
Pride Toronto must return to political grassroots, advocates say after corporate sponsors pull out
As a major funding shortfall looms over Pride Toronto, some prominent LGBTQ+ advocates say it's high time to rethink the organization's corporate partnerships and return to its political grassroots.
Ahead of last month's Pride parade, organizers sounded the alarm over Pride Toronto's $900,000 shortfall after sponsors such as Google, Nissan, Home Depot and Clorox pulled their support.
Pride Toronto executive director Kojo Modeste attributed the corporate withdrawals to backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States, though some of the companies said their decisions were made solely because of budgetary considerations.
Although this year's festivities went ahead as planned, Modeste warned that next year's Pride festival may have to be scaled back.
Fatima Amarshi, a former executive director of Pride Toronto, says this is the right moment for a reset.
Amarshi led the organization for three years starting in 2005, right after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and helped lay the foundation of its current funding model.
At that time, she said Pride Toronto vetted corporate sponsors only to ensure their internal policies were supportive of LGBTQ+ employees and the broader community.
"We weren't looking at how corporate sponsors were funding arms manufacturers or fossil fuels or efforts to suppress Indigenous land claims. We were linking queer rights to human rights at the level of state repression and legislative oppression, but not via those who fund those efforts," she said.
During her tenure, Pride Toronto's budget grew from a little under $1 million to around $3 million, Amarshi said.
Corporate sponsors changed Pride's character: advocate
But as that budget expanded over the years thanks to major corporate sponsors, some criticized the increasing commercialization of the annual Pride festival at the expense of its original purpose. More recently, Pride Toronto has faced calls to cut ties with corporations that allegedly profit from Israel's offensive in Gaza.
Gary Kinsman, one of the founding members of the Lesbian and Gay Day Pride Parade — the organization that eventually became Pride Toronto — resigned in 2024 over that issue and what he called the organization's refusal to hear the demands of the group Queers in Palestine.
WATCH | Annual Pride parade went ahead last month in Toronto despite $900K shortfall:
Annual Pride parade kicks off in Toronto
12 days ago
Duration 4:02
Founded in 1981, the Lesbian and Gay Day Pride Parade was a grassroots picnic and political march formed in response to increasing right-wing opposition to the LGBTQ+ community and a series of violent raids by Toronto police at bathhouses in the city. The first event involved a march down a much shorter strip of Yonge Street in front of the police detachment that organized the raids.
Kinsman said the grassroots spirit of the festival continued throughout the 1980s, but a turning point came in the '90s when organizers started looking to involve corporate sponsors, which prompted early signs of division that came decades later.
"This begins to change its [Pride] character fundamentally. It moves quite sharply from being a community-based organization to becoming an organization not defined by communities but by alliances with corporate forms of organization," Kinsman said in an interview.
For Beverly Bain, who along with Kinsman co-founded a group called No Pride in Policing, the growing calls to break Pride Toronto's ties with corporate sponsors is long overdue.
"Pride Toronto, as it exists today, is a corporate pinkwashing Pride. I do not think it's an organization that should be continuing to exist," Bain said.
Pride Toronto hasn't adequately highlighted issues that disproportionately affect the LGBTQ+ community, such as poor access to housing, mental health struggles and increased substance use, Bain said.
"We go back to the political roots of Pride [as] a political struggle for the liberation of queer and trans and non-binary and those who are racialized and those who are Indigenous and two-spirited and Indigenous and queer."
Corporations 'were never really our allies,' advocate says
Monica Forrester, executive director of Trans Pride Toronto, said she started attending the Pride festival in 1998, when it was still very much a protest organized by local shops, bars and community centres.
"We were still in a time of the bath house raids ... and the transphobia and violence that a lot of queer people were facing, not only by people, but by systemic violence. It was really a time where we stood up to show our visibility, that we were here, we were queer and we weren't going anywhere," Forrester said.
