Implementing a universal single-payer drug insurance plan could compromise the quality of coverage for at least 21.5 million Canadians, revealed a new study from the Montreal Economic Institute.
This comes as the Liberals are expected to reveal their pharmacare bill which was a key promise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as part of their confidence-and-supply agreement.
Private insurance plans cover a broader range of medications than provincial government public insurance, researchers found. Between 2018 and 2021, private plans reimbursed 51% more unique medications than public plans.
In Quebec, the province with the longest list of drugs covered by a public insurance plan, private plans cover 59.6% more medications than the public option.
Even if pharmacare adopted the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec’s list, it would reduce the number of insured drugs for many Canadians. Canada’s four most populated provinces (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta) have more extensive private coverage than the public plan offers.
Approximately 25,000,000 Canadians have private drug insurance coverage—based on 2020 data—about 65% of Canada’s population. Of this number, 21.5 million lived in the four most populated provinces.
“This means that up to 21.5 million Canadians would experience a reduction in the quality of their drug coverage with the adoption of pharmacare,” said Emmanuelle B. Faubert, the author of the research.
Pharmacare would likely prohibit purchasing complementary insurance that provides additional coverage for non- or partially-covered drugs.
However, if an insurance plan no longer covers certain drugs, pharmaceutical companies will likely stop distributing them in Canada, revealed Faubert.
“The variety of medications in circulation in this country is therefore at risk of shrinking, preventing previously covered patients from having access to these drugs, even if they were disposed to pay for them out of their own pocket,” she added.
The number of unique drugs covered by public plans in every province between 2018 and 2021 was 54,954, according to the research. The drugs covered by private plans were 82,529.
Preserving access to a wide variety of treatments is crucial, given the distinctive features of individuals and the variety of the effectiveness of each treatment, noted the research. Yet, a new national pharmacare program may pose a threat to such access.
The process of a drug being offered in Canada is already complex and lengthy. A drug must first be approved by Health Canada, following rigorous tests. The maximum price is then set by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is subsequently negotiated through the Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. Provincial health authorities must then approve adding the drug to the list covered by a province’s public plan.
A new universal national insurance plan would result in Canadians waiting longer before new drugs are submitted by pharmaceutical companies and approved by Health Canada, researchers argue.
Canadians with private insurance obtain access to new drugs within 226 days. Canadians covered by public insurance obtain access after 732 days, having to wait on average a year and five months more than those with a private insurance policy before being reimbursed for a new drug on the market.
Between 2012 and 2021, 44% of new drugs launched globally were distributed in Canada. Only 20% were covered by public plans.
Canadians moving to a public drug insurance system will exert an enormous amount of pressure on public drug spending, especially as private insurance spending gets transferred to public accounts, claimed the research.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said pharmacare will not jeopardize Canada’s fiscal standing and that it can be implemented without going over the government’s spending budget announced last fall.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, pharmacare would cost $2.6 billion in 2023. Based on the assumption that the RAMQ’s list of drugs is adopted across Canada, the simulation shows that the cost would reach $11.2 billion by 2024 and $13.4 billion by 2027.
“These additional costs will necessarily fall on taxpayers’ shoulders, in the form of taxes devoted to paying this new bill,” said Faubert.
The research noted that only 1.1 million Canadians are not eligible for any kind of drug insurance. Still, there are 3.8 million Canadians who are not signed up for some form of public or private drug insurance. In these cases, it is better to plug the gaps in the provincial system so that everyone has access to insurance rather than overturn current public and private coverage, which risks adversely affecting a large proportion of Canadians, said Faubert.
Quebec has a mixed public and private system, offering default coverage to all residents of the province. This leaves the door open to a market for private insurance, offering more generous plans than public plans.
“In this way, market competition allows Canadians to continue to enjoy relatively more generous drug insurance, but also to be insured by the public plan in case of loss of employment,” said Faubert.
A model such as this would allow uninsurable Canadians to have drug coverage without withdrawing the majority of Canadians from their current private coverage, which is more generous. This model is also less fiscally demanding and would have a smaller impact on public finances.
“By developing a uniform, 100% public, pan-Canadian drug insurance plan, we risk considerably reducing coverage quality for a large number of Canadians and reproducing what is happening elsewhere in the healthcare system, namely abusive bureaucratization where the needs of patients are of secondary importance,” concluded Faubert.
Confidential university documents leaked to True North reveal troubling times within Wilfrid Laurier University’s Faculty of Social Work, characterized by the Indigenous faculty members and the black dean accusing each other of racism.
At the centre of the conflict is Kathy Hogarth, then dean of the social work department.
