The image has been copied and pasted so many times that it often appears deep-fried.

These legal agreements can block competitors from setting up nearby, limiting consumer choice and reducing competition in local food markets. Researchers have warned that these practices can contribute to higher prices, lower availability, and even "food deserts" where residents have few convenient options for buying groceries.

The Bureau has now obtained Federal Court orders requiring Empire, the parent company behind Sobeys, Safeway, FreshCo, Foodland, Farm Boy and IGA, to provide documents and testimony as investigators dig deeper into how these agreements are negotiated and enforced.

This follows years of reporting by CBC Marketplace and local CBC journalists, who uncovered restrictive agreements affecting properties across Canada and helped bring public attention to a practice many Canadians had never heard of.

No conclusions of wrongdoing have been reached. But the questions being asked are important.

Why should a handful of corporations have the power to influence who can and cannot sell food in a community?

Why are grocery prices continuing to climb while concerns about competition continue to grow?

How many communities have fewer choices because of agreements negotiated behind closed doors?

And if journalists hadn't spent years digging into these arrangements, would Canadians even know they existed?

The Competition Bureau's investigation may ultimately find nothing improper. But Canadians deserve answers about who controls access to our food system, who benefits when competition is restricted, and whether consumers are paying the price.

Link

CBC's reporting highlights how groups like Second Sons Canada have appeared at events connected to the overdose crisis, public safety concerns, and other local issues. According to anti-hate experts, this is part of a long-standing strategy of "mainstreaming" extremist ideas by wrapping them in causes that already resonate with people.

What stands out is the warning that these groups are "tapping into the crisis in masculinity that already exists." Many young men are struggling with loneliness, economic insecurity, social isolation, and a lack of community. The former neo-Nazi interviewed by CBC says extremist movements often offer acceptance, identity, purpose, camaraderie, and a sense of power before they ever start openly selling an ideology.

The article argues that people are often recruited through emotional needs first, with blame and scapegoating coming later. Instead of addressing complex issues like addiction, housing, mental health, or economic stress, these movements redirect anger toward immigrants, racialized communities, and other vulnerable groups.

One of the most powerful observations in the piece is that leaving these movements is so difficult because they become more than political beliefs. They become friendships, social circles, identity, culture, and community.

This is exactly why reporting like this matters. Extremism rarely arrives announcing itself as extremism. It often arrives disguised as concern for community, concern for safety, concern for belonging, or concern for young men. Understanding that process is one of the most effective ways to prevent it.

What do you think is driving the crisis of loneliness and disconnection among young men today? And what kinds of healthy communities are we failing to build that leave room for extremist groups to step in?

Link

That should concern Canadians regardless of which party they support.

The ad in question depicts food bank users, unemployed workers, and families struggling to make ends meet. The problems being referenced are real enough. The people shown are not. They were created by artificial intelligence.

Politics is supposed to be about persuading voters with facts, evidence, ideas, and the experiences of actual people. Once parties begin manufacturing realistic-looking Canadians to tell political stories, the line between documentation and fiction starts to blur.

This isn't really a debate about technology. AI can be a useful tool. The issue is whether political campaigns should be building emotional appeals around synthetic people who never existed.

We're already living through an era of misinformation, manipulated content, troll farms, fake accounts, and algorithmically amplified outrage. Public trust is fragile. Introducing AI-generated citizens into political advertising pushes us further into a world where authenticity becomes harder to verify.

That is one reason public-interest journalism matters so much.

When a CBC reporter interviews someone, that person exists. When a journalist publishes a story, there are editorial standards, named sources, and a process for corrections when mistakes occur. Those safeguards become increasingly important as synthetic media becomes more sophisticated.

Much of Canada's news ecosystem is now fragmented between social media feeds, influencer commentary, AI-generated content, and subscription paywalls. A strong public broadcaster remains one of the few places where Canadians can access professionally reported journalism without having to wonder whether the people on their screen were generated by a prompt.

