LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Source: Canadian Press

When COVID-19 hit, millions of Canadians were either told to work remotely or temporarily laid off as governments ordered lockdowns to protect public health.

Not Arlick Leslie.

While others were setting up a home office or applying for income assistance, he continued to work at a Walmart warehouse in Mississauga, Ont. The non-compliance clerk was one of many workers deemed “essential,” heralded by politicians for their service at a time when even shopping for groceries felt like a risk.

“We had to be out there … facing the elements,” said Leslie.

Many workers, including Leslie, didn’t feel like their treatment matched the important role they were playing. Losing an hourly “hero pay” bump after just a couple of months added to a growing pile of frustrations over wages and scheduling for Leslie and his co-workers.

As time went on, Leslie and his co-workers saw unionized workers at places like Ontario’s liquor wholesaler fighting — and winning gains — at the bargaining table, earning back some of what they felt they had lost since 2020.

“We’ve seen the (unionized) workers speaking up for what they think they deserve,” Leslie said.

“So we’re like, ‘you know what? Why not give this a shot?'”

Workers at the warehouse unionized through Unifor last September, and are now negotiating the terms of their first collective agreement.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the subsequent runaway inflation that eroded workers’ purchasing power, spurred what experts call a rise in union militancy, where workers drew harder-than-ever lines with employers on issues like wages and working conditions. The result: many workers won significant wage gains and some unionized at notoriously hard-to-organize companies, buoyed by elevated levels of public support.

“We’ve seen it with postal workers, we’ve seen it with dock workers, we’ve seen it with retail workers, we’ve seen it with production workers,” said Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

“It’s a pretty universal phenomenon that workers are recognizing their worth and are willing to push for more, and they’re willing to walk the picket line to get more.”

Health, safety and hero status

The so-called hero pay was emblematic of workers in areas like transportation, health care, long-term care and retail becoming “the ones that we relied upon the most,” said Bruske.

But in some sectors, the hero pay was short-lived. For example, Canada’s three major grocers removed their hourly bonuses in June 2020 (Empire reinstated some bonuses for workers in locked-down areas that December).

“While we appreciated them in the short term, it was almost performative,” said Bruske.

In the early months of the pandemic, amid constantly shifting public health measures and supply chain disruptions, many unionized employers looked to defer bargaining, said Lesley Prince, director of organizing at United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, especially in sectors massively affected by closures like hospitality.

“There was so much uncertainty that most companies just wanted to sort of maintain the status quo, because they didn’t know when things were going to reopen and start operating on a full-time basis again,” said Prince.

As the months wore on, companies were dealing with supply chain disruptions stemming from COVID-19 as well as geopolitical tensions and extreme weather, said Pascal Chan, vice-president of strategic policy and supply chains for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: “There have been no shortage of disruptions.”

Justin Gniposky, who was a national representative in Unifor’s organizing department when the pandemic hit, believes some companies took advantage of the circumstances and sought concessionary deals.

Uncertainty and mass unemployment muted workers’ resistance in 2020 and 2021, said Stephanie Ross, an associate professor at McMaster University’s labour studies school.

But unions had more leverage as inflation spiked, labour tightened and profits stabilized in some sectors

“I think that the pandemic brought to the forefront a new set of issues for the labour movement to confront in workplaces and in public policy, and I think that it also … created the conditions that brought forth a wave of militancy that we haven’t seen in several decades,” said Ross.

“You can’t eat hero status.”

In response to concerns raised by the unionizing workers at Walmart, spokesperson Stephanie Fusco emphasized pay premiums and bonuses the company enacted in 2020, as well as more recent wage increases. (Unionized workers didn’t get the latest round of raises; the company says their wages will be decided through negotiations. Unifor has alleged the raise is an anti-union tactic, which Walmart denies.)

“We take health and safety concerns seriously and work to promptly address them,” Fusco said in a statement.

Bargaining for deals

Unions tried to channel workers’ frustration into negotiations, said Gniposky, now Unifor’s director of organizing.

In 2022 and 2023 Unifor led a series of “aggressive” bargaining rounds, Gniposky said, such as with the Detroit Three automakers. Workers at Stellantis, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors got double-digit wage gains and improvements to various benefits after a short-lived strike. The deals followed pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions amid major pushes to invest in the electric vehicle transition.

Metro grocery workers in the Toronto area made headlines during a month-long strike in 2023, eventually reaching a deal that essentially brought back their lost pandemic pay.

Public-sector workers also took to the streets, including tens of thousands of federal government employees in 2023.