Hogarth currently chairs the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board, a position to which she was appointed by Defense Minister Bill Blair in December 2023.
Hogarth is now in charge of deciding if Canada’s two Royal Military Colleges should continue to exist, and if so, what their curriculum should look like.
A scroll through Kathy Hogarth’s X account (which she deleted after being contacted for this article) could certainly convince onlookers that she has contempt for those with peachy complexions.
“I need to socialize my white colleagues to the idea that I am not their Black Jesus,” she posted online in November 2021. “I cannot magically dismantle the system of white mediocrity they hold a vice grip on.”
But as it turns out, white people aren’t a factor in the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty of Social Work diversity dysfunction at all.
The September 7th faculty retreat
Professors in the faculty of social work had some pre-existing grievances with Hogarth: they found her untransparent about hiring decisions and said she had a generally uncollegial attitude. But it was at a faculty retreat in September 2022 that the showdown between Hogarth and the Indigenous Field of Study (IFS) social work faculty came to a head.
The IFS describes itself as a distinct program within the faculty that is based on Indigenous “traditions, languages, and territorial protocols.”
The IFS asked to participate in the retreat remotely because its members were still scared of contracting COVID, but Hogarth had a preference for the department’s members to appear in-person. Hogarth allowed the IFS team to participate remotely in the morning, but said the afternoon session was not conducive to virtual participation and in the afternoon. The IFS team said they experienced feelings of “confusion and exclusion.”
With outcry, the in-person faculty attendees created a new Zoom link for the IFS to participate in the afternoon session, and Hogarth “relented,” though she did not apologize.
The IFS team later claimed Hogarth’s “exclusion” of them was “an act of anti-indigenous racism” and “colonial violence,” and that Hogarth had employed “strategies of exclusion, divide, conquer and misuse of power.”
Prior to the retreat, Hogarth had asked the Indigenous faculty elders to give a land acknowledgement on the day of the retreat, but the elders felt her request was “performative” and they refused. Hogarth ended up delivering the land acknowledgement, and then asked someone from the IFS to comment on the significance of land acknowledgements.
“This is not what we agreed on. Why are you asking us this? This is not our responsibility,” an IFS team member replied.
Hogarth later recounted in a report that the faculty were “rowdy” during the retreat, interrupting her and challenging her decisions, and that they wrote phrases like “less colonialism” and “less bullshit” on the end-of-day feedback notes. Hogarth interpreted this as “implicit racism.”
“Bloodied and bruised”: The September 15th, 2022 email
Following the retreat, Hogarth sent out an email to the department faculty and senior leadership, which was obtained by True North:
As one of less than a handful of Black Deans in Canada, I cannot divorce my Blackness from my leadership identity. The experiences of colonialism are embedded in my DNA. The enactment of colonial violence on my Black body is unrelenting.
After being bloodied and bruised at the Faculty Retreat, and nursing the bloodiness of the day, I was forced to dry my tears, put a smile on my face and go welcome a new cadre of students to our institution. And I ask, how can I do that with integrity after witnessing and experiencing such violence at the hands of social work ‘professionals’? Yet, I had to be strong because that is what is expected.
As a leader, and more so as a Black woman leader, there is always a justling for power. I saw that. I saw the subtle and not so subtle attempts at destabilizing, the micro-invalidations and the micro insults. Anti-black racism was as real and alive as it has ever been on Wednesday. As painful as it is, I am naming that.
We can choose toxicity – The kind of toxicity that I have observed and that the faculty of social work seems to be known for across this institution and beyond. We can also choose to break free and work towards healthy community. I will not join the toxic. I will not engage in the violence. Those are not negotiable. I challenge you, both perpetrators of violence and bystanders to do better. Both the bystander and the perpetrator are equal participants in enacting violence.
The September 19th letter
Days after Hogarth’s email, the tenured faculty sent the higher-ups of Laurier a petition to have Hogarth removed as dean, claiming a “crisis of leadership.”
The letter stated, “given the recent events we have reached a point where we do not have confidence in the Dean and ask for an immediate change in leadership.”
The petition was endorsed “with the unanimous support of all 16 tenured faculty of the Faculty of Social Work (FSW).”
The professors wrote that Hogarth’s Sept. 15 email had been “extremely distressing.”
“Unfortunately, the toxic and violent climate at the FSW as a result of Dr. Hogarth’s actions have deeply impacted morale, weakening our sense of belonging and community, and have negatively impacted faculty members’ wellbeing.”
“The anti-Indigenous racism enacted by the Dean is in itself completely unacceptable. Under no circumstances should any faculty member be intentionally excluded from participating in collegial meetings, especially a meeting designed to foster community and engage in planning,” read the faculty petition.
