LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Participants take part in a Rock Your Roots Walk for Reconciliation event in Saskatoon on Friday, June 19, 2026.

In the decade leading up to 2024/25, inflation-adjusted federal Indigenous spending jumped from $10.3 billion to $40.8 billion, growing seven times faster than overall federal spending, according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute .

The independent think tank found that inflation-adjusted federal Indigenous spending increased by an average of 4.3 per cent per year from 1969/70 to 2014/15. But from 2014/15 to 2024/25, average annual Indigenous spending increased 17.1 per cent, not including the “substantial” spending on lawsuits and court settlement payouts.

Broken down by federal spending per province, annual federal Indigenous spending ranges from a low of $73 million in P.E.I. to a high of $8.8 billion in Ontario.

In B.C. in 2024/25, the federal government spent approximately $6.3 billion on program benefits for Indigenous people in the province — an average expenditure of $20,306 per Indigenous person, according to the study.

“Ottawa’s Indigenous spending has skyrocketed in recent years, even more so than general federal spending, which itself has increased substantially,” said Tom Flanagan, co-author of the study and senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

“Canadians need to understand the magnitude of Ottawa’s Indigenous spending in recent years if they’re ever to properly assess what that additional spending is achieving in terms of results for Indigenous people.”

In former prime minster Justin Trudeau’s first major promise as part of his 2015 election campaign, he said that a Liberal government would invest a total of $2.6 billion in First Nations education .

Meanwhile, previous Fraser Institute research from 2024 found that federal Indigenous spending almost tripled under Trudeau, from $11 billion in 2015 to a projected $32 billion.

And in the spring economic update in April, the Carney government announced $601 million for culturally relevant elementary and secondary education on reserve, and $700 million over six years to support Indigenous communities implementing jurisdiction for child and family services.

However, Statistics Canada’s Community Well-Being index (CWB), which gauges the socio-economic health of Canadian communities, suggests the spending increases have led to little improvement for Indigenous communities.

The Fraser Institute’s analysis found that in 1981, the difference in the index between First Nations communities and other Canadian communities was 19.5 points. In 2016, the gap was 19.1 points, showing essentially no change after 35 years.

In 2021, the most recent year for which the data is available, that gap had shrunk somewhat to 16.3, but the Fraser Institute study argues that “closer analysis shows that improvement was due to an increase in the Canada Child Benefit, which is a general family support measure not included in Indigenous program spending.”

It adds that the positive impact of these spending increases on First Nations’ reserve communities “has been negligible.”

The Fraser Institute study, published on Tuesday, comes as Canada marks the sixth National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which honours residential school survivors and their families.

It is not the first report to suggest that the government is failing to improve the lives of First Nations people. In October 2025, an Auditor General follow-up on First Nations programs found that Indigenous Services Canada had made “unsatisfactory progress” in implementing recommendations made in six audits completed from 2015 to 2022.

The report said: “Despite an 84 per cent increase in the department’s spending on programs since the 2019-20 fiscal year, significant challenges remained in improving services and program outcomes for First Nations communities.”

Elsewhere, a 2022 analysis carried out by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that while financial resources allocated to providing Indigenous services had “increased significantly” for the 2015/2016 to 2022/2023 period, it hadn’t resulted in an improvement in the ability of the organizations to achieve their goals.

In fact, the document said, “the ability to achieve the targets specified has declined.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada sign in Ottawa on Friday, Aug. 7, 2026.

A Canadian Muslim who tried to sponsor his Ethiopian wife for a permanent resident visa is out of luck because her “religious divorce” from her first husband under Sharia law isn’t recognized here.

Fetno Umer Kemo appealed a visa officer’s decision to deny Rahama Adem Abdi the document that allows foreign nationals to live, work and study anywhere in Canada indefinitely to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. But the panel concluded that Kemo failed to establish that Abdi was “free to marry” when they wed in 2021.

“Mr. Kemo has not shown that Ms. Abdi’s religious divorce in 2017 was valid under Canadian law,” the panel said in a decision published in June in French and this month in an English translation.