“There was a moment from late 2022 onward, where unions had more relative power to make those gains, to go on strike, and more public support than we had seen for many, many years for those kinds of disruptions,” said Ross, the McMaster labour specialist.

But workers still faced pushback from their employers and, in some cases, governments. Last year the federal government intervened in several high-profile private-sector labour disputes.

Business groups say major labour disruptions, like the month-long strike by Canada Post last year, as well as recent stoppages at ports and railways, cost the economy billions of dollars, disrupt the flow of important commodities and jeopardize the livelihoods of small business owners.

In some cases, industry called on the government to step in.

Recent high-profile work stoppages have not only hurt employers and the economy but also Canada’s reputation as a trading partner, said Chan, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

“These are getting a lot of attention internationally,” he said.

Some on the industry side, like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’ Dan Kelly, believe the government has tipped the scales too far toward unionized workers in recent years through legislative changes.

This, plus a tight labour market coming out of the pandemic, empowered workers — including non-unionized employees — to ask for “higher than normal” pay increases, Kelly said.

Breakthroughs in organizing

One group of workers in particular made headlines across North America for unionizing: employees at large chains, including multinational companies such as Starbucks, Walmart and Amazon.

Unifor began organizing at B.C. Amazon warehouses in 2023, and has filed to unionize one of them. The union is currently embroiled in a complaint against Amazon, alleging it tried to dilute and tamp down union support, which the retailer denies.

UFCW, meanwhile, saw success at chains like Indigo and PetSmart.

But Ross, with McMaster, said unions have had a hard time truly moving the needle at these corporate giants.

The first unionized Amazon warehouse in Canada was in Quebec. After it lost a bid to challenge the certification, Amazon announced earlier this year it would close all of its Quebec warehouses, a decision the Confédération des syndicats nationaux is seeking to overturn.

Digital updates

In addition to galvanizing workers, the pandemic also spurred long-overdue technological changes that make it easier to unionize, said Gniposky. For example, digital union cards are now widespread, meaning workers can sign cards from anywhere. Votes are also usually electronic, resulting in a higher turnout.

Ross said the pressures of the past few years have “created a different mood in the labour movement than we’ve seen for a long time.”

“But … the question of whether or not the lessons from this last five years are going to be learned in ways that enhance the power of the labour movement to make economic and political gains for workers is, I think, still an open question,” she said.

The next four years of the Donald Trump presidency could prove to be another opportunity, Gniposky said, as challenging times can build solidarity.

“The fire is still lit,” he said.

“This is an opportunity and we’ve got to take advantage of it.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 8, 2025.

Rosa Saba, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

OTTAWA — A new poll suggests few Canadians are open to President Donald Trump’s repeated pitches for Canada to become a U.S. state, though interest in it rises among Conservative supporters and those living in Alberta.

The Leger poll, released this week, says just nine per cent of Canadians want Canada to become the 51st state, while 85 per cent do not.

The rejection appears clear across all regions, political parties and age groups.

Support for the idea is highest in Alberta, at 15 per cent, and lowest in Atlantic Canada at just three per cent, with fewer than one-in-10 people in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia wanting it.

About 18 per cent of Conservative supporters said they want Canada to become a U.S. state, while 97 per cent of Liberal and NDP voters, and 94 per cent of Bloc supporters said they would not want that.

The poll suggests a similar level of disdain among Canadians when asked if they would like to become American citizens, with 12 per cent saying yes to that question, and 82 per cent saying no.

Albertans again were most inclined to say yes to this question, at 21 per cent, and Atlantic Canadians the least, at four per cent.

The poll sampled more than 1,500 Canadian adults from Feb. 28 to March 2. Because the poll was conducted online, it can’t be assigned a margin of error.

Men were more open to the idea of becoming U.S. citizens, at 17 per cent, compared with seven per cent of women. Respondents over the age of 55 were least likely to want a U.S. citizenship, at six per cent, compared with 17 per cent of those between 18 and 34 years old and 16 per cent of respondents between 35 and 54.

Conservative respondents were much more interested in becoming American citizens (21 per cent) than Liberal and NDP respondents (5 per cent each).

Trump’s 51st state jabs began last fall shortly after he won the presidential election and have only escalated since, including as he pursues an increasingly punitive tariff agenda against Canada which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said is designed to destroy Canada’s economy to “make it easier to annex us.”

The Leger poll suggests that over three quarters of Canadians (78 per cent) have an “unfavourable” view of Trump, compared to 12 per cent who have a favourable view of the president and six per cent who say they don’t know enough about him to have an opinion.