“We are concerned about and question her ability to lead us in meaningful decolonizing or equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) work,” the text stated.
The Indigenous faculty’s accompanying September 19th letter
Along with the tenured faculty’s letter calling for Hogarth to be replaced as dean, the IFS team sent its own letter to the senior executives of Wilfrid Laurier University.
“We have recently experienced colonial violence and anti-Indigenous racism at the hands of our Dean… the Dean did not respect our governance structure and decision-making around remaining remote, and thus explicitly set out to exclude the IFS from participating in the Faculty visioning part of the retreat (the afternoon session).”
“During our remote participation, she was actively violent towards the IFS team as witnessed by our FSW colleagues.”
“September 7 resulted in the team feeling unsafe in the workplace and unable to rely on the Dean to represent the interests of the IFS,” they continued. “This marginalizing experience was harmful and humiliating and unnecessary given the virtual world we have been navigating for two years.”
In reference to Hogarth’s Sept. 15 “bloodied and bruised” email, the IFS wrote that “an inflammatory letter was sent by the Dean to all faculty members (and copied the senior administration) that… misrepresents the actual situation and was defamation of the IFS team. This letter was aggressive and assaultive leaving members of the team more mistrustful of the dean.”
“We no longer have confidence in the leadership of this Dean, and now we regrettably feel a change in leadership is necessary effective immediately,” the IFS wrote.
A university-wide email was sent out Nov. 7, 2022: “Laurier has appointed Dr. Kathy Hogarth as Associate Vice President, Global Strategy, effective November 7, 2022 until June 30, 2026.”
The position was created for Hogarth and given to her: no past job postings exist online advertising it, at least under that name.
The faculty of social work appointed an interim dean, and Hogarth got promoted out of the department.
Investigation one: Toxic workplace
Wilfrid Laurier University retained Oakville, Ont. law firm Lakhani Campea LLP to conduct two formal investigations within the department: one regarding a toxic workplace, and another regarding “anti-indigenous and anti-black racism.”
Each investigation resulted in written reports completed in September 2023, which were recently leaked to True North.
According to True North’s source, Wilfrid Laurier University initially kept the reports under wraps: faculty members could only view them in a room under supervision without electronic devices. However, the faculty union got involved to lift this requirement.
In the toxic workplace report, witnesses described the social work department as cliquey, scary, and tense.
Staff witnesses stated Hogarth “was treated poorly during the Retreat,” and that the faculty never respected the authority of past deans either, as they were pushing for a non-hierarchical co-dean model.
The investigator found that the department was an intimidating and hostile workplace, and determined that the FSW staff are subjected to a poisoned work environment as defined by university policy.
Investigation two: Indigenous vs. Black Racism
The racism investigation report was much longer than the toxic workplace report – 10 pages instead of five.
“The Indigenous Field of Study Team and tenured faculty submitted complaints against Dean Kathy Hogarth involving, in part, allegations of anti-indigenous racism. In her response, Dr. Hogarth made allegations of anti-Black racism against Faculty, and the IFS Team,” the Lakhani Campea LLP report read.
The IFS team alleged that Hogarth “demonstrated a pattern of problematic behaviours and engaged in anti-Indigenous racism and colonial violence.” Specifically, Hogarth’s “exclusion” of the IFS Team from the afternoon session of the Retreat was “an act of anti-Indigenous racism.”
According to the report, a member of the IFS team suggested to Hogarth that by excluding them at the retreat, Hogarth is “worse than the federal government who had taken Indigenous children from their communities.”
Faculty also accused Hogarth of being an “autocratic” and “non-collaborative” leader.
For her part, Hogarth claimed she was subject to workplace violence, microaggressions, and anti-black racism. One example of racism Hogarth cited was that a faculty member commented on Hogarth’s hair and also said they “sometimes forget that Black people can be smart.”
(In fact, Hogarth’s official bio on the Wilfrid Laurier University website reads, “I am Black… I have always been Black, but that fact never mattered as much until I entered white space. Then, my Blackness seemed to matter more than any other aspect of my identity… So much so, even in this position as Dean, colleagues remind me that I can be smart as a Black woman. So, I say to you I am Black – unapologetically Black!”)
The racism report also revealed that some tenured faculty members had been bullied into signing the letter calling for Hogarth’s removal as dean, and that there wasn’t, in fact, agreement among all 16 tenured faculty members to fire Hogarth.
Ultimately, the investigator found that although Hogarth’s Sept. 15 email used racially insensitive descriptors, she had not engaged in any outright anti-Indigenous racism – or herself been subjected to any anti-black racism.