“As a result, the officer’s decision not to issue his wife a visa is valid in law. The couple’s marriage is not valid, and Ms. Abdi is therefore not a member of the family class. The panel does not have jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations in this case. The appeal is dismissed.”

The visa officer further determined that the couple’s relationship was not genuine and that their marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

The panel said it didn’t have to consider “the issues of the genuineness of the couple’s relationship or their intent at the time of their marriage” because their marriage isn’t “valid under Canadian law.”

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations “state that a foreign national shall not be considered the sponsor’s spouse if the foreign national was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person,” said the decision.

During her immigration interview last year, Abdi said her divorce was carried out verbally by religious authorities in Ethiopia. Her ex-husband took part remotely by telephone, she said.

In the same interview, Abdi didn’t “submit any official document attesting to her divorce,” said the decision.

That led the visa officer to conclude that, “at the time of her marriage to Mr. Kemo, Ms. Abdi was still legally married to her first husband, contrary to the requirements of the regulations.”

Kemo argued that Abdi’s first marriage and divorce “took place in Ethiopia in a rural context where issuing and registering official documents is the exception, not the rule,” said the decision.

Kemo gave the panel a document attesting to Abdi’s divorce. “It is a judgment issued by Ethiopian judicial authorities recognizing Ms. Abdi’s divorce. The judgment was rendered on January 1, 2026.”

The panel sided with the visa officer, finding that Abdi’s first marriage was not legally dissolved in 2021, and she was therefore still married to her first husband when she married Kemo.

Abdi is approximately 38, but she doesn’t know her exact age. “At the hearing, she described herself as someone who could not read or write.”

Canadian immigration authorities interviewed her in April 2023 in Canada, and again in June 2025 in Ethiopia.

At her first interview, Abdi said her first marriage to Abdulasit Aman “lasted approximately one and a half years.”

They had a child, according to the decision.

“When the officer asked why her first marriage and child had not been disclosed in the immigration forms, Ms. Abdi gave contradictory answers. Ms. Abdi initially stated that she had argued with her ex-husband about whether or not to include her child in the immigration documents. Ms. Abdi then stated that she and Mr. Kemo had agreed not to include this information in the sponsorship application.”

At the end of the 2023 interview, the visa officer told Abdi “that he was refusing the sponsorship application and that she had to leave Canada, given her misrepresentations,” said the decision, noting that Adbi had the right to try again.

Kemo submitted a second application to sponsor Abdi in August 2023. “At her second interview, in 2025, Ms. Abdi stated that she had been abducted and forced into marriage. Ms. Abdi recounted how two days after her abduction, her marriage to her first husband was celebrated and validated at a Nikah ceremony attended by the elders of both families.”

Abdi went on to say “that her first marriage was not legal because she had been forced to marry her first husband.”

The panel noted Abdi “said nothing about a forced marriage” at her first hearing.

“Ms. Abdi instead explained that her mother had wanted her to marry and that she agreed to do so. That explanation directly contradicts Ms. Abdi’s statements at her second interview and at the hearing,” said the decision.

The panel gave “more weight” to her first explanation, “in accordance with the principle that ‘a person’s first story is usually the most genuine and, therefore, the one to be most believed.’”

But the officers who interviewed her in 2023 and 2025 “both concluded that Ms. Abdi had not answered their questions truthfully.”

The officer who interviewed her last year “confronted Ms. Abdi, who had stated that she spoke little Amharic and did not understand. Ms. Abdi defended herself by stating that she did not talk much at the 2023 interview. When the officer pointed out to her that the recording of the 2023 interview shows she spoke throughout it in Amharic, Ms. Abdi gave no explanation.” The panel noted the 2023 interview lasted more than three hours.

The panel “does not find” Abdi credible, said the decision.

“Throughout the sponsorship application process, Ms. Abdi had a duty of candour and truthfulness,” it said.

“Ms. Abdi cannot discharge this duty by pointing to her illiteracy. Honesty is not the prerogative of educated people.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Prime Minister Mark Carney speaking at a press conference on ocean conservation in Vancouver on Sept. 29.