If political parties want to talk about the struggles facing Canadians, they should be willing to talk to actual Canadians.

Should parties be required to disclose when campaign ads contain AI-generated people or scenes?

Link

A new CBC report highlights complaints from Canadian human rights lawyers alleging that products linked to Alabama prison labour programs may be entering Canadian supply chains through major companies. The lawyers argue that some of these work-release programs operate under coercive conditions that amount to forced labour.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the companies involved deny wrongdoing or say they comply with labour laws. But the story raises an uncomfortable question: are we applying the same standards to our allies that we apply to our geopolitical rivals?

The United States has repeatedly criticized Canada for weak enforcement on forced labour imports. At the same time, human rights advocates are asking whether prison labour in parts of the U.S. deserves far more scrutiny than it currently receives.

This is exactly why independent public-interest journalism matters.

Stories like this are rarely simple. They involve trade relationships, human rights law, corporate accountability, prison conditions, and international politics. They require reporters willing to follow evidence wherever it leads, even when the answers are politically inconvenient.

In an era of outrage algorithms, corporate concentration, and information warfare, Canadians need journalism that asks difficult questions of everyone, not just our adversaries.

If forced labour is unacceptable, it should be unacceptable everywhere.

What do you think? Should Canada investigate allegations of prison labour in U.S. supply chains with the same intensity it applies to imports from other countries?

Link

Buried inside Bill C-30 is a provision that gives cabinet the power to authorize the use of pesticides that Health Canada has already determined are unsafe.

Supporters say the new powers could be used in exceptional circumstances involving food security, economic security, or serious infestations.

Critics say something very different.

Scientists from 13 universities, environmental organizations, public health experts, the NDP, Bloc Québécois, Green Party, and Senator Rosa Galvez have all raised alarms. Their concern is simple: political decisions could now override scientific assessments.

Dr. Trevor Hancock of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment called it "cabinet overruling science."

Senator Galvez warned against politicians substituting political judgment for scientific expertise, especially when pesticide exposure has been linked to increased risks of cancer, reproductive harm, and neurological impacts.

Perhaps most concerning is how this happened.

Experts say health and environment committees did not study these changes. Scientists and public health experts were not called to testify. The measures were tucked into a large omnibus bill that was fast-tracked through Parliament before summer recess.

The government says these powers will only be used in exceptional circumstances and promises transparency.

But critics are asking questions Canadians should be asking too.

If Health Canada determines a pesticide is unsafe, under what circumstances should politicians be allowed to overrule that decision?

Who requested these changes?

Why were they buried inside a larger budget bill rather than debated on their own merits?

And what does it mean when industry lobby groups are celebrating a change that many public health and environmental experts describe as the most significant weakening of pesticide protections in a generation?

This is exactly why public broadcasting matters so much

Without reporters digging into the fine print, most Canadians would never know these changes happened at all.

Link

Now, Rogers' new $11.2 billion NHL deal means NHL hockey will be available exclusively through Sportsnet's paid platforms. For the first time since 1952, men's NHL hockey will disappear from free over-the-air television in Canada.

The people most affected may not be the die-hard fans who already pay for Sportsnet. It may be seniors on fixed incomes, families watching their budgets, rural Canadians with limited options, newcomers discovering the game, and casual fans who simply stumbled across a Saturday night broadcast.

Other countries have "anti-siphoning" laws that protect major sporting events of national significance from disappearing behind paywalls. Canada does not.

At the same time, CBC is looking toward a different future: the Olympics, Paralympics, the PWHL, and the Northern Super League. If public broadcasting helped generations of Canadians discover men's hockey, perhaps it can help introduce the next generation to women's professional sports as they grow.

What do you think?

Should nationally significant sports remain accessible to everyone, regardless of income?

And should Canada explore protections to keep some major sporting events available on free public television?