“It was not found that Dr. Hogarth was subjected to targeted anti-Black racism from a particular party,” the report read.
“While there appears to be a general reluctance from Faculty to accept Dr. Hogarth’s decanal leadership and authority, it was not found that this conduct constitutes racism or racial discrimination as defined in the Policy.”
Hogarth made just under $200,000 as her 2022 salary, according to the Ontario Sunshine List.
Hogarth did not respond to request for comment and her email auto-response stated she was “on leave” indefinitely. She deleted her X profile upon being contacted for this article.
An unnamed spokesperson from Wilfrid Laurier University told True North, “Due to HR confidentiality, Wilfrid Laurier University cannot provide information on personnel matters to the media.”
Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will be spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “gender-inclusive demining” in Ukraine. Now what exactly is “gender-inclusive demining?” Nobody seems to know. But, Trudeau has somehow managed to inject gender ideology into the Ukraine war.
Deploy the transgender deminers!
Canada’s latest announcement is on top of the $13 billion Trudeau has given to Ukraine since the beginning of the war. Trudeau is spending money we don’t actually have and is expecting Canadians to accept this without telling us what Canada’s objective is.
Instead, he simply repeats the line, “Canada will be there with whatever it takes for as long as it takes.” What exactly does that mean? How has Canada benefited from providing Ukraine with billions of military aid? How long will this war continue?
Watch the latest episode of Ratio’d with Harrison Faulkner!
Podcaster Joe Rogan criticized the Trudeau government and endorsed Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre for prime minister, during a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience with guest comedian Tom Green.
“If he gets elected again, you guys are gluttons for punishment,” Rogan told guest Tom Green on a recent episode of hispodcast, which aired on Saturday.
Rogan also called Trudeau a “weasel” and described the prime minister as “what I don’t like in leaders.”
Joe Rogan called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “a weasel” in a recent podcast with guest Canadian comedian Tom Green. pic.twitter.com/RIGtuCJz4k
The two came to the subject of Canadian politics after Green urged Rogan to return to Canada to visit and perform.
Rogan had said on a previous episode in December that he would not be returning north of the border anymore in protest of the Trudeau government.
“I want you to come to Canada Joe,” said Green.
“I don’t go up there anymore,” responded Rogan. “What they’ve done up there, what they did with the trucker rally and what Trudeau is doing with guns and what they’re trying to clamp down on censorship on the Internet. That guy can eat s***. That place needs 100% an overhaul of government. They’re sliding down that dangerous road of communism. It scares the s*** out of me,” said Rogan in December.
While speaking with Green, Rogan wanted to clarify that his remarks were not directed at Canadian citizens. Rogan also endorsed Poilievre for prime minister.
“I love Canadians, I just hate their government. Pierre Poilievre … that guy makes so much more sense. He’s so common sense, calling out all the nonsense that’s been done under this administration, which has been so sad to watch.”
Green is a comedian and former television host who recently moved back to his hometown of Ottawa after spending 20 years living and working in Los Angeles.
“This is so common in Canada … driving around everywhere in the country, in the city, everywhere, people in pickup trucks [have] ‘F*** Trudeau’ flags … It says ‘F*** Trudeau.’… Canada flag on it. People are mad … he might not get elected the next time,” said Green.
“I hope he doesn’t,” responded Rogan.
During his appearance, Green wanted American listeners to understand just how similar the people and political dynamics are between the U.S. and Canada.
“You’ve got Biden as the president now … it’s the same thing, half the country hates the party in power and they want to get him out. As a proud Canadian, I wanted to (make) the distinction that Canada’s like (America). Everybody’s arguing about issues, important issues, it’s being reinforced through these algorithms,” explained Green.
“People get mad about it … I sometimes (think), wouldn’t it be interesting if Pierre Poilievre won the next election because all of a sudden we’d have a conservative government up there. Then, let’s say Biden wins down here, you have a conservative government up there, and Tucker Carlson will be going up to Canada all of a sudden talking about how great we are. It can all turn on a dime.”
Rogan, who is also a UFC commentator, has been a longstanding critic of Trudeau and an ardent supporter of the Freedom Convoy protestors over the past several years.
During a UFC event held in Toronto last month, the crowd began chanting, “F*** Trudeau!” and videos of the incident were widely circulated online.
“They’re yelling ‘F*** Trudeau’,” said Rogan during a livestream of the event.
The chants were likely connected to comments made before the event by UFC middleweight champion Sean Strickland during a pre-fight press conference wherein he accused the Canadian media of having a Liberal bias.
“Were you a Covid bank account stealer?” asked Strickland of one reporter, referring to Freedom Convoy protestors who had their bank accounts frozen under the Emergencies Act in February 2022. “Were you on board with that?”