Prime Minister Mark Carney laughed out loud when asked to comment on remarks by U.S. trade adviser Peter Navarro that Canadian lobbyists should “get the hell out” of the U.S. and stop interfering in the upcoming midterm elections there.

Carney also appeared amused by the U.S. president’s prediction that Canada would apologize and roll back its counter-tariffs on U.S. goods.

Navarro’s comments came yesterday during a summit on American economic growth hosted by Widehall, a public policy consulting firm in Washington, DC. “Do you really want to spend any time on Canada?” he said. “Because Canada economically is a rowboat. We’re an aircraft carrier. How’s that going to end?”

He continued: “Any Canadians here, please, if you’re on K Street, get the hell out of our country, because the problem you have is you lobby this country, and you’ve been successful in the past, and you think you can keep doing that.”

K Street, a major avenue in Washington, DC, is home to law firms, think tanks, trade associations and advocacy groups, and has become synonymous with lobbying in the U.S. capital.

“Memo to Canada,” Navarro continued: “You cannot do that. OK? That game is up, and if you interfere in our elections in Maine or Michigan you will pay even more dearly.”

The comments in some way recalled remarks by Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who posted to social media on Election Day in April 2025: “President Trump, stay out of our election. The only people who will decide the future of Canada are Canadians at the ballot box.”

Trump had earlier that day posted to Truth Social : “Good luck to the Great people of Canada.” He had added: “Elect the man who has the strength and wisdom to cut your taxes in half, increase your military power, for free, to the highest level in the World,” suggesting all this and more would come if Canada became the 51st state.

This week at the White House, Trump told reporters his latest prediction on Canada: “I think what’s going to happen is, over the next three or four weeks, they’re going to come to us and they’re going to say, ‘We’re going to get rid of all the tariffs.’ We’re going to win everything.”

He added: “They’re going to come in and they’re going to say, ‘Sir, we are sorry.’”

Carney was asked about both comments yesterday at a press conference in Vancouver on the topic of ocean protection. He broke into laughter even before the question was complete.

Composing himself, he replied: “I take note of both comments. How’s that? No response to either.”

Before the next question was posed, he added: “I’ll just say this on trade. It continues to be the case that Canada stands ready to negotiate in good faith (on) a mutually advantageous trade arrangement that respects both our countries’ sovereignty.”

Carney was asked later in the event if he was considering “applying new trade pressure” with the U.S. midterms just weeks away.

“Never rule anything out,” he said. “I’ll stand by my earlier comments, and the position of the government, which is — look the reality is that the cost of living is very high in the United States. And there’s things that Canada can do to help lower that cost of living.”

He spoke of cooperation between Canada and the U.S. on issues including energy security, food security, information security and financial security.

“Those are fundamental issues that are best addressed through reliable partnerships. Canada is a reliable partner and we’re ready to work in any or all of those areas.”

He added: “Our timing isn’t dictated by any any specific aspect of the U.S. calendar.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


President Donald Trump holds a press briefing with AI executives following a meeting on artificial intelligence outside the West Wing of the White House on September 29, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump shared an official document on Truth Social on Monday, and people have noticed a glaring spelling error.

The document , which is signed by Trump along with leaders of major tech companies including Google, Meta and Anthropic, outlines recommended “layers of controls and audits” for the use of artificial intelligence, which Trump renamed “super intelligence” with an executive order on Tuesday.

Underneath Trump’s signature, the text reads: “President Donald J. Trump, President of the Unites States.”

On Wednesday, a social media post from the White House’s official X account reshared the document with the incorrect spelling.

Political commentator Brian Krassenstein shared a screenshot of the typo with the caption “The jokes write themselves.”

 The typo, which appeared under Trump’s signature, reads: “Unites States.”

Trump shared the signed document after meeting with tech executives at the White House to discuss regulating AI . He said afterwards that they had signed a “morally binding” commitment to “police themselves” on the fast-moving technology.