Asked if they were in favour of the Canadian government responding with dollar-for-dollar tariffs to U.S. tariffs, 70 per cent said they were, while 18 per cent were opposed. Men (74 per cent) were more likely than women (66 per cent) to be in favour of it.

Asked about changes to their consumer behaviour over the past few weeks, with about two-thirds of respondents said they had decreased their purchases of American products in stores or online, and more than half cutting back on American fast-food restaurants like McDonald’s and Starbucks.

Just under half of respondents said they had decreased their purchases at American retail chains like Walmart and Costco.

Liberal, NDP and Bloc respondents were more likely than Conservatives to say they had changed their spending habits.

Seven in 10 respondents have increased their purchases of local Canadian products in recent weeks.

Twenty per cent of respondents who subscribe to a U.S. entertainment platform, like Netflix or Prime Video, said they had cancelled their subscription. Thirty per cent of respondents who had a trip planned to the U.S. said they cancelled it.

The polling industry’s professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

— With files from Nick Murray and Kelly Geraldine Malone.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 8, 2025.

Catherine Morrison, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

OTTAWA — The Liberals will choose a new leader Sunday, marking the end of Justin Trudeau’s decade as prime minister.

He will step down officially in the days to come. On Tuesday, Trudeau said he will have a conversation with the incoming leader to determine exactly when that will happen.

“It should happen reasonably quickly, but there’s a lot of things to do in a transition like this, particularly in this complicated time in the world,” Trudeau said.

Here’s a look at what comes next.

The handover

First, Trudeau needs to formally resign as prime minister. He’ll meet with Gov. Gen. Mary Simon and, on his advice, Simon will invite the new Liberal leader to form a government.

That could happen right away, said David Zussman, an adjunct professor in the school of public administration at the University of Victoria who has written a book about political transitions. Or it could take days, or weeks.

“Justin Trudeau could, in fact, be sitting in his seat in the House of Commons when the House comes back at the end of March,” he said.

But that seems unlikely.

On Thursday, Trudeau insisted he does not plan to stay on in a caretaker role during the next election.

The new leader is likely to want to get started soon, Zussman said.

Forming a government

The new leader needs to name a cabinet and set a date to swear them in.

Trudeau’s cabinet has 37 members. Some ministers could stay on, or there could be new faces around the table from the Liberal caucus.

Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the privy council, said the new leader has “what the hockey coaches call a short bench” because so many Liberal MPs have decided not to run in the next election.

He suggested a smaller cabinet is likely, with some ministers carrying more than one portfolio.

Zussman said keeping some of the same ministers makes things simple for the public service.

New ministers need to be vetted and set up with things like security and secure phones, drivers and cars.

And everyone has to get up to speed on their files — quickly — because an election is coming in the next six months.

Naming a team

Another team needs to be named quickly: the Prime Minister’s Office staff and key advisers.

New people coming into top staff jobs need security clearances and briefings to get up to speed.

And at least part of the new leader’s inner circle will have to have eyes on the next election, which the leader could call at any point once the cabinet is named.

The Trump effect

Cabinet ministers like Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne and Public Safety Minister David McGuinty have been leading Canada’s push to convince U.S. President Donald Trump that tariffs are a terrible idea.

The new leader has to decide whether it’s prudent to keep some of these key players in their roles and maintain the contacts they’ve made with counterparts across the border, or whether it’s better to show they’re not — as the Conservatives have charged — “just like Justin.”

Trump’s ever-changing trade policy and foreign policy make this “the most unique set of circumstances I’ve ever observed,” Zussman said.

That will affect the next leader’s cabinet choices and the timing of the next election.

Could Parliament come back?

When Trudeau announced his plans to resign in January, he prorogued Parliament until March 24.

The fall sitting of the House of Commons that ended in December was dominated by a Conservative filibuster that prevented almost all House business from getting done.

The Opposition launched a number of attempts to oust the minority Liberals with non-confidence motions, and the government pushed through only a few pieces of legislation with the help of the NDP.

Returning to the House of Commons to deliver a throne speech and deal with issues of supply would mean the new Liberal government would face confidence votes right away.

The new leader inherits a minority government with no supply-and-confidence deal and an opposition that’s eager to boot the Liberals out.

The Conservatives want the Liberals to reopen Parliament to debate the response to Trump’s tariffs. But the Tories are not promising to hold off on an election if that happens.

When he was asked on Feb. 5 if forcing an election now would be a responsible choice, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said it’s “the only responsible course of action.”

The New Democrats, however, have said they are willing to work with the Liberals in a limited way. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants legislation passed to support Canadian workers affected by tariffs and “an election is secondary to that.”