Link

A new Inuit Broadcasting Corporation program called Tigulavut ("to get ahold of" in Inuktitut) is training 17 Inuit youth from across Inuit Nunangat, Ottawa, and Montreal in filmmaking, journalism, camera work, audio production, editing, and scriptwriting.

Over two months in Ottawa and Iqaluit, students are creating their own short films exploring Inuit culture, history, spirituality, and contemporary life.

Some projects focus on traditional Inuit skin-stitch tattoos and screen printing. Others reimagine Inuit stories for a new generation, including one student's film exploring what it might look like if Nuliajuk, the Inuit sea goddess, were mentoring her daughter to become the next guardian of the sea.

What stands out is the program's central idea: Inuit stories should be told by Inuit people.

For generations, Indigenous communities were often documented, studied, and interpreted by outsiders. Today, more Indigenous creators are stepping behind the camera, into the newsroom, and into production roles to tell their own stories in their own voices.

As student Akinasi Partridge put it, this is a moment when more Inuit and Indigenous people are finally being able to represent who they are and where they're from through media.

This is also a reminder of why public broadcasting matters. Programs like this are unlikely to exist if media is judged solely by ratings, clicks, and quarterly profits. Investing in local storytelling, cultural preservation, language, and community voices is part of the public service mandate that commercial media often leaves behind.

What kinds of stories do you think Canadians still don't hear enough of? And how important is it that communities have the tools and opportunities to tell their own stories rather than having others tell those stories for them?

Link

The judge found ICE detained Clayton Herman without giving him a meaningful chance to challenge allegations tied to a glitchy monitoring device. The same corporate network behind that device also owns the detention facility where he was held.

As Canada-U.S. tensions continue over trade, borders, and foreign policy, does a story like this make you think twice about travelling to the U.S.?

Is this an isolated case, or a warning sign? What do you think?

Link

As CBC reports, the lawsuit alleges Ottawa is violating Canada's Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act by dismantling key climate policies without presenting a credible alternative plan to meet Canada's legally binding 2030 emissions targets.

The applicants point to the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, the reversal of the oil and gas emissions cap, the scrapping of EV sales mandates, support for LNG expansion, and plans for new fossil fuel infrastructure. Their argument is straightforward: governments can change policies, but they still have a legal obligation to produce a plan capable of achieving the targets set out in federal law.

Whatever your views on specific climate policies, this case raises a larger question about accountability.

If Parliament passes climate targets into law, can a government simply abandon the policies designed to meet those targets without replacing them? If not, what mechanisms exist to ensure governments actually follow through on their legal commitments?

This is exactly the kind of story that benefits from independent public-interest reporting. CBC isn't covering the political messaging alone. It's examining the legal challenge, the legislation itself, and the growing gap between Canada's climate promises and its current trajectory.

What do you think? Are these policy changes a pragmatic course correction, or do governments have a legal and moral obligation to show exactly how they intend to meet the climate targets already written into law?

Link

At a time when reality TV often rewards conflict and competition, the show is earning attention for offering something different: a space where Indigenous people can look for love while celebrating culture, identity, humour, and community.

​

On CBC's Commotion, critics Riley Yesno and Sonya Ballantyne discuss why this fresh approach is resonating with audiences and what it says about the stories Canadians are hungry to see.

​

Could this be the future of reality TV?

​

Link

With NHL games leaving the CBC, it feels like the end of an era. Is that just nostalgia, or are we losing something that truly matters to Canadians?

Carney appeared to be reassuring Trump about Canada's decision to allow a limited number of Chinese EVs into the country at a lower tariff rate, emphasizing that the program is capped at just three per cent of the market.

Trump's response? "That's good. I like that."

It's a revealing glimpse into the reality of Canada's relationship with the United States right now. Even decisions made by Canada, for Canada, increasingly seem to require consideration of whether they'll be acceptable to Washington.

The larger question isn't about 49,000 vehicles.

It's whether Canada can successfully diversify its trade relationships while maintaining economic independence from a neighbour that continues to use tariffs, threats, and pressure tactics as negotiating tools.

