Over the course of human history, certain years have proven to be more important than others. Over the course of 12 months, things happen that change everything. Nothing is ever the same again.

For example, the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. We can look at the fall of Constantinople in 1453, giving rise to the Ottoman Empire and forever altering the power dynamics and trade within Europe.

There was 1492, and Columbus’s landing in the Americas has to be on this list. Then there’s 1760, or thereabouts, and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

The year 1848 was significant because of all the democratic revolutions that spread across Europe. At the same time, Karl Marx was laying the foundations for the communist revolutions to come by writing his Communist Manifesto.

1914 marked the start of World War I. Then came 1945 and the beginning of the post-World War II era, with the United Nations, America’s emergence as a superpower, the Cold War, and so on.

When it comes to music, we can look at 1955, the year rock ’n’ roll really began to break through. The Beatles came to America in 1964. Then there was Woodstock in ’69.

And then we have 1976. This has been declared—rightly so, in my opinion—the year that what we now call “alternative rock” was born, thanks to the punk rock explosion that happened on both sides of the Atlantic during those 12 months. So much happened so fast that rock was never the same again.

Here, let me prove it. This is 1976: The Birth Year of Alt-Rock, Part 2.

Songs heard on this show:

• Ramones, Beat on the Brat
• Sex Pistols, Pretty Vacant (Live)
• Ramones, Loudmouth (Live)
• Ramones, Judy is a Punk
• The Clash, White Riot
• Ramones, Now I Want to Sniff Some Glue
• The Clash, Guns of Brixton
• The Damned, New Rose
• Sex Pistols, Anarchy in the UK

The Ongoing History of New Music can be heard on these stations:

• 102.1 The Edge/Toronto – Sunday night at 7pm
• Q107/Toronto – Sunday night at 9pm
• Live 88-5/Ottawa – Saturdays at 9am and Sundays at 6pm
• 107.5 Dave-FM/Kitchener – Sunday nights at 11pm
• FM96/London – Sunday nights at 8pm
• Power 97/Winnipeg – Sunday nights at 10am and 10pm
• 107-3 The Edge/Calgary – Sundays at 10am and 10pm
• Sonic 102.9/Edmonton – Sunday at 8am and 8pm
• The Zone/Victoria – Sunday at 9am and 9pm
• The Fox/Vancouver – Sundays at 10am and 10pm
• The Goat Network/Interior BC
• WAPS/WKTL The Summit/Arkon, Canton, Cleveland, Youngstown – Mon-Fri at 9pm

© 2026 Corus Radio, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

When System of a Down was working on the Toxicity album, there was a lot of tension within the group, tension that led to actual fistfights. One night in the studio, drummer John Dolmayan punched guitarist Daron Malakian. He responded by slamming Dolmayan with a mic stand. Both of them ended up in the same emergency ward that night, getting stitched up next to each other.

When the album came out in September 2004, the band had a free concert planned for a parking lot in Hollywood. They figured about a thousand people would show up. Instead, the gig attracted 10,000 people. When fire marshals cancelled the gig, there was a riot. The crowd rushed the stage and destroyed about $30,000 worth of gear. Cops had to fire on the crowd with rubber bullets. Six people were arrested.

And while the gig was a disaster, it made System of a Down more famous than ever.

© 2026 Corus Radio, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Queens of the Stone Age have a pretty distinctive sound. How did Josh Homme’s writing style develop? Polka music.

Josh grew up in Palm Desert, California, a place he said didn’t offer a lot in terms of guitar teachers. The best he could do was a guy named Tom Polonsky whose specialty was polka music. Young Josh learned the guitar through playing those kinds of tunes over the course of two years’ worth of lessons.

Now that you know that, go back and listen to some Queens of the Stone Age Music, especially the song “No One Knows.” If you deconstruct that track down to its very essence, you can hear the distinctive bounce of a polka. This isn’t the only Queens song that feels this way.

