Satellite messengers help you stay connected when your cell phone can’t, serving as an insurance policy in the best cases and a lifesaver during the worst.
They’re not just for adventuring in remote locations, though. They can also be crucial during natural disasters, when cell networks are strained.
After spending weeks researching and testing five satellite messengers on road trips and hikes in California and Vermont, I found that the Garmin inReach Messenger is the best choice for most people.
The Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) is calling for public pension funds to divest from Tesla. To show solidarity with American workers facing attacks from Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the union says it’s time for the Canadian Public Sector Pension Investment Board (CPSIB) to dump its Tesla shares.
Despite holding no elected position in United States President Donald Trump’s administration, Musk and his DOGE are firing public servants with reckless abandon, placing the entire American federal public sector in jeopardy. Essential workers at the departments of education, health and human services, energy, veterans affairs and defense, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, the National Park Service, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been summarily fired, furloughed, or pressured to accept dubious buyouts.
In response, CAPE, which represents more than 27,000 Canadian federal public servants, is leading the charge to pull Canadian public pension investments from the controversial electric automobile maker.
Readers may remember that Class Struggleinterviewed CAPE president Nathan Prier in February 2024 about the union’s efforts to transform the public sector and create a fighting union.
Prier also serves as a member of the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the minister of finance on matters related to the design and administration of Canadian public sector pensions.
In its press release, CAPE writes: “Elon Musk, Tesla’s owner and the richest person on the planet, has been using his corporate influence to destroy government and public services in the U.S. He is using his unelected role heading up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to dismantle essential public services and slash jobs without accountability.”
“It is deeply concerning that Canadian public sector pension funds are being used to support a corporation whose owner is directly attacking the federal programs and workforce that deliver essential services for millions of ordinary Americans,” Prier said. “CAPE and its members stand firmly in solidarity with our siblings south of the border and against corporate interference, naked conflicts of interest, and indiscriminate job cuts that weaken critical public services ordinary Americans rely on.”
As of Dec. 31, 2024, the public sector pension fund held 690,063 shares of Tesla worth more than $278.6 million USD, according to public disclosures. Although this represents a small portion of CPSIB investment holdings, maintaining the stock nevertheless contributes to Musk’s wealth and thus to the right-wing political project he is helping to fund. The so-called DOGE and the Trump administration have already dismissed hundreds of thousands of American public servants, kneecapped the National Labor Relations Board and unilaterally torn up union contracts covering thousands of public employees.
CAPE is also sending a warning about the potential of a DOGE-like attack on the Canadian public service under a new federal government headed by either Prime Minister Mark Carney or Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
“Canadians need much more than tax cuts, deregulation, and a race to the bottom to defend themselves against American attacks on our economy and sovereignty. A new federal government mandate should deliver for working people to get us through this crisis, and that will mean strong federal and provincial programs, such as EI and health care, backed by a strong public sector,” the union says.
As Prier recently told Class Struggle, CAPE sees its call to dump Tesla’s stock as part of the long tradition of union divestment campaigns, such as those that targeted apartheid South Africa. As contradictory as it may be, union pension funds represent enormous pools of capital and wealth. Their investment decisions can therefore have huge influence on social, political and environmental issues.
As CAPE further contends, Tesla is increasingly becoming a toxic asset. The CPSIB doubled its Tesla holdings following Trump’s election when the stock briefly surged in value, Prier told Class Struggle. This will likely prove to be a foolish decision. After a few months of Trump in office, the company’s stock has plummeted, losing about $134 million in value amid a growing cascade of pension fund divestments around the world.
Whereas the EV maker was once widely considered an innovator in the transition to a greener economy — however dubious — Tesla’s value seems now to be inextricably tied to the tarnished image of its owner. Between 2020 and 2024, the company’s price per share surged from $28.50 to more than $431. However, in the first three months of this year, share prices sank by 34 per cent, with global car sales dropping by more than 8 per cent in March alone.
In large part, Tesla’s declining fortunes seem to be a direct result of Musk’s political activities, as well as his disregard for workers’ rights around the world.
CAPE is far from alone in its call for divestment. In fact, many European public pensions have already begun to unload their Tesla holdings, often following pressure from national labour movements. Concern over Musk’s governance of the electric vehicle manufacturer has also been a longstanding issue for European pension investors.
The Dutch civil worker pension fund, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, for example, is selling its entire stake in Tesla. The fund sold 2.8 million shares valued at $585 million USD last September. The divestment was reportedly in response to a court case involving Musk’s exorbitant compensation package and the company’s poor governance structure.
The Swedish fund, KPA Pension, which covers local government workers in the Scandinavian country, on the other hand, sold all of its Tesla stake in March, citing concerns over the company’s treatment of workers and disregard for union rights. Folksam, Sweden’s largest insurer, with assets of $80 billion USD, has also dumped its nearly $160 million USD Tesla stock for the same reasons.