Speaking to reporters outside the Oval Office, Trump also confirmed that he would officially rename the technology “super intelligence” instead of artificial intelligence “because it’s not artificial.”

Meanwhile, Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg said the accord aims to assure customers that AI technology “works in the way that we intend.”

The commitment includes “robust internal controls” and multiple layers of auditing — from internal risk reviews to external auditors and oversight from the companies’ boards of directors, he said.

And Elon Musk said the executives essentially agreed to “grading each other’s homework, which is a lot better than if people just grade their own homework for obvious reasons.”

The meeting also included Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, as well as Jeff Bezos, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google.

 Donald Trump speaks alongside Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and others at a press briefing following a meeting on artificial intelligence.

The gathering occurred as attitudes toward AI sour, with a recent Politico poll finding that two-thirds of Americans believe there is at least a “moderate” risk that advanced AI could destroy humanity.

Those concerns gained force from a run of incidents in which OpenAI’s autonomous systems slipped out of their constraints. These include the breaches of Hugging Face, a widely used platform for sharing AI models, and an Australian national healthcare database, which is the first known case of AI hacking a government network.

Earlier this month, engineer Jacob Coxon shocked the tech world when he quit his job at AI giant Anthropic, warning that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Another of the firm’s scientists publicly echoed his views.

And Microsoft founder Bill Gates told NBC Sunday that “AI is powerful enough to drive events that cause a billion deaths.”

But Trump has said that the U.S. government won’t limit the development of artificial intelligence or support calls for restrictions on it.

Unveiling an AI chatbot, America.gov, intended to help Americans navigate government services, the U.S. president said Tuesday: “I will never stifle the growth of a technology that will be bigger than the industrial revolution.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


President Donald Trump holds a press briefing with AI executives following a meeting on artificial intelligence outside the West Wing of the White House on September 29, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump shared an official document on Truth Social on Monday, and people have noticed a glaring spelling error.

The document , which is signed by Trump along with leaders of major tech companies including Google, Meta and Anthropic, outlines recommended “layers of controls and audits” for the use of artificial intelligence, which Trump renamed “super intelligence” with an executive order on Tuesday.

Underneath Trump’s signature, the text reads: “President Donald J. Trump, President of the Unites States.”

On Wednesday, a social media post from the White House’s official X account reshared the document with the incorrect spelling.

Political commentator Brian Krassenstein shared a screenshot of the typo with the caption “The jokes write themselves.”

 The typo, which appeared under Trump’s signature, reads: “Unites States.”

Trump shared the signed document after meeting with tech executives at the White House to discuss regulating AI . He said afterwards that they had signed a “morally binding” commitment to “police themselves” on the fast-moving technology.

Speaking to reporters outside the Oval Office, Trump also confirmed that he would officially rename the technology “super intelligence” instead of artificial intelligence “because it’s not artificial.”

Meanwhile, Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg said the accord aims to assure customers that AI technology “works in the way that we intend.”

The commitment includes “robust internal controls” and multiple layers of auditing — from internal risk reviews to external auditors and oversight from the companies’ boards of directors, he said.

And Elon Musk said the executives essentially agreed to “grading each other’s homework, which is a lot better than if people just grade their own homework for obvious reasons.”

The meeting also included Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, as well as Jeff Bezos, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google.

 Donald Trump speaks alongside Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and others at a press briefing following a meeting on artificial intelligence.

The gathering occurred as attitudes toward AI sour, with a recent Politico poll finding that two-thirds of Americans believe there is at least a “moderate” risk that advanced AI could destroy humanity.

Those concerns gained force from a run of incidents in which OpenAI’s autonomous systems slipped out of their constraints. These include the breaches of Hugging Face, a widely used platform for sharing AI models, and an Australian national healthcare database, which is the first known case of AI hacking a government network.

Earlier this month, engineer Jacob Coxon shocked the tech world when he quit his job at AI giant Anthropic, warning that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Another of the firm’s scientists publicly echoed his views.

And Microsoft founder Bill Gates told NBC Sunday that “AI is powerful enough to drive events that cause a billion deaths.”