Josh says that polka music is so ingrained in him that the polka feel keeps showing up in his songwriting as a default, whether he wants it to or not.

© 2026 Corus Radio, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) says it will file a statement of claim against the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) to recover millions of dollars in spending, after issuing the group a final repayment notice last week.

ISC says it issued the organization, which represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan, a recovery letter seeking repayment of close to $12.4 million in funding, according to a statement shared with Global News.

The decision follows a similar legal threat issued last week by the FSIN, which said it does not accept the federal government’s conclusion or its claim that the expenditures are ineligible and is taking the department to court.

While the FSIN has not shared additional information about its legal action, Global News has obtained federal court documents filed by the organization in August, where the group is asking for a judicial review of what it alleges is unfair treatment by ISC, including the withholding of funds since being asked to repay what the department says is ineligible spending.

ISC’s final repayment notice to FSIN marks the latest development in a year-long dispute that earlier this year saw Indigenous Services Canada identify $28.7 million in ineligible and unsupported expenses between April 2019 and March 2024.

That figure was taken from the findings of a forensic audit ordered by ISC and conducted by KPMG, which last fall flagged $34 million in questionable, ineligible and unsupported spending related to COVID-19 expenditures, travel and payments made to a former employee.

The FSIN has consistently disputed the findings of this audit and has defended its spending.

ISC says it continues to meet with FSIN but will not provide details of those encounters or what transpired over the past seven months, during which the repayment amount dropped by over $16 million.

“Due to privacy requirements and contractual obligations between Canada and the recipient, we are not in a position to share the letter, discuss its contents nor disclose any details of any subsequent meetings between ISC officials and the FSIN Executive,” said ISC spokesperson Carolane Gratton in a statement.

ISC says department officials, not Minister Mandy Gull-Masty, are involved in its audit processes, and that ISC auditors met regularly with FSIN officials to share updates and request more documents.

The statement comes after FSIN disputed the audit decision and said the minister had only communicated with the organization through the media, despite repeated attempts to reach her by phone and email.

In its statement last week, the FSIN said the organization participated fully in the federal review and held extensive line-by-line discussions with a negotiation team appointed by ISC, adding the two sides had substantially narrowed the disputed amount by June 12.

According to the FSIN, federal representatives had confirmed that all purchases of personal protective equipment, accounting for almost $8 million of the current $12.4-million claim, were substantiated as purchased and delivered and had been removed from the list of ineligible or questionable expenditures.

The organization said it was surprised those expenses were subsequently added back to the amount being claimed.

In its statement, ISC says the FSIN has until Nov. 13, 2026 to “communicate with ISC for the repayment of the total amount to the Receiver General of Canada.” However, in the letter sent to FSIN, the department said this was the deadline for payment in full.

ISC has not provided additional information surrounding its statement of claim or clarification surrounding the deadline.

Global News has reached out to FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron for comment but has not heard back.

Legal action unusual for federal government

Policy expert Ken Coates says it is unusual for federal departments to seek legal action for repayment from organizations they support, as they typically have longstanding relationships with them.

“In fact, critics of federal government spending have actually said for many years that they’ve been far too lax about doing that,” he said.

The case going to court will likely spur a larger conversation about federal funding approvals and decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic, Coates said.

“We’re gonna see what’s underneath the mushroom cap and we’re not gonna like it,” he said.

“We’re going to look and see how the Government of Canada authorized money. How did they make their decisions during the pandemic? What was the immediate oversight that was provided?”

With files from Alessia Simona Maratta

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Winnipeg police are investigating a homicide after a man was taken to hospital with gunshot wounds.

The victim, Jayden Laporte, 23, was shot after meeting a group of people in the Balmoral Avenue and Spence Street area earlier this week. During that encounter, police said someone shot the man, leaving him with serious injuries, police said in a news release.

Laporte was taken to the Health Sciences Centre by family members, and police attended the hospital around 8 p.m. Sunday. He later died of his injuries. The 23-year-old was a member of the Long Plain First Nation and was living in Portage la Prairie.