Strickland went on to say of the reporter, “He’s going to go and give my f****** bank account information to f****** Trudeau.”
Green later quipped that Rogan himself should run for office in Canada.
“In Canada, you don’t have to be born in Canada to run for Prime Minister. You could run for Prime Minister. You could come and solve all this stuff. You’d have to live up there but it’s a nice place. Come on up to Canada. You would win too, that’s the thing,” said Green.
“That’s so scary,” responded Rogan. “I’m so unqualified to run a country.”
Rogan responded by saying him becoming Prime Minister of Canada would be more crazy than Donald Trump having served as president in the U.S.
In a move aimed at curbing the spread of what it terms “online hate,” the Liberal government of Canada has revealed its plan, including hefty fines for online speech and stringent punishment including up to life imprisonment for hate crimes.
The centrepiece of this initiative is the proposed Online Harms Act, details of which were unveiled during a technical briefing released to reporters on Monday.
Among the categories of harmful content identified in the act are materials that incite violent extremism or terrorism, promote violence, or foment hatred.
The bill will include amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at addressing hate crimes more effectively. The Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63 was tabled by Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani in the House of Commons on the same day.
These amendments include the introduction of a standalone hate crime offence applicable across all criminal offences, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment.
Maximum punishments for existing hate propaganda offences are also set to be increased substantially.
“New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself,” the technical briefing explained.
The bill would also raise “the maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.”
Also, the bill would add a definition of “hatred” based on the past decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the Criminal Code.
The text of the bill defines “content that foments hatred” as any content “content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”
“For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,” adds the government.
Additionally, private messaging and communications like WhatsApp and other platforms are excluded from the scope of the legislation.
Anybody will also be able to file complaints against others for “posting hate speech online” that is discriminatory against protected categories such as gender, race, disability and others.
Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will let anybody file complaints against persons posting so-called hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order those found to violate the government’s definition of hatred with fines up to $70,000 and takedown orders for content.
According to the text of the bill, the Tribunal has the power to order payments of up to $20,000 for victims of so-called online hate, as well as an order to pay the government $50,000 “if the member panel considers it appropriate.”
In 2014, a similar provision under the Act dealing with online hate messages was repealed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper after it was found to have violated the freedom of expression rights of Canadians.
The Liberals have pledged to reintroduce Section 13 which deals with “communication of hate speech” over the internet.
“It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals based on a prohibited ground of discrimination,” Bill C-63’s text reads.
The Tribunal will also have powers to hide the identity of those who bring complaints against anybody whom they deem to have posted online hate speech. Additionally, it can compel those who face complaints to not reveal the identity of those involved upon discovery.
“The Commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 without disclosing, to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person, the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals that has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint,” Bill C-63 reads.
To enforce rules surrounding harmful online content, including materials that sexually victimize children and deepfakes, the government plans to establish a new organization. This body, comprising the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, will work to ensure compliance with regulations and protect users from online harm.
Meanwhile, the role of the digital safety ombudsperson will extend to advocating for users’ rights and interests in the digital realm, serving as a watchdog for online safety issues.
Prior to the bill’s unveiling, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said he would oppose the law, accusing the government of using the issue to legislate censorship and infringe Canadians’ free speech.
“We will oppose Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression,” Poilievre responded to a question from True North’s Andrew Lawton last week.
“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the worst hate speech? He means speech he hates.”
Some politicians in Poland have taken a swipe at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his recent visit to Warsaw, where he engaged in discussions with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on matters relating to international security.
The criticism stemmed from Trudeau’s handling of the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022.
As Trudeau and Tusk shared a handshake in what was meant to symbolize diplomatic rapport, opposition figures aired their grievances on social media.
Witold Tumanowicz, a member of the Polish Sejm representing the Konfederacja party, quipped about whether Trudeau offered advice on tactics to suppress protesters.
“Did he advise on how to block bank accounts of protesters?” asked Tumanowicz.
The Freedom Convoy protests, which saw truckers and supporters voicing opposition to vaccine mandates and pandemic-related restrictions, were met with forceful measures by Canadian authorities after Trudeau invoked the never-before-used Emergencies Act. The Act gave authorities sweeping powers, including the freezing of certain individuals’ bank accounts.
Joining the chorus of disapproval, political liberal activist Jacek W. Bartyzel also weighed in, suggesting a shared approach between Trudeau and Tusk in potentially targeting citizens.
“What they can do together is to take something from retirement or bank accounts?” commented Bartyzel.