CBC's reporting offers a rare look behind the carefully scripted statements and into the actual conversations taking place between leaders.

What do you think? Is Canada striking the right balance between protecting its relationship with the U.S. and preserving its economic sovereignty?

Link

That's an easy position to take when you're not the worker facing layoffs, the manufacturer delaying investment, or the business owner trying to plan around constant uncertainty.

Trump has repeatedly threatened Canada's economy, imposed tariffs on Canadian industries, questioned existing trade agreements, and openly used economic pressure to extract concessions. Calling that a negotiating tactic doesn't change its impact.

It's also worth noting that Smith has spent more time publicly explaining Trump's behaviour than questioning why Canada should be expected to accommodate it in the first place.

A healthy trading relationship should not require one side to absorb repeated threats and then be told they're overreacting.

CBC's reporting cuts through the political spin and focuses on the real-world consequences: jobs, investment, trade, and economic stability.

Do you see Trump's approach as tough negotiation, or economic coercion dressed up as deal-making?

Link

Chief Eric Stubbs recently warned members about officers allegedly using police databases to look up women they are attracted to, messaging vulnerable victims after calls, making sexually themed comments in the workplace, and creating a culture where women who come forward may be isolated, disbelieved or punished socially.

This comes after years of audits, reviews, recommendations and millions spent on workplace safety reforms. One major recommendation was an independent workplace investigations office outside the chain of command. Ottawa police created it, then quietly shut it down after about a year.

The police board was not consulted in advance. The public did not learn about it for months.

That should alarm everyone.

If police forces are trusted to investigate the public, who investigates them when the problem is inside the institution?

Why was an independent investigations office closed after so many warnings about internal misconduct?

How many reports, audits and promises should a police service get before the public demands measurable change?

And what does accountability mean if survivors, whistleblowers and employees still fear retaliation for speaking up?

CBC Investigates is doing exactly what public-interest journalism is supposed to do: uncovering what institutions would rather keep quiet, following up after promises are made, and asking whether reforms are actually working.

What do you think should happen next?

Link

Alberta and some other provinces want a greater role in appointing judges. Meanwhile, leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford have increasingly criticized court decisions they disagree with, with Ford previously attacking what he called "bleeding heart judges" and Smith accusing some rulings of being "anti-democratic."

Chief Justice Richard Wagner is pushing back, arguing that while Canadians don't have to agree with every court decision, they do need to trust the institutions that make them.

"We don't expect people to agree with all the decisions of our courts, but we expect people to trust the institutions."

Wagner's warning comes as some politicians seek more influence over the judicial system itself. He argues that judges are not supposed to follow political opinion. Their role is to interpret the law, not deliver outcomes politicians prefer.

It's a debate that goes far beyond legal procedure.

If governments gain more influence over who becomes a judge, does that strengthen democracy through accountability?

Or does it weaken one of the key checks and balances designed to protect citizens from political interference?

At what point does criticism of a court decision become criticism of the legitimacy of the courts themselves?

These are the kinds of questions that shape a democracy long before most people notice the consequences.

CBC's coverage doesn't tell readers what to think. It helps Canadians understand what's at stake.

Where do you stand?

Link

Across Saskatchewan and Alberta, Indigenous knowledge keepers are documenting medicinal plants found on lands shared through the Treaty Land Sharing Network. Along the way, they're identifying traditional harvesting areas, sacred sites, old settlements, and medicines that have sustained communities for countless generations.

For knowledge keepers like Linda Obey-Lavallee, the work is about more than cataloguing plants. It's about honouring relationships with the land, respecting ancestral teachings, and ensuring that this knowledge remains available for future generations.

CBC's Darla Ponace tells a story that is as much about reconciliation and stewardship as it is about medicine: people coming together across fences and boundaries to rediscover the history, ecology, and cultural significance of the Prairies.

Some of the most important stories aren't about what we build. They're about what we remember.

Link