But that changed over time, with corporate sponsors appearing to be at the forefront of Pride events, Forrester said. The fact that some of them have pulled support for the festival is "a testament that they were never really our allies," she added.
Faisal Ibrahim, a spokesperson for the Coalition Against Pinkwashing, said it would be a "bare minimum" for Pride Toronto to cut ties with sponsors who financially benefit from Israel's war efforts in Gaza, and agrees with Forrester that a heavy corporate presence can detract from the overall message of Pride.
Looking back, Amarshi said it was "incredibly short-sighted" to bring corporate sponsors into what she said has been a vital institution in advocating for queer rights.
"If Pride doesn't find a way to manoeuvre and be accountable to the community and continue to be in a position where the community feels it legitimately represents them, the community will find its own voice and will find its own path forward." Amarshi said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
29 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Pembina Pipeline Reports Q2 2025 Results and Strategic Expansions
Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. An update from Pembina Pipeline ( (TSE:PPL)) is now available. Pembina Pipeline Corporation reported its second quarter 2025 financial results, highlighting earnings of $417 million and an adjusted EBITDA of $1,013 million. The company has updated its 2025 adjusted EBITDA guidance and announced several strategic initiatives, including enhanced propane exports, acquisitions in gas infrastructure, and pipeline expansions. These developments are aimed at improving market access, reducing costs, and meeting growing transportation demands. Pembina's capital investment program for 2025 has been revised to $1.3 billion, reflecting its commitment to expanding infrastructure and securing long-term agreements. The most recent analyst rating on (TSE:PPL) stock is a Buy with a C$56.00 price target. To see the full list of analyst forecasts on Pembina Pipeline stock, see the TSE:PPL Stock Forecast page. Spark's Take on TSE:PPL Stock According to Spark, TipRanks' AI Analyst, TSE:PPL is a Outperform. Pembina Pipeline's overall score reflects strong financial performance and positive corporate events. While technical analysis shows mixed signals, the company's valuation is attractive, and the earnings call indicates confidence in future growth despite some challenges. To see Spark's full report on TSE:PPL stock, click here. More about Pembina Pipeline Pembina Pipeline Corporation is a leading energy infrastructure company in North America, primarily engaged in the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons. The company focuses on providing integrated solutions for the oil and gas industry, with a significant presence in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Average Trading Volume: 3,588,461 Technical Sentiment Signal: Buy Current Market Cap: C$29.86B For detailed information about PPL stock, go to TipRanks' Stock Analysis page. Disclaimer & Disclosure Report an Issue


CTV News
29 minutes ago
- CTV News
Former Dartmouth mayor says Halifax council is ‘most dysfunctional' she's ever seen
Halifax council has been at odds over several recent topics, including possible strong mayor powers. Halifax council has been at odds over several recent topics, including possible strong mayor powers. Gloria McCluskey's political career spanned 23-and-a-half years, including serving as the last mayor of Dartmouth in the early 1990s. She still closely follows every level of government and watches every Halifax Regional Municipality council meeting. 'This is the most dysfunctional council that I have ever seen, and I served on a few of them,' she tells CTV News Atlantic. She says people should pay attention to what's happening at city hall. 'People should care because it's costing us a lot of money to keep them there, number one,' she says. 'Number two: (council is) in charge of whatever happens in this municipality.' Cathy Deagle Gammon, a two-term city councillor representing Waverley-Fall River-Musquodoboit Valley, says things haven't been as smooth as she had hoped with this council so far. 'It has been bumpier and we need to be honest about that,' she says. 'Everybody that's looking at it can see the bumps. I think councillors and the mayor feel them a little bit more. 'Sometimes we're storming and forming all at the same time.' Still, she's confident council will evolve and iron out the kinks. Halifax City Hall Halifax City Hall is pictured. (Source: Callum Smith/CTV News Atlantic) An early motion that Mayor Andy Fillmore campaigned on – to de-designate Halifax's homeless encampments – was voted down. He's also been on the losing side for a motion about the Windsor Street Exchange and more recently, Morris Street's bike lane design. Last month, Fillmore wrote to Municipal Affairs Minister John Lohr, saying 'a sobering conclusion has emerged' nine months into council's mandate. 