The WPS homicide unit is investigating. Its search for suspects is ongoing, police said.

Anyone with information is asked to contact investigators or Crime Stoppers.

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

New Brunswick’s police watchdog says an RCMP officer who broke a man’s nose during an arrest did not commit a crime.

The Serious Incident Response Team investigated after an officer injured a man while police executed a search warrant at a property in Moncton on June 2.

One of the four people at the residence did not co-operate with police and the officer pinned him against a forklift inside a garage and took him to the ground, breaking his nose, the watchdog’s report said.

It also said the man who was injured told the watchdog he has a hearing impairment and did not know what the officer was saying to him.

The watchdog found the officer acted reasonably while using force to secure the man in handcuffs because the man did not follow his commands.

New Brunswick RCMP said a 55-year-old Moncton man was injured during the police operation and later charged with 38 offences, including 25 counts of possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

Officers seized 26 stolen vehicles, 13 firearms, four prohibited weapons and one kilogram of suspected cocaine from the property.

The watchdog’s report said the officer who injured the man was a member of the Emergency Response Team and was wearing a vest that said “police.”

After the incident the officer told the watchdog that the man he injured was holding a water bottle and exited a garage on the property when police arrived.

He described the man as angry and frustrated and said he walked toward him without responding to his commands to put his hands in the air.

The officer told the watchdog he tried to grab the man’s arms and when he tried to pull away he pinned him against a forklift and then took him to the ground.

Once the man was on the ground the officer said he co-operated while he was being handcuffed.

The officer said the man told him he couldn’t hear after he handcuffed him.

In his statement to the watchdog, the man said he exited the garage on the property after he saw flashing lights.

He said he also saw armoured vehicles and people carrying firearms.

He said that the officer took him to ground by placing his knees on his back and pushing his face into the floor.

He told the watchdog that he didn’t know the man who took him to the ground was a police officer because he couldn’t hear what he was saying and that he didn’t see the word “police” on the officer’s uniform.

The watchdog confirmed in its report that the man had a hearing impairment, but said that the presence of police was apparent from the flashing lights and officers in full equipment.

The watchdog said the officer did not use excessive force when pinning the man against machinery and taking him to the ground.

© 2026 The Canadian Press

Discussions around the future of the aging Halifax Forum are back on track, after Halifax Regional Council voted in favour Tuesday of setting a new date for a community meeting on the proposed demolition of the heritage building.

The nearly century-old recreation centre is a municipal heritage property, and any redevelopment would require a legal process that includes public engagement.

The meeting was originally planned for Oct. 1, but was cancelled last month.

HRM staff announced the cancellation on Sept. 25, and said they would need to pause the redevelopment project to re-evaluate financial options.

According to staff, the updated project costs exceeded the $126 million approved by council by 10 to 12 per cent.

The decision blindsided the Halifax Forum Community Association.

“Nobody reached out prior to this and said something’s going on. This was an 11th-hour decision late on the Friday,” said Paul Card, chair of the association board, on Sept. 29.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, councillors said they too felt they weren’t properly briefed before the process was paused.

“That (community) meeting does need to happen at some point and it’s better to have it now than later because the cost could have increased from just waiting for that meeting to come up four or five months later,” said District 8 Coun. Virginia Hinch.

Some councillors said they didn’t understand why the meeting on the building’s heritage status was cancelled.

“Whether or not we vote to continue with this project or whether or not we’re going down where the mayor wants to go and sell off the land and demolish the place, it doesn’t matter,” said District 5 Coun. Sam Austin.

“Either way, you got to do the heritage piece.”

Municipal staff say a report they intend to release in December will have a more fulsome look at the status of the Forum project, as well as third-party insight into the cost increases.

Other councillors raised concerns about why staff had enough information to cancel the meeting, but couldn’t share all the details with council.

“So if there was enough information to cancel the public information meeting, why does council have to wait until December to get the report?” said District 10 Coun. Kathryn Morse.