The EV maker has been embroiled in a now months-long battle with the Nordic labour movement over its refusal to recognize a union representing Tesla mechanics in Sweden and sign onto a sectoral union contract. In solidarity with the mechanics, unions of port and postal workers across the Nordics are refusing to handle Tesla products or service the company.
Through shareholder meetings, KPA Pension and Folksam both made efforts to encourage Tesla to respect workers’ rights in Sweden, without success.
The Danish pension fund AkademikerPension has also sold off its small Tesla holdings, explicitly citing Musk’s political activity in the U.S. and Europe, along with the company’s violations of workers’ rights and poor governance practices.
Norway’s largest pension fund, KLP, has threatened to dump Tesla and has co-ordinated with other pension funds and unions across the region in an attempt to pressure Musk and Tesla’s Scandinavian representatives to adhere to the Nordic labour relations model.
In late March, Brunel Pension Partnership, a local government pension provider in the United Kingdom, became the largest institutional fund in Europe to divest from Tesla. The fund cited Musk’s political activities and the negative impact they’ve had on the carmaker’s brand.
Pension funds in the U.S. as well are moving to either dump their Tesla stock or pursue legal action against the company.
The office of the New York City comptroller, which oversees five public sector pension funds, is recommending that the City pursue legal action over the harm done to shareholders by Tesla’s recent losses. The NYC comptroller accuses Musk of making false statements about the amount of time he actually spends overseeing and managing the firm, linking this directly to Tesla’s falling stock value and thus the financial harm done to NYC public pension plan beneficiaries. Unions in the state, including the American Federation of Teachers, are supporting the legal action. Progressive city councils and New York state representatives are alsopushing to divest public pensions from Tesla.
Perhaps most noteworthy, the National Institute for Workers’ Rights and LatinoJustice are pushing the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the U.S., to divest. A letter calling for divestment sent from these groups to the California state comptroller cites Musk’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and Tesla’s $3.2 million settlement with a Black former employee who accused the firm of racial discrimination. As of last June, CalPERS owned nearly 9.2 million Tesla shares worth more than $2 billion USD.
As is clear, CAPE’s call for Canadian public pension funds to dump Tesla is part of an international movement. Unions and pension funds around the world could help reduce the wealth of the richest man on the planet and thus diminish his ability to attack workers, whether they are public servants in the U.S. or mechanics in Sweden.
Pensions are the pooled resources of workers. They should never be used to oppress and attack fellow workers across borders. CAPE’s campaign for Tesla divestment should inspire unions across Canada to do the same.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier this week, U.S. President Donald Trump was unable to remember the explicit instructions he was given to stop talking about Canada in order to help the man he’s tapped to be the first governor of the 51st state win the Canadian federal election. “We should have expected something like this,” said […]
Steinbach, MB – After briefly perusing the menu at a local Italian restaurant, Irene Everett concluded her adult son would probably like the risotto best. “I know my mom means well, but I’m a grown man who can read a menu and decide I want the risotto for myself,” said 30-year-old Aaron Everett. “And yeah, […]
Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is getting an easier ride at media events during the current election than Liberal Party Leader Mark Carney, an analysis by The Maple finds.
The data shows that despite Poilievre’s constantcomplaints that the media go easy on his Liberal opponents, the opposite is true in this election campaign.
The findings also show that the Conservative Party’s authoritarian treatment of the media — limiting the number of questions Poilievre is asked per day and handpicking which journalists are allowed to speak — is working to shield the leader from scrutiny.
Earlier this month, Hill Times journalist Stuart Benson reported that Poilievre had taken less than half the total number of questions fielded by Carney.
The Maple analyzed all questions posed to Poilievre and Carney by national anglophone media outlets at broadcasted campaign events between March 23 and April 9. Questions asked of Carney in his role as prime minister, unrelated to the election campaign, were excluded from The Maple’s analysis.
Poilievre took only 30 questions in English from national media outlets at his regular campaign press conferences during the 17-day period. By contrast, Carney answered more than three times as many questions at campaign events than his Conservative opponent.
The Maple sorted the questions into three categories. “Neutral” questions were those that sought information about a policy or what a candidate would hypothetically do to address a particular issue as prime minister.
“Critical” questions put the candidate on the defensive, asked him to respond to a specific criticism or challenged a previous statement. “Softball” questions were about personal views, or gave the candidate an opportunity to criticize his opponent.
Thirty-one per cent of the questions posed to Poilievre were critical and 69 per cent were neutral or softball.
Critical questions posed to Poilievre included why Canadians should trust the Conservatives’ vetting process after the party dropped four candidates in two days, how he feels about receiving donations from “friends” of Indian prime minister and Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, and whether he expects to reach new voters by railing against a “woke mob” and talking about destroying the CBC.
Of the questions posed to Carney, 44 were critical, and 56 were neutral or softball.