The NDP and Liberals together hold enough seats to pass legislation and defeat motions of non-confidence, but the NDP would want to see specific measures.

Wernick said the new prime minister could work out a deal with other parties to get some things done in a short sitting before heading into an election, but “that requires a level of maturity” beyond what we’ve seen in recent months.

“We can go very quickly into an election right after the swearing-in of a new cabinet,” Zussman said. “That may be a strategic advantage (for the new leader).”

Going to the polls

An election call could come before March 24.

That means all parties need to nominate candidates in 343 ridings. The Liberals, at last count, had about 160 people nominated.

The campaign will last between 37 and 51 days, with the vote landing on a Monday.

“The parties will be enormously distracted during an election campaign,” Zussman said.

“However, it seems to me that we’re going to be negotiating non-stop for as long as Trump is in power. He keeps changing the rules every day, so I don’t know when a good time is.”

It’s important to note that Canada will still have a government that can respond to tariffs and talk to the Trump administration during an election. The cabinet stays in place in caretaker mode, though it’s unable to pass new laws.

“I think a lot of Canadians think that somehow when Parliament is prorogued, we have no government, or when we have an election we have no government,” Wernick said. “There’s no break in Canadian government.”

A brief history lesson

The last time we had a handover of prime ministers within the same party was in 2003, when Paul Martin won the Liberal leadership race.

Martin had resigned as Jean Chrétien’s finance minister in 2002 after a series of disagreements between the two.

Chrétien announced his plans to resign in 2003 and the Liberals chose Martin as their new leader in November that year. Chrétien prorogued Parliament until Jan. 12, 2004 to allow for a transition.

On Dec. 12, 2003, Martin was officially appointed prime minister and sworn into office, along with his cabinet.

The next federal election was held in June 2004 and Martin’s Liberals won a minority government.

Wernick said the transition between former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper and Trudeau took 16 calendar days.

Canadian transitions are relatively brisk, he said, especially compared to other countries.

In the U.S., elections happen in early November and the inauguration is in late January. Germany, whose government was defeated in December, will have a new government in place in late April.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 8, 2025.

Sarah Ritchie, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

TORONTO — Infectious disease experts are urging seniors to get the latest COVID-19 booster shot as uptake plunges five years after the coronavirus pandemic struck.

“We see that the protection is needed most for those who are at highest risk of COVID-19 severe disease,” said Matthew Tunis, executive secretary for the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI).

For most others, it’s not as urgent.

Tunis, a microbiology and immunology specialist, noted that thanks to high rates of early vaccinations, hybrid immunity is so prevalent in Canada that much of the population is well-protected against serious illness.

NACI issued COVID-19 guidance in January to that effect, and it’s meant to stand through summer 2026, barring the emergence of any variants that cause severe illness in the broader population.

Unlike influenza, COVID-19 has not settled into a seasonal pattern and is present year-round, Tunis said.

For that reason, along with the fact that immunity starts to wane about six months after getting a COVID-19 shot, NACI strongly recommends two doses per year of the most up-to-date vaccine for the most vulnerable. That includes seniors who are 80 years and older, residents of long-term care homes, and adults and children six months and older who are moderately to severely immunocompromised due to an underlying condition or medical treatment that suppresses the immune system.

NACI also strongly recommends one shot per year for people between 65 and 79 years old, pregnant people, health-care workers, racialized groups and those with underlying medical conditions that could make them sicker if they get a COVID infection.

As for everyone else, individuals can decide whether they need a booster, ideally in consultation with a health-care provider, Tunis said.

Even though they may still get the virus, this group should have enough immunity from earlier vaccinations, infections or both to protect them from serious illness, infectious disease researchers say.

According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, more than 80 per cent of Canadians have had their primary two-dose series of COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake among seniors was very high, with more than 95 per cent of people 60 and over getting at least one dose.

As the virus that causes COVID-19 mutated into variants that could evade the immune system — most notably Delta and Omicron — manufacturers have updated the vaccine for booster shots.

But public enthusiasm for boosters has waned in recent years. The Public Health Agency’s most recent data from June 2024 shows only 18 per cent of the overall population got an updated shot for the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant.

Seniors have continued to get booster shots at much higher rates than the rest of the population but their uptake is also on the decline. Only about 62 per cent of people 80 and older got the XBB.1.5 shot — leaving an unacceptably high number of older seniors underprotected, experts say.

“Vaccine uptake among the vulnerable populations is the biggest issue,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO).

“They’re (designated) vulnerable for a reason. The evidence shows that they can get really sick and potentially die if they get COVID if they’re not up-to-date on their boosters,” she said.