Mayor Andy Fillmore said he sees value in moving things forward while staff continue working on the next steps.

“There’s no reason why we can’t have the staff going ahead and getting that third-party verification of cost while we proceed with a public consultation on demolition that we know has to happen anyway,” he said.

“So I think this is a good way to keep the ball rolling.”

The motion to reschedule the public meeting was passed unanimously. While a specific date hasn’t been set yet, the meeting is expected to take place sometime in November.

Coun. Hinch stressed that the decision isn’t just about preventing delays but also about rebuilding community trust.

“If we’re going to do something, just do it, especially when it comes to public meetings,” she said. “I believe that we just need to keep to our word.”

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

A lawsuit challenging U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs targeting Canada has been filed in the United States Court of International Trade.

The lawsuit, filed today by the non-profit Liberty Justice Center on behalf of U.S. food importer Gellert Global Group, argues Trump’s use of a Depression-era trade statute exceeds his power as president.

Trump used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to slap an array of Canadian goods with a 50 per cent levy after trade talks broke down in August.

The same statute was used the following month to ban the import of other Canadian goods, including motorcycles and some alcohol and dairy products.

Liberty Justice Center CEO Sara Albrecht says in a news release that no president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful and order a refund.

© 2026 The Canadian Press

U.S.-based Cleveland-Cliffs said on Monday that it saw its strongest quarterly financial results since the year before acquiring Stelco in 2024.

This comes as Stelco continues to lay off hundreds of workers at its steel plant in Hamilton, Ont., while citing pressure from U.S. tariffs, a decision the federal government says breaches its binding agreement to maintain jobs.

Cleveland-Cliffs said it saw net earnings of US$612 million in the third quarter, up from $286 million in the previous quarter.

Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves in the report said, “Third quarter was our strongest quarter in three years,” and added that the figure was higher than the $575 million guidance they provided three months earlier.

On Tuesday, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly spoke outside the House of Commons.

“We took good note of the earnings call that happened yesterday where the CEO of Stelco again mentioned that he was in favour of American tariffs against steelworkers in Canada and therefore we’ve hired the best lawyers to advise us on what to do next,” said Joly.

“I’ll have more to say in the coming days, but we’re following this very closely. We’ve been working also with the union as they’re providing important proof for a legal case.”

Several legal experts say that, based on publicly available information, the federal government could have a strong case.

“If they have the ability to sue, they should get on with it and at least do something about it so the workers aren’t living in financial emotional paralysis,” says employment lawyer and senior partner Howard Levitt of Levitt LLP.

“The federal government’s case, from everything we’ve heard, is rock solid and they should be seeking injunctive relief against the layoffs entirely and recalling the workers.”

Stelco announced last month that pressure from U.S. tariffs forced it to concentrate steel production at its Lake Erie Works plant in Haldimand, Ont., and halt production at its plant in Hamilton. Although the company said some of those workers would be offered positions at the Haldimand facility, hundreds are still expected to be out of work.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs include a 50 per cent duty on various Canadian steel products, and Stelco claims that has severely impacted its sales.

Here’s how the two arguments stack up, according to legal experts.

When Cleveland-Cliffs acquired Stelco in 2024, the federal government approved the deal under the Investment Canada Act. The full legally binding agreement has not been made public, although a summary of its terms was released in 2024.

According to the summary, the agreement with Cleveland-Cliffs includes a commitment “To continue to employ at least the same number of unionized employees and the vast majority of non-unionized employees as were employed when the transaction was announced.”

The federal government’s stance is that by using tariffs to justify laying off workers, Stelco and Cleveland-Cliffs breached the agreement.

“From what they have said publicly, from what everyone has said publicly they have a very good case […] if that’s the agreement that was made,” says Levitt.

“But again, it’s based on what we’ve heard and I’m surprised the federal government has not released the actual documents. But I’m also surprised, if the owner of Stelco has a real good defence, that they haven’t released the actual documents.”