'In our current governance model, the disconnection between democratic choice at the ballot box and decision-making at city hall is hindering rather than helping delivery of the priorities for which Halifax residents voted,' he said, noting that 'structural change' to Halifax's governance model should be considered. The longtime politician previously said he did not 'fully understand the barriers' to fulfilling his mandate until he was elected. 'We're a work in progress' Speaking to reporters last Tuesday, Fillmore was asked how the current council is functioning. 'We're a work in progress,' Fillmore said. 'I think we're figuring our working together out.' That was after a contentious rescission of council's design of Morris Street bike lanes – overturning their previous decision to go with one-way traffic and two-way bike lanes. It was a move Fillmore opposed – and one that was threatened to be overturned by the province. 'The moment that we're in, the change that this moment requires, would result in a fractious moment, the fractious moment that we're experiencing,' Fillmore said. 'This moment is calling for us to change and to do things differently.' Janet Steele, a first-term councillor who represents Timberlea-Lakeside-Beechville-Clayton Park and Wedgewood, has a different perspective on how things have gone so far. 'I think council is operating fairly well,' she says. Steele points to some achievements that council has hit so far, including holding a flat tax rate and eventually charting a path forward with the Windsor Street Exchange redevelopment. But she admits she was caught off guard when Fillmore, a former city planner, said he didn't fully understand the barriers he would face in the mayor's chair. 'Democracy is messy,' Steele says. 'It takes a while to get to a decision. So, I find it surprising that he did not understand the role of mayor.' Halifax City Hall Halifax City Hall is seen on Aug. 8, 2025. (Source: Callum Smith/CTV News Atlantic) She says there's room for further collaboration from the mayor, particularly when it comes to giving notice about motions he's bringing to council. She believes the Morris Street controversy is being used as a 'wedge issue.' 'It's a wedge issue designed to give the impression that Mayor Fillmore requires strong mayor power,' she says. 'I see all the noise and drama around that, purposely designed to say, 'Oh, I can't get what I want… I can't achieve it with the current governance model.'' Strong mayor powers Premier Tim Houston has said discussions have been ongoing around giving Fillmore additional power, though those powers haven't exactly been defined. 'We want people at all levels of government to have the tools necessary to properly govern,' Houston reiterated when asked about the issue on Tuesday. 'It's a discussion that's happening, for sure, but there's no more movement than the discussion.' 'Politics is about people,' Houston said in an interview with CTV News Atlantic's Todd Battis on July 17. 'We can't let agendas and personal conflicts have a negative impact on people.' Deagle Gammon says if strong mayor powers were raised on the campaign trail from either the mayor or the premier, she wouldn't have put her name on the ballot box. But she says it's important to acknowledge that few details have been shared about what powers could be granted. Some have suggested that, if implemented, Nova Scotia's model could replicate Ontario's policy for some of its municipalities. According to that province's website, those powers can include: ability to appoint a CAO ability to hire municipal division heads ability to create and appoint chairs of committees veto power and council override -With files from CTV News Atlantic's Sean Mott Gloria McCluskey Former Dartmouth mayor Gloria McCluskey is critical of the current Halifax council. (Source: Callum Smith/CTV News Atlantic) For more Nova Scotia news, visit our dedicated provincial page


Globe and Mail
29 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Don't be fooled by the ‘yield on cost' fallacy