PHAC did not have uptake data for the most up-to-date booster, targeted to the Omicron KP.2 subvariant, available since last fall. Experts fear the uptake among seniors is just as low.

“As people get older … their immune system sometimes needs a little bit more of a kick, like to get going. So those boosters can be really, really important,” Rasmussen said.

Up to this point, the federal government has paid for COVID-19 boosters. This year, that responsibility shifts to the provinces and territories.

Although they will still work with the federal government to get the best price through bulk procurement, each province and territory will decide how much of the latest booster to order and who will be eligible for the shots.

The Canadian Press reached out to all provinces and territories to ask what their COVID-19 vaccination rollout would be in the coming year. Many said they were reviewing NACI’s guidelines and did not yet have their fall plan — including whether or not they would fund the shot for people outside of the priority groups.

The exception was the Northwest Territories, which said in an emailed statement it would not turn anyone away.

“Targeted campaigns are not meant to exclude individuals but to help clients, families and communities quickly identify who is at most risk and make informed decisions,” a spokesperson said.

Experts say it’s important for the public to understand what the COVID-19 vaccine does — and what it doesn’t.

In the past, people commonly believed vaccines were only effective if they prevent infection, like the measles vaccine, which ensures the virus can’t replicate in the body. If enough people are vaccinated, that results in the most robust form of herd immunity, said Rasmussen.

But it’s very difficult to make a vaccine that does that for viruses that mutate, including COVID-19 and influenza, she said. That’s why the measure of success for the COVID-19 vaccine is its high effectiveness at preventing people from becoming seriously ill, being hospitalized or dying.

“Having a vaccine that is really good at preventing you from even getting infected is wonderful,” said Matthew Miller, director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at McMaster University in Hamilton.

“But I would argue that it’s even more important that a vaccine prevents severe manifestations because, you know, we can all kind of deal with common cold-like symptoms,” he said.

Tunis, of NACI, said the advisory committee continues to monitor COVID-19 to determine if it needs to change its guidance.

“We’ve seen strain updates roughly every year,” he said.

“It’s entirely possible that the virus changes again and the hybrid immunity that’s been established needs to actually be propped up with vaccination for younger populations.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 8, 2025.

Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.

Nicole Ireland, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — Facing the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Duke University is preparing for the worst.

Like research universities around the United States, the private school in North Carolina’s Research Triangle would see a massive loss from Trump administration cuts to grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Duke would be among the hardest hit. In its previous fiscal year, Duke took in $580 million in NIH grants and contracts, 11th most among the country’s research institutions. The cuts are delayed temporarily by a court challenge, but universities nationwide have implemented hiring freezes, scaled back research and drawn up contingency plans in case the loss in funding takes effect.

Historically, the federal government has negotiated with colleges and universities on its contribution toward their operating costs. If a scientist wins a federal grant to fund their research, the government pays the school an additional amount as a percentage of the grant money.

At Duke, the current rate for these “indirect costs” — expenses such as utilities and laboratory maintenance — is about 61%. Last month, President Donald Trump’s administration set the rate cap at 15%, significantly less than most universities receive.

The cut in indirect costs is far from the only concern. Funding for new grants also slowed to a trickle after the NIH halted grant application review meetings in January. At Duke, NIH grant and contract award notices plummeted, dropping from 166 in January and February of 2024 to 64 so far in 2025, according to the university.

Already, the uncertainty is causing reverberations at Duke’s School of Medicine, which receives over three-quarters of the university’s NIH funding. Expansion projects are being shelved. Fewer Ph.D. students are being admitted. And researchers are assessing whether their projects can continue.

Payments maintain freezers and machines to grow cancer cells

The Trump administration has described indirect costs as “administrative bloat” and said the cuts would save more than $4 billion annually. The change would also free up more money for scientific research, officials said.

“The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Through NIH funding, universities for decades have partnered with the federal government to support scientists’ academic pursuits.

Duke pharmacology and cancer biology professor Donald McDonnell estimates his laboratory has received up to $40 million in NIH funding over 30 years. His lab developed a drug approved in 2023 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Upkeep for lab equipment, including machines to grow cancer cells and massive freezers for enzymes and chemicals, would be difficult to afford if indirect cost rates dropped to 15%, McDonnell said. His laboratory also likely will be in the red due to the uncertainty around NIH grants, which would lead to staff layoffs.

“The bottom line is, I can’t live, I can’t think in this chaos,” McDonnell said.

Duke’s total research budget last fiscal year was $1.33 billion, with $863 million coming from the federal government. Without NIH funding, many scientists would have to turn to private organizations and philanthropies, which typically offer substantially less money, researchers said.