Joly sent Stelco’s president a letter on Oct. 5 demanding the company outline how it plans to abide by its commitments, including preserving jobs.

In addition, Joly said last week that Goncalves has been a vocal supporter of U.S. tariffs on steel, and therefore the company cannot use tariffs as an excuse for layoffs.

“He’s in favor of these U.S. tariffs against steel,” she said to reporters on Oct. 7.

“They cannot say that this is now an act of God or force majeure.”

Employment lawyer Christopher Achkar, managing partner at Achkar Law, says that in this context, Stelco using tariffs as an excuse for layoffs amounts to trying to “have your cake and eat it too.”

“You can’t say that you are in favor of something, and then when it actually happens, say, ‘oh, it is out of my hands,’ — you are the one who was in favor of that,” he says.

“I think Stelco’s positions from a practical standpoint are quite weak.”

Further, Achkar says that Stelco would likely have a tough time arguing that tariffs forced it to lay off workers, when it also refused financial assistance from the federal government to mitigate those risks.

Stelco’s president, Paul Simon, responded to Joly’s letter on Oct. 9.

The seven-page response detailed the company’s stance, and said the federal government’s accusations are “false.”

“Stelco submitted its annual report confirming its compliance with the employment undertakings in November 2025. That report highlighted that Stelco was facing significant challenges due to the unforeseen consequences stemming from unprecedented U.S. tariffs and Canada’s failure to advance an effective ‘Fortress North America’ trade regime,” the letter said.

“Your representation that Stelco’s planned layoffs cause it to breach its undertakings is false as the undertakings do not stipulate a commitment to avoid layoffs.”

The company is describing the cuts as indefinite layoffs, while the union is treating them as temporary under its collective agreement, which Levitt says is a key detail.

“You can lay off some without paying them anything, as long as you maintain benefits for 35 weeks, if it’s a temporary layoff. But Stelco announced this is an ‘indefinite’ layoff — in my mind, that’s a termination, not a layoff.”

The letter also says its exports of cold-rolled and coated steel to the United States have plunged 58 per cent from pre-trade-war levels as foreign imports continue to undercut Canadian-made steel.

Achkar says the wording in the letter suggests Stelco may seek to argue its case based on a technicality.

“Their argument is going to be that they are still technically employees and the headcount is still technically the same,” he says.

Achkar also explains that the Investment Canada Act stipulates to avoid terminating workers, while these tariff-related layoffs are considered by the company to be temporary measures until market conditions improve.

“Stelco is saying that a layoff doesn’t mean that they’re no longer an employee, and if our undertaking says that we are going to maintain the same headcount, the question is, is it staying the same with a temporary layoff?”

“Someone who’s temporarily laid off for 13 weeks, for example, is not getting paid at all for that period. So the spirit of the Act would be to have them fully employed and actually receiving wages, but the technicality about it is that they potentially could be viewed as still employees while being laid off.”

Ultimately, Achkar expects the case will not go to the Supreme Court because Stelco’s case may not be strong enough to justify it. Instead, he believes the case will likely wind up being a negotiated settlement.

“They are in breach, whether they can justify the breach may fall on a technicality. My estimation of it is it would probably be a weak one and will not succeed,” he says.

 

After she confirmed receipt of the letter from Stelco over the Thanksgiving long weekend, Joly was asked by reporters on Oct. 14 if she still believes the case will go to court.

“We expect Stelco to follow the undertakings that they’ve committed to, to the Government of Canada, and right now, a business decision or even a change in market conditions cannot be used to not follow the commitment. So we’re reviewing the Stelco letter,” Joly said.

“A few possible outcomes of a court process can lead to financial penalties towards a company, forcing them to abide by the commitment, and also a forced divestiture, so forcing them to sell their Canadian assets. Everything is on the table.”

She added: “I’m always open to sit down with the company and find a solution, but we’re looking at everything that is possible to keep jobs in Canada.”