To wspólnie do zrobienia to zajumać coś z kont emerytalnych czy bankowych? https://t.co/wzMiEzmvja
“In every democracy around the world, we are seeing a rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself,” said Trudeau.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “In every democracy around the world, we are seeing a rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself.” pic.twitter.com/AmYa0xdVjF
Ontario Premier Doug Ford criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Environment Minister Steven Guillbealt during a radio show interview in Toronto.
While speaking to John Oakley on his AM 640 radio talk show, Ford questioned if Trudeau was really the one running the country or if it was instead Guilbeault, whom Ford called “an extremist.”
“Sometimes I sit back and wonder, who’s running the country, Justin Trudeau or Guilbeault? And right now I don’t know who’s running the country,” said Ford.
The comments were out of character for Ford, who has had a relatively cozy relationship with the federal Liberals over the past several years.
The Ontario premier has even praised Trudeau’s government for the investments it has made into sectors like healthcare and the auto industry.
However, the two governments have been butting heads more recently over a new route the province wants to see built along Highway 413 between Milton and Vaughan.
The road project was frozen in 2021 by the Trudeau government under the Impact Assessment Act but the provincial government may be able to overturn the decision, according to Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey.
“The federal government’s response to the Supreme Court’s opinion has created unnecessary confusion,” said Downey last fall.
“This is not acceptable. We all know that Ontario is growing at a remarkable speed and we have a duty to ensure that our historic work building new infrastructure and services can move forward without delay.”
Ford’s most recent comments are in response to Guillbeault’s suggestion that the federal government would not be building new roads in the future, which he would later say was the result of not enough funding for “large projects.”
“We have programs to fund roads, but we have said — and maybe I should have been more specific in the past — is that we don’t have funds for large projects like the trosième lien,” Guilbeault told Global News, referring to a highway tunnel that connects Quebec City to Levis.
However, Ford took issue with Guilbeault’s comments about funding going forward.
“That Minister Guilbeault, the federal environmental minister, I couldn’t believe what he said the other day,” said Ford on Oakley’s radio show.
“They’re no longer going to fund building roads or highways. And I’m thinking, ‘What are we doing? Are we going to be riding on horseback or bicycles or whatever?’”
He went on to criticize the Trudeau government’s plan to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2030, suggesting the government would be better off to let the market take the lead when it comes to policy.
“You have to let the market dictate, we’re moving at a rapid pace because the market’s dictating,” said Ford. “It’s going to be up to the auto sector. I spoke to all the large CEOs of the large auto manufacturers and they aren’t going to be ready by 2035.”
While Ford expressed his frustrations with the current federal government, he would not comment nor endorse the opposition, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
“It’s up to him to win the election, I’m staying out of it,” said Ford. “I’m not getting involved in the federal election, I have my hands full here in Ontario.”
The Liberal government and the NDP will introduce the first phase of their new national pharmacare program, however the province of Alberta has chosen to opt out of the program.
The pharmacare program will include coverage of birth control and diabetes medication and was a major part of the supply-and-confidence pact that the NDP shares with the Liberals.
Final details of the legislation have yet to be ironed out before the scheduled deadline of March 1. Still, Alberta’s Health Minister Adriana LaGrange confirmed that the province plans to opt out, in an email to Global News on Sunday.
Alberta will instead aim to obtain a full per capita share of the funding because the province was not consulted on the plan “and there are limitations in the initial analysis and assumptions, including start-up investment and administrative costs to implement a cost-sharing model, that were not taken into consideration that add costs for the provinces,” wrote a spokesperson for LaGrange’s office in the email.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland promised said that the pharmacare plan won’t risk Canada’s fiscal standing and that it can be implemented without going over the government’s spending budget, pledged last fall.
“For our government, it is very, very important to invest in Canada and Canadians … and to do so in a fiscally responsible way,” said Freeland. ” We laid out in the fall economic statement some fiscal guideposts and we will meet them.”
However, the pharmacare program was stalled repeatedly over financial concerns earlier this year from Health Minister Mark Holland.
Another issue that remains is what type of diabetes supplies should be covered, according to an anonymous source involved in the negotiations.
Currently, the deal includes insulin for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, and potentially other diabetes drugs.
The source also confirmed that the Liberals confirmed that they had around $800 million to spend on the program.
The Liberal’s goal is to keep deficits below 1% of GDP, starting in 2026-27 and to maintain the 2024 fiscal year’s deficit to stay at or below the spring budget projection of $40.1 billion.
According to Statistics Canada, the current national deficit was $3.2 billion in the third quarter of last year.
The Parliamentary Budget Office released a report last fall which projected a combined cost of $11.2 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year.