“We have long-standing relationships with private funders and industry partners, and value the contributions they make, but federal funds by far provide the largest single source of research dollars,” said Geeta Swamy, executive vice dean of the School of Medicine.

The cap on indirect costs also would hinder research for incoming neurosurgery and biomedical engineering professor Nanthia Suthana, who is relocating from the University of California, Los Angeles.

To study brain activity and treat conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and Parkinson’s disease, Suthana requires a lab large enough for patients to walk around while headsets and monitors capture heart rate, eye tracking, perspiration and brainwaves. Along the walls, 40 to 50 cameras — each costing about $5,000 — record their movements.

Her new lab is under construction, but Suthana said she is worried she will have to downsize within a year if funding uncertainties persist.

Ph.D. students are in limbo

Duke’s medical school has scaled back the number of Ph.D. students it will admit for the upcoming fall semester. Last year, the school brought in about 130 students, said Beth Sullivan, who oversees the school’s 17 biomedical Ph.D. programs. Now, the target is 100 students or less.

That means smaller class sizes over time and, in turn, a shrinking pipeline into medical research careers, she said.

“Our next generation of researchers are now poised on the edge of this cliff, not knowing if there’s going to be a bridge that’s going to get them to the other side, or if this is it,” Sullivan said.

Of the more than 630 Ph.D. students in the medical school, nearly all the students in their second year and beyond receive federal support from either NIH or the National Science Foundation.

Third-year doctoral student Caleb McIver was applying for an NIH diversity supplement — a funding opportunity to encourage professors to train minority students — when information about the initiative was removed from the agency’s website. McIver, who is Black, is now looking into other NIH grants without ties to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which the Trump administration has been wiping out of the federal government.

“I’m pretty stressed,” McIver said. “I mean, I need funding, so we need to find it.”

Duke reconsiders plans for new research building

The university had been planning to build a new research building on the site of an old, recently vacated building. Now those plans are on hold, School of Medicine Vice Dean Colin Duckett said.

Even smaller projects like renovating a building floor can’t start because of the budget uncertainty. Hundreds of people working in shuttered labs will consolidate in other buildings. If the indirect costs rate drops to 15%, there also would be widespread layoffs, Duckett said.

Duckett’s job previously focused on recruiting the brightest scientists and providing them with resources at Duke, he said. Now, he has taken on a much different role.

“It’s damage control,” he said. “It’s how to survive as an institution.”

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Makiya Seminera, The Associated Press






Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are looking to do what, for them, is almost unheard of —- approving government funding on their terms with little help from Democrats.

Speaker Mike Johnson is teeing up a bill that would generally fund federal agencies at current levels for the remainder of the budget year ending Sept. 30. That would mean defense and non-defense programs would be funded at 2024 levels. Congress must act by midnight March 14.

It’s a risky approach. Normally, when it comes to keeping the government fully open for business, Republicans have had to work with Democrats to craft a bipartisan measure that both sides can support. That’s because Republicans almost always lack the votes to pass spending bills on their own.

This time, Republicans have hopes of going it alone. They plan to muscle the funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, though the House, and then dare Senate Democrats to oppose it and risk being blamed for a government shutdown.

Crucially, the strategy has the backing of President Donald Trump, who has shown an ability so far in his term to hold Republicans in line.

“Let’s get this Bill done!” Trump said on social media.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., says he has never voted for a continuing resolution, what lawmakers often call a CR, but he is on board with Johnson’s effort. He says he has confidence in Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, to make a difference on the nation’s debt.

“I don’t like CRs,” Norman said. “But what’s the alternative? Negotiate with Democrats? No.”

“I freeze spending for six month to go identify more cuts? Somebody tell me how that’s not a win in Washington,” added Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, another lawmaker who has often frequently voted against spending bills but supports the six-month continuing resolution.

Republicans are also hoping that resolving this year’s spending will allow them to devote their full attention to extending the individual tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term and raising the nation’s debt ceiling to avoid a catastrophic federal default.

But Democratic leaders are warning that the decision to move ahead without consulting them increases the prospects for a shutdown. One of their biggest concerns is the flexibility the legislation would give the Trump administration on spending.

“We cannot stand by and accept a yearlong power grab CR that would help Elon take a chainsaw to programs that families rely on and agencies that keep our communities safe,” said Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Democratic leadership in both chambers has stressed that Republicans have the majority and are responsible for funding the government. But they also have been wary of saying how Democrats would vote on a continuing resolution.

“We have to wait to see what their plan is,” Schumer said. “We’ve always believed the only solution is a bipartisan solution, no matter what.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said earlier this week that the Democratic caucus would meet and discuss the legislation at the “appropriate moment.” But he struck a more forceful tone Friday.