For example, Carney was panned by one reporter for his poor grasp of French, asked by the National Post about allegations he plagiarized parts of his doctoral thesis, and was grilled by several reporters after he initially refused to drop candidate Paul Chiang, who had made comments about a bounty being placed by Hong Kong police on a Conservative candidate’s head.
Other questions suggested that the Communist Party of China favours Carney in this election, and quizzed the Liberal leader about his time working for Brookfield Asset Management.
The two leaders’ responses to questions were also examined. Despite some testy interactions with reporters before and during the campaign trail, Carney tended to respond less aggressively to most questions than Poilievre.
Poilievre, on the other hand, responded with hostility to two critical questions and lashed out at a journalist in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, who hadn’t been given the microphone but shouted out her question anyway. The Conservative Party leader called her a “protester.”
“It’s a reporter trying to ask a legitimate question,” the journalist responded angrily.
The Conservative Party did not respond to written questions from The Maple.
Rachel Gilmore, an independent journalist who recently lost a recurring appearance on CTV Your Morning after a member of Poilievre’s staff complained, said she wasn’t surprised by The Maple’s findings.
The fact that Poilievre’s staff is cherry picking which journalists can ask questions means that anyone who asks a tough question probably won’t be called on again, she said.
“I can see people doing a bit of self-censorship and cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth asking the hard question today if it means I use that potential remaining amount of goodwill on this one question?”
She also said Poilievre’s team is taking a much more adversarial stance with journalists than his Conservative predecessors — and that’s dangerous both for individual journalists and press freedom.
After Gilmore reported on Poilievre leading a march of Freedom Convoy protesters in 2022, she was inundated with insulting and misogynistic harassment. Poilievre added to the pile-on by attacking her work in a press release.
“They’re clearly trying to use journalists for a viral moment that capitalizes on the anti-media, anti-institution sentiment that’s growing, particularly on the more populist right,” she said. “It’s contributing to an atmosphere where it’s dangerous to be a journalist.”
Gilmore, who has long been open about the online harassment and stalking she experiences, said there’s been a “massive uptick” in that kind of behaviour over the last few years.
“When you have political leaders participating in it rather than condemning it, that adds a layer of legitimacy to that harassment that makes it more dangerous to be a journalist.”
It becomes even worse when media organizations like CTV give into the pressure and punish journalists who have done nothing wrong, she said.
“That decision by CTV […] shows that if people online kick up a stink — no matter how bad faith it is — journalists will be punished for doing nothing wrong other than being disliked by loud voices on the internet. And that’s really dangerous for the freedom of the press.”
Trump Tactics?
Marc Edge — a journalist and instructor in media and communication at University Canada West in Vancouver — noted that Poilievre, a career politician, has a much longer political track record than Carney on which to be questioned by journalists.
“It seems that [the Conservatives are] following the same game plan that Trump did quite successfully in the U.S. when he attacked the ‘fake news media,’” Edge told The Maple.
However, Edge said, given the “existential threat” posed by Trump to Canada, Poilievre’s hostility toward the media is less likely to go over well with the Canadian public.
In particular, the CBC, which Poilievre has pledged to defund, has for many Canadians become a symbol of national culture and unity.
“I think unfortunately for Poilievre the events are working against him,” said Edge.
Edge added that there has been decades of evidence showing professional journalists tend to hold more small-l liberal beliefs than the general population.
“But professional values are supposed to negate any liberal bias on the part of journalists, and besides which, most media owners tend to be more conservative,” Edge explained, noting that Postmedia, Canada’s largest newspaper chain, is explicitly conservative in its editorial perspective.
A previous study by The Maple’s predecessor, Passage, showed that Canada’s largest newspapers, most of which are now owned by Postmedia, have largely endorsed conservative parties in federal elections since 1980.
Edge said that if Poilievre wins the election and follows through on his threats to defund the CBC and cancel federal news media subsidies, it would have a “devastating” impact on journalism in Canada.
Edge’s latest book, Tomorrow’s News: How To Fix Canada’s Media, looks at how other countries, including the Scandinavian nations, have subsidized news media.
“Part of the problem with the media now is that for lack of local coverage, there’s a fixation on national coverage,” he said.
Part of the Conservative Party’s purported justification for shutting out national media from travelling on its campaign plane this election is to provide more space for local reporters at media events.
Even if that claim is made in good faith, Edge said, the problem is that due to cutbacks, there aren’t enough local journalists left to fill the gap.
This is particularly true, Edge said, in the case of media corporations like Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American hedge fund, and TorStar, which was taken over by a private investment firm in 2020.
“They’re simply cutting costs, and in the end, there’s going to be nothing left,” said Edge.
JASPER BC—According to sources close to the matter, primarily their quietly baffled cat, Muffins, Hannah Mitchell and Victor Chang successfully spent five straight hours on Friday date night refusing to impose any preference on each other and concluding every conversation with “whatever works for you,” before eventually drifting off to sleep without having made a […]
Log in