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

On Monday, Albertans voted in a provincewide referendum that could have important consequences for Canada’s future. But the question attracting the most attention may not be the one that matters most.

The tenth question asked Albertans whether they want to remain in Canada or take the next step toward separation. As of the time of writing, only a quarter of Alberta voters opted for another referendum. Three-quarters opted against another referendum and said they wanted to remain in Canada.

But results from the other nine questions may tell a more interesting story.  All but Question 10 garnered majority support. Ipsos polling for Global News also found that Canadians outside Alberta supported eight of the nine proposals by majority. Albertans may have rejected separation for now, but they also endorsed an agenda for changing Canada that has considerable support elsewhere in the country.

Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to understand the message he received. At a rally in Calgary on October 15, he urged Albertans to reject the other nine questions with the slogan “No to the Nine.” Carney wasn’t simply campaigning against separation. He was taking a position against proposals that could reshape our country.

The remaining nine questions cover two broad areas. The first five concern immigration and access to public services. They propose greater provincial control over immigration, lower immigration levels, employment preferences and restrictions on access to publicly funded services for temporary residents. They also address proof of citizenship for provincial voting.

The other four concern the federal system itself. They propose provincial control over appointments to superior courts, abolition of the Senate, the right to opt out of federal programs without losing funding and provincial laws taking precedence over federal laws in areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction.

Some proposals would require constitutional changes. Others could be addressed through existing legislation. None automatically becomes law even though Albertans voted for them. But majority support has given Premier Danielle Smith justification to pursue them.

Quebec’s recent election adds another layer. Voters there have just elected a sovereigntist Parti Québécois government. Alberta and Quebec have different objectives, but both could find common cause in demanding greater provincial autonomy. Ottawa could soon face demands from two provinces with very different motivations seeking fundamental changes to Confederation.

For the past year, Donald Trump’s trade war against Canada has dominated Canadian politics. The threat from Washington has encouraged Canadians to rally around the flag. But national unity in the face of an external threat hasn’t eliminated the disagreements within Canada.

One of the most persistent has been the conflict between Alberta and Ottawa. It intensified during the Trudeau years, particularly over energy and environmental policy. For many Albertans, the dispute became a question of whether Ottawa was treating their province fairly.

Carney has tried to change that relationship. His support for a new pipeline to tidewater represents a significant departure from the direction many Albertans associated with the previous Liberal government. But a pipeline remains a promise until it is built. Alberta’s demands for greater provincial autonomy extend well beyond energy.

A poll can show support for a proposal, but it doesn’t reflect support for the negotiations required to make it happen. Canadians may like abolishing the Senate without agreeing on what should replace it. They may favour greater provincial autonomy without wanting to reopen the Constitution.

But dismissing these results would miss the point. The public opinion exists, and it isn’t confined to Alberta. What’s missing is a political agenda capable of bringing these attitudes together. Monday’s referendum could be a step in that direction.
This creates a dilemma for Carney. Albertans rejected separation, so he can rightfully celebrate a victory for Canadian unity. But they endorsed eight of the other questions, which means he could face a disruptive provincial government with a renewed mandate to challenge Ottawa on issues that resonate across the country. And with an ally in Quebec’s sovereigntist government in Quebec.

Given our Prime Minister’s apparent fondness for seeing his current assignment in Churchillian terms, it seems appropriate to borrow a line from the man himself. Following the British victory at El Alamein in 1942, Churchill observed that it was not the beginning of the end, but perhaps the end of the beginning.

The Alberta referendum could mark a similar turning point in the debate over Canada’s future. Is it the beginning of the end of Alberta’s confrontation with Ottawa, or merely the end of the beginning of a much broader debate about how Canada should work?

That remains to be seen. But Canadians would make a serious mistake if we confuse this vote against separation with acceptance of the status quo. On the contrary. The message from Albertans is that their grievances are real, and there remain nine questions in search of a meaningful response.

Darrell Bricker is Chairman of Ipsos Canada

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.