary sources have reconstructed? Can a Wayback Machine archive be located?

What is the documented total of Ontario government advertising spending with Rogers-owned properties, and how does it compare to other broadcasters? This is accessible through provincial public accounts.

What communication, if any, occurred between Rogers executive leadership and the Ford government or Calandra’s office in the period surrounding Yazdani’s termination? Ontario’s FOI gap means this may not be discoverable through public records -- but the question should be formally asked.

What is the second deleted story? Only the Calandra memo story has been specifically identified in reporting. The second story has not been named publicly.

VERIFICATION STATUS

Verified: Yazdani termination confirmed by her own statement and CityNews acknowledgment. Calandra memo confirmed by CBC and multiple outlets. Story deletions confirmed by Policorner and corroborated by multiple secondary sources. Muck Rack byline archive confirming pattern of Calandra coverage is publicly accessible.

Unverified / Active Questions: Direction of firing (no communication record established). Government ad spend to Rogers (FOI required). Identity and content of second deleted story. Wayback Machine archive status of original CityNews URLs.

Commentary separated from fact throughout. Inferences labelled as such. No source material misrepresented.

The Old Guardian (TOG) is an independent investigative journalism project based in Toronto, Ontario. TOG operates under the North Star Accord: facts over narrative, verification required, money and power followed, fact and commentary separated.

This document may be reproduced with attribution. Contact: Chrisjallen32@hotmail.com

Leave a comment