“Upon the implementation of a single-payer universal drug plan based on Quebec’s Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) formulary— “Pharmacare”—we estimate the incremental cost to the public sector (that is federal and provincial governments combined) to be $11.2 billion in 2024-25, increasing to $13.4 billion in 2027-28,” reads the report.
“In terms of the economy as a whole, we estimate cost savings on drug expenditures of $1.4 billion in 2024-25, rising to $2.2 billion in 2027-28.”
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says it’s time for the federal government to secure another mandate.
With a federal election looming, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is using Alberta as a punching bag to attempt to win votes in Eastern Canada, Smith told Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley on the Full Comment podcast.
“It’s the same old story that happens over and over again,” she said. “Then, let’s just do it. Let’s just have an election so that this can be resolved one way or another.
Appearing on the Full Comment podcast with Brian Lilley, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith calls on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call an election. pic.twitter.com/LevX9MKG0e
The premier said Alberta’s relationship with the feds will move into a “different path” if the Trudeau Liberals lose, but perhaps there will be a “mature professional relationship again” if they win.
“But fighting this kind of campaign battle when we’re trying to get things done, and trying to behave in a collaborative and cooperative way, it’s not helpful.”
A federal election could be devastating for the Trudeau Liberals.
In early February, an Abacus Data poll found that the Conservatives lead by 19 points over the Liberals. Nearly seven in 10 Canadians believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should resign in 2024, before the next scheduled federal election in 2025, according to a December survey by Ipsos.
Smith has long said that “cooperative federalism” has broken down, especially on environment issues with federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault at the helm. Most recently, Guilbeault said Ottawa won’t be giving municipalities funding for roads because it encourages use of cars when cities should be fighting climate change — a comment he backtracked on following backlash.
“I’m just not seeing that the federal government is coming to the table in good faith that way,” Smith said.
The premier’s comments came after Trudeau’s recent trip to Edmonton, in which he didn’t give the premier so much as a “courtesy call” that he would be coming. Smith said Trudeau has recently had joint press conferences with premiers B.C., Ontario, and Manitoba.
“So you can see that he is treating Alberta differently and there’s no reason for it.”
The premier also accused Trudeau of trying to get people “angry and worked up” over her recent gender policies.
Last month, Smith announced that top and bottom gender reassignment surgeries will be banned for children aged 17 and under in Alberta. She also said that puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender reassignment or affirmation will be strictly prohibited for minors aged 15 and under, with exceptions granted to those already undergoing treatment.
Smith said she believes her policy has been met with widespread support because it’s so reasonable. She said she’s met with many transgender people over the years and understands there’s a gap in medical care for those who have transitioned and long-term support for those for the lifetime impact of those who underwent hormone treatment.
“I think it’s very important for us to not be closed-minded, and to be aware that there are changing political practices and we have to be prepared to respond to that,” she told Lilley. “So, I don’t accept what the prime minister is saying.”
With just a week before heading the polls, voters in Durham had the opportunity to hear from the candidates in the upcoming Durham byelection.
The debate first aired on Sunday, Feb. 25 and will continue to air every day at different times until next Saturday Mar. 2 on Rogers tv, two days before the election.
While the majority of the candidates participated in the debate, the favourite to win the byelection, Jamil Jivani, did not participate. The Conservative candidate opted to spend time canvassing in the riding instead.
Kevin Mackenzie, the Green Party candidate, and Adam Smith of the satire Rhinoceros party were also absent.
Although Jivani did not attend, a video of him addressing voters was played after the debate, in which he repeated the Conservative pledge of “axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.”
Liberal candidate Robert Rock asserted the absence of Jivani and other candidates showed a lack of respect for voters in the riding.
“I see tonight’s debate as a job interview, and showing up, is showing respect to you the voters in this community,” Rock said. “It’s a shame the Conservative candidate didn’t respect you enough to show up here tonight and have his ideas debated on.”
During the debate, candidates agreed that issues like affordability and housing are “top of mind” for voters in the riding. However, the candidates differed in what they thought should be done about it and the causes of the affordability crisis.
Rock, a former Conservative candidate and now a Liberal, spoke about policies the Trudeau government has put forward to address the issue. He said policies such as grocery rebates, increasing Canada Workers Benefit and income supplementation will help make things more affordable for Canadians.
Rock blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for the cost of living crisis. He opened his statements by defining what is and isn’t the federal government’s responsibility, stating rent control, for example, is a provincial and municipal issue.
The Centrist Party of Canada candidate, Khalid Quereshi, believes the issue is linked to government spending.