Jeffries said Democrats are ready to negotiate a “meaningful, bipartisan spending agreement that puts working people first.” But he said the “partisan continuing resolution” threatens to cut funding for key programs, such as veterans benefits and nutritional assistance for low-income families.

“That is not acceptable,” Jeffries said.

While continuing resolutions generally keep spending flat, many lawmakers say that failing to keep pace with inflation actually leads to a cut in services.

Trump has been meeting with House Republicans in an effort to win their votes on the legislation. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, along with more than a dozen other lawmakers, met with Trump on Wednesday.

“I’m open to it,” Burchett said. “But I want to see what’s in it.”

Republicans have a 218-214 majority in the House, so if all lawmakers vote, they can afford only one defection if Democrats unite in opposition. The math gets even harder in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would have to vote for the legislation to overcome a filibuster — and that’s assuming all 53 Republicans vote for it.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., has said that passage of the measure covering the remainder of the fiscal year doesn’t preclude further negotiations to pass the regular appropriations bills for the budget year.

A Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that such talks have reopened as the two sides try to reach agreement on topline spending levels. The talks could amount to a Plan B should the continuing resolution falter.

Kevin Freking, The Associated Press



Click here for more

VANCOUVER — The federal Crown-Indigenous relations minister and the chief of the Musqueam Indian Band have initialled an agreement they say brings the band one step closer to self-governance.

Minister Gary Anandasangaree told a ceremony on Friday afternoon that initialling the Musqueam self-government agreement is a “significant milestone” and a “powerful step” toward self-determination.

He says once the agreement is in effect, it will revitalize the Musqueam Nation’s inherent right to self-government and restore the community’s ability to create laws, programs, services and develop economic opportunities on the nation’s own terms.

Chief Wayne Sparrow says being self-sufficient and looking after the community’s affairs has always been their vision.

Musqueam has a population of more than 1,400 people with more than 50 per cent living on reserve.

A joint statement says the next steps are for the Musqueam to launch community engagement and begin the process of ratifying the self-government agreement among its membership.

If approved, the agreement will need federal legislation to give it legal effect.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 7, 2025.

The Canadian Press

Click here for more

WINNIPEG — RCMP say remains found in a Winnipeg-area landfill have been identified as belonging to the victim of a serial killer.

They say the family of Morgan Harris has been notified.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announced last week that possible remains had been found during a search of the landfill.

The province says another set of remains was part of the recovery at the landfill, and more information would be provided as facts are confirmed.

A search of the landfill started in December for the remains of Harris and another murder victim, Marcedes Myran.

Jeremy Skibicki was convicted last year of murdering Harris, Myran and two other Indigenous women.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 7, 2025.

The Canadian Press

Click here for more

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah would do away with its universal mail-in voting system under a bill sent to its Republican governor as the state’s 2025 legislative session wrapped up on Friday.

The Republican-controlled Legislature approved a proposal requiring voters to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail, meaning they would no longer get them automatically. Voters who want to return their ballots by mail or to a drop box would need to write the last four digits of their driver’s license, state ID or Social Security number on the ballot return envelope. And starting in 2029, residents who vote in person would need to show a valid ID.

If Gov. Spencer Cox signs the bill into law, it would drastically change the voting system in one of just eight states — and the only led by Republicans — that allows all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in.

Cox has repeatedly expressed confidence in the state’s election security but has said he may be open to changing the mail-in voting system so that votes can be tallied faster. Currently, ballots that are postmarked by the day before Election Day can be counted within the following two weeks. The proposal awaiting Cox’s signature would move up the deadline, requiring all ballots to be in the county clerk’s possession by 8 p.m. on Election Day. His office did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Friday.

Lawmakers pointed to the same legislative audits to make cases for and against the bill. The recent audits found no evidence of widespread fraud in Utah’s elections but identified some delays in removing deceased residents from voter rolls. Democrats said the changes were unnecessary and would make voting more difficult, while many Republicans said the voter roll issues indicated a need for new security measures.

“We have good elections in Utah,” said Sen. Mike McKell, one of the top Republicans in the chamber. “We have high confidence in our election process. We have high confidence in vote by mail. But we also have concerns with security, and what we’re trying to balance in this bill is how do we enhance security and at the same time making voting easy?”

Five Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the bill, which passed with veto-proof margins in the House and fell one vote short of a veto-proof majority in the Senate. If Cox rejects the bill, Republican supporters would need to pull in one more senator to override his veto.