Why would you not calculate your model dividend portfolio's yield based on its book cost instead of its current market value? I'll calculate the yield both ways in today's column. Then I'll explain why I prefer one method over the other. Let's use my model Yield Hog Dividend Growth Portfolio as an example. This is an opportune time to do so, because the portfolio just reached a key milestone: Thanks to a 6-per-cent dividend hike from Capital Power Corp. (CPX) on July 30, the portfolio's annual income has now officially doubled since inception. When I launched the portfolio with $100,000 of virtual money on Oct. 1, 2017, it was throwing off $4,094 of income annually based on dividend rates at the time. Owing to scores of dividend increases and regular reinvestments of cash over the years, it's now generating $8,199 of income – an increase of 100 per cent. These dividend ETF picks diversify your portfolio while saving on currency-conversion costs Down on dividend investing? Here's why you shouldn't be Now, to your question about yield: The traditional way to calculate the yield of a portfolio or individual stock is to divide the projected annual income by the current market value. Dividing the model portfolio's annualized income of $8,199 by its market value of $192,896 (as of July 31) produces a yield of about 4.3 per cent. In other words, for every dollar of capital in the portfolio today, about 4.3 cents of income is being generated annually, based on current dividend rates. This is what is known as the 'indicated yield,' and it is by far the most common way to calculate yield. But some investors prefer to measure yield in a different way. They calculate the 'yield on cost' by dividing current annualized income by the original cost of the stock or portfolio, not by the current market value. Using this method, the yield on cost of the model portfolio is $8,199 divided by the original value of $100,000, or about 8.2 per cent. The main benefit of using yield on cost is that it illustrates the growth of income over time. Indeed, despite the tariff-related volatility that has swept financial markets this year, dividend increases have continued to roll in from utilities, power producers, banks, real estate investment trusts and other companies in the portfolio. This is one reason I invest in dividend growth stocks: They bring some stability and predictability to an uncertain world. But here's the problem: Some investors don't always interpret yield on cost properly. They make the mistake of comparing the yield on cost with the current yields available in the marketplace. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison that can lead investors astray. Let's look at a stock in my personal portfolio to see why. Back in 2010, I bought shares of the utility, Fortis Inc. (FTS). At the time, the stock was trading at $27.58 a share and paying $1.12 of dividends annually, for a yield of about 4.1 per cent. Fortis (which I also hold in the model portfolio) has raised its dividend every year since then and is currently paying $2.46 annually. My yield on cost is therefore about 8.9 per cent (calculated as $2.46 of current income divided by my original purchase price of $27.58). Some fans of using yield on cost might argue that I could never find a dividend yield that high in the marketplace, especially from a company as solid as Fortis. I've even seen investors use a high yield on cost to justify hanging on to a stock they might otherwise want to sell. But am I actually earning 8.9 per cent on my investment in Fortis? No, absolutely not, because – this is the key part – my investment is no longer worth $27.58 a share. That price is 15 years out of date. Thanks to steady appreciation in Fortis's stock price over the years, my investment is now worth about $70 a share, as of Friday morning. So, if I currently have about $70 of capital tied up in each Fortis share, and each share is generating $2.46 of dividends, the yield of my Fortis shares is actually 3.5 per cent, not 8.9 per cent. The higher yield is misleading because it is derived by applying a current dividend rate to an old share price, which makes it useless for comparing Fortis's yield with the yields of other dividend stocks. Let's look at a more extreme example to drive the point home. Imagine you purchased a rental apartment building 50 years ago for $100,000. At the time, the building was generating rental income of $10,000, for a yield of 10 per cent. Now, let's assume the apartment building's market value and its total rental income have both increased tenfold, to $1-million and $100,000, respectively. Would you calculate the apartment's yield by dividing the current rental income of $100,000 by the wildly out-of-date market value of $100,000? Of course not. The price you paid 50 years ago is no longer relevant. What matters for the purposes of calculating the apartment's yield, and comparing it with the yield of other apartments, is the property's current market value and annual income potential today. The building's true yield is therefore 10 per cent ($100,000 divided by $1,000,000). A high yield on cost is a nice reminder that your income has grown, but it should never be used as a metric to compare with other investments. So, the next time someone tells you they don't want to sell a stock because it has a high yield on cost, show them this column. E-mail your questions to jheinzl@ I'm not able to respond personally to e-mails, but I choose certain questions to answer in my column.