“Our finances are not being dealt with transparently, honestly and prudently,” he said. We are not using our money properly, the money that should help us, is being used in places outside of Canada.“
The most contentious issue during the debate was immigration, which was sparked when the United Party candidate, Grant Abraham, and the People’s Party of Canada candidate, Patricia Conlin, linked the housing crisis to mass immigration.
Qureshi stated that the problem isn’t too many immigrants but the way the government has been managing immigrants.
Conlin rebutted, saying that isn’t anti-immigration but it is common for governments to reduce immigration during times of economic instability.
“Even the Liberals have reduced immigration in similar turmoil,” she said.
In an email to True North, Conlin cited a Fraser Institute study, which revealed that immigration has historically been adjusted according to the state of the economy, until Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government raised immigration levels in an economic downturn to garner the ethnic vote.
Conlin thinks building more homes won’t be enough to deal with the housing affordability problem.
“We can’t build our way out because there’s not enough labour or supplies,” she said.
Globalism was also in the spotlight during the debate, as Abraham emphasized the need to resist globalism, citing Agenda 2030, a United Nations plan for “sustainable development,” which the Canadian government has adopted.
Rock rebutted Abraham’s stance against globalism, saying he has never heard anyone in the Liberal party discussing Agenda 2030 and that he doesn’t even know what that is.
The NDP candidate, Chris Borgia, who ran in the last provincial election for Durham, spoke about affordability, the NDP plan for pharmacare and dental care.
“We can save lives, and time [for the healthcare system] with the introduction of pharmacare,” Borgia said. He argued that Canadians who ration their medication due to affordability concerns often make their medical condition worse which costs the taxpayer.
The rise in crime was a topic of debate as well. The NDP candidate took shots at the Conservative party.
“We’ve tried the Conservative approach of crime and punishment,” he said. “We need more places to go when people feel unsafe, and more mental health professionals as first responders.”
He said the NDP approach to crime would be to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and give more discretion to courts when deciding sentencing.
The independent candidate, Pranay Gunti, urged dissatisfied voters to know they can send a message to the political parties in Canada by voting differently in the byelection.
Gunti focused on empowering local businesses to grow the economy.
“People aren’t looking for money in their pockets they are looking for opportunities to work and help their families,” he said.
The full Rogers debate can be viewed on Rogers tv at different times throughout the week or on their YouTube channel. Voters in Durham head to the polls on Mar. 4.
Smith says feds are focused on campaigning, calls for election
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says it’s time for the federal government to secure another mandate.
With a federal election looming, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is using Alberta as a punching bag to attempt to win votes in Eastern Canada, Smith told Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley on the Full Comment podcast.
“It’s the same old story that happens over and over again,” she said. “Then, let’s just do it. Let’s just have an election so that this can be resolved one way or another.
The premier said Alberta’s relationship with the feds will move into a “different path” if the Trudeau Liberals lose, but perhaps there will be a “mature professional relationship again” if they win.
“But fighting this kind of campaign battle when we’re trying to get things done, and trying to behave in a collaborative and cooperative way, it’s not helpful.”
A federal election could be devastating for the Trudeau Liberals.
In early February, an Abacus Data poll found that the Conservatives lead by 19 points over the Liberals. Nearly seven in 10 Canadians believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should resign in 2024, before the next scheduled federal election in 2025, according to a December survey by Ipsos.
Smith has long said that “cooperative federalism” has broken down, especially on environment issues with federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault at the helm. Most recently, Guilbeault said Ottawa won’t be giving municipalities funding for roads because it encourages use of cars when cities should be fighting climate change — a comment he backtracked on following backlash.
“I’m just not seeing that the federal government is coming to the table in good faith that way,” Smith said.
The premier’s comments came after Trudeau’s recent trip to Edmonton, in which he didn’t give the premier so much as a “courtesy call” that he would be coming. Smith said Trudeau has recently had joint press conferences with premiers B.C., Ontario, and Manitoba.
“So you can see that he is treating Alberta differently and there’s no reason for it.”
The premier also accused Trudeau of trying to get people “angry and worked up” over her recent gender policies.
Last month, Smith announced that top and bottom gender reassignment surgeries will be banned for children aged 17 and under in Alberta. She also said that puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender reassignment or affirmation will be strictly prohibited for minors aged 15 and under, with exceptions granted to those already undergoing treatment.
Smith said she believes her policy has been met with widespread support because it’s so reasonable. She said she’s met with many transgender people over the years and understands there’s a gap in medical care for those who have transitioned and long-term support for those for the lifetime impact of those who underwent hormone treatment.
“I think it’s very important for us to not be closed-minded, and to be aware that there are changing political practices and we have to be prepared to respond to that,” she told Lilley. “So, I don’t accept what the prime minister is saying.”