Sen. Nate Blouin, a Salt Lake City Democrat, said that by passing the bill, Republican lawmakers were feeding into “conspiracy thinking” around election security.

Republicans have sent their base mixed signals about mail-in voting since President Donald Trump falsely claimed the system was plagued with fraud to explain away his 2020 election loss. Trump continued to sow distrust even as his campaign team and the Republican National Committee began encouraging Republicans to vote by mail in the 2024 race to avoid giving Democrats an edge.

The vast majority of Utah residents mail in their ballots or deposit them in drop boxes.

Earlier versions of the bill received strong pushback from Utah’s county clerks, who have since withdrawn their opposition. But some say they have lingering concerns that the changes will make elections less secure.

The measure instructs clerks to prioritize checking ID numbers over the current practice of matching signatures to those on file. Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch warned that could lead to a rise in voter fraud because it’s easier to get ahold of someone’s state ID number than it is to forge their signature.

“It is absolutely not a perfect bill, and that’s why the clerks didn’t support it. We simply removed our opposition,” Hatch told The Associated Press. “A big reason why we did that is because we received assurances from sponsors that they would continue to work with us to fix the remaining issues we have to help make sure voters aren’t hurt and that the process is strengthened.”

Tribal IDs would also be an acceptable form of voter identification under the version of the bill that cleared the Legislature, alleviating concerns that it would disenfranchise Native American voters in the last state that gave them access to the ballot box.

Hannah Schoenbaum, The Associated Press

Click here for more

EDMONTON — Premier Danielle Smith says Alberta’s trade sanctions on the United States will stay in place until U.S. President Donald Trump drops the threat of tariffs.

In a social media post Friday, Smith said the province’s measures, which include a ban on future purchases of American booze and video lottery terminals, will remain despite a partial but vague pause from Trump.

“Yesterday’s presidential executive order mandating the pause is unclear as to which goods it actually applies to and what legal forms and requirements will be needed to qualify,” Smith said.

“The government of Alberta will therefore be moving forward with our tariff response until these questions have been adequately dealt with and the continued threats and unilateral imposition of tariffs in contravention of the (Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement) has stopped.”

She is also calling on Trump to abide by the trade agreement until Canada holds its next federal election. It’s expected to take place in April but won’t be called until after the federal Liberals elect a new leader Sunday.

Smith said doing so would respect Canada’s democratic process, calm markets and “demonstrate a good faith effort to respect the agreement negotiated by this very president during his first term, while a new agreement is being negotiated between our countries that addresses outstanding trade irritants.”

Besides cutting off U.S. liquor and VLTs, the Alberta government is also looking to prioritize purchases from Canadian companies or companies from countries that don’t violate trade agreements.

Alberta joined other provinces and the federal government in pushing ahead with trade sanctions despite Thursday’s partial rollback from the White House.

On Tuesday, Trump imposed sweeping 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods, along with a 10 per cent levy on energy products, only to announce carve outs on a range of goods two days later.

The executive order delays the tariffs on goods that meet rules-of-origin requirements under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, often referred to as CUSMA, and lowers levies on potash to 10 per cent, until April 2.

Ottawa responded by suspending its second wave of retaliatory tariffs that were to take effect in three weeks. Canada’s first round of retaliatory tariffs on $30 billion in American goods remained in effect.

Smith said the back-and-forth this week “continues to confuse Canadians and Americans alike” and has only led to volatile market shifts and investment uncertainty.

At a press conference earlier Friday, Smith said some businesses could qualify for CUSMA exceptions — it’s just a matter of filling out the paperwork. She said she also suspects a “vast majority” of Alberta energy products can be shipped into the U.S. tariff-free.

“When the U.S. administration says that 62 per cent of Canadian goods have not been compliant with the (trade agreement), it seems to me that’s a paperwork issue.”

Smith has said Alberta needs to take action, but she won’t curtail or impose counter-tariffs on oil and gas shipments, as it could escalate retribution from the U.S. and hurt Canadians.

While the province is pushing its agencies, school boards, Crown corporations and municipalities not to buy goods and services from American suppliers, Alberta Municipalities president Tyler Gandam said many municipalities already have been.

“There isn’t going to be much of a change,” he said, adding some will need to take a closer look at whether they can switch to local suppliers and service providers where possible.

Alberta estimates $292 million in U.S. liquor products were sold in the province in 2023-24.

The province also buys about $100 million worth of VLTs each year, Smith said.

Her government has also pledged to help retailers voluntarily label Canadian and Albertan products and to reach free trade and labour mobility agreements with other provinces.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 7, 2025.

Lisa Johnson and Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press

Click here for more