But Trump has said that the U.S. government won’t limit the development of artificial intelligence or support calls for restrictions on it.

Unveiling an AI chatbot, America.gov, intended to help Americans navigate government services, the U.S. president said Tuesday: “I will never stifle the growth of a technology that will be bigger than the industrial revolution.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Trade advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro (2nd-L), joined by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick speaks after President Trump signed an executive order on reciprocal tariffs in the Oval Office at the White House on February 13, 2025 in Washington, DC.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — If Canada is betting that Trump’s tariff fight and Ottawa’s retaliation will exact political costs on U.S. President Donald Trump and Republicans in November’s midterms, it may be onto something: a senior Trump adviser just signalled that the White House sees the Canada-U.S. trade spat as politically sensitive.

Speaking at an economic conference in Washington on Tuesday, Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro had a few choice words for Canada. He likened the country to a rowboat and the U.S. to an aircraft carrier before asking whether any Canadians were in the room.

Addressing them, Navarro said: “If you’re on K Street, get the hell out of our country because the problem you have is you lobby this country, and you’ve been successful in the past, and you think you can keep doing that.”

“Memo to Canada: You cannot do that. Okay, the game is up, and if you interfere in our elections in Maine or Michigan, you will pay even more dearly.”

Navarro offered no evidence that Canadian lobbying or retaliatory tariffs amounted to election interference. But by naming the Pine Tree and Great Lake States, both of which have close economic ties to Canada and consequential Senate races, he underscored the administration’s apparent concern about the dispute’s political effects.

The administration may have reason to be concerned. In a newly released survey, the Cato Institute and Morning Consult found that 75 per cent of registered U.S. voters said tariffs, defined in the poll as a U.S. tax imposed on imported products, would be important to their vote.

While few issues draw bipartisan backing these days in the United States, Democrats were not alone in feeling hard done by tariffs. According to Emily Ekins, vice president for policy and society and the director of polling at the Cato Institute, nearly two-thirds of Republicans also said tariffs imposed under Trump had increased prices.

“We were very clear in asking, ‘Are tariffs affecting the prices of things you buy at the store?’” she explained.

“Seventy-four percent of all Americans agree with that, and nearly two-thirds of Republicans did too,” she said (as did 73 per cent of independents and 84 per cent of Democrats).

Andrew Hale, senior fellow at Advancing American Freedom, says the price effect could become especially potent in working-class regions where Trump won former Democratic voters by promising economic relief. Based on recent conversations with Republican campaign staffers, he said voter anger over tariffs is registering.

“The campaign is being won or lost on tariffs, which is seen to be raising prices,” Hale said.

Pollsters, however, are less convinced that tariffs alone will lead to specific voting decisions.

Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter, says it has more to do with the economy overall.

“I would just view it as sort of a subset of the larger affordability issue,” said Kondik.

Andrew Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center, agrees.

“Tariffs are, I think, one factor in that, but it’s really just the state of the economy,” he said.

He says tariffs are less of a standalone trade-policy issue than a shorthand for voters’ broader anxiety about the cost of living. He also doubts Americans really understand tariffs.

“I don’t think that people could frankly tell you what a tariff is or what it does,” he said.

But on this, Ekins pushed back, inferring that Trump has been using his favourite word, “tariffs,” a lot over the past two years.

“Ordinarily, trade and tariffs have very little to do with people’s vote. But here’s the difference: Donald Trump has made trade and tariffs his signature economic policy,” she said.

“This year, tariffs are on the ballot because now people think of tariffs as being, ‘You’re raising my prices.’”

While Hale believes some working-class people who were once Democrats and voted for Trump will go back to voting Democrat, the pollsters disagree. They say no matter how frustrated they are by higher prices, most Republicans are about as likely to vote for Democrats as Maple Leafs fans are to start cheering for the Canadiens.

Instead, how Republicans fare will come down to one thing: turnout.

Will Republicans show up on election day? “The hardcore ones will, but the more modestly Republican are the ones that are least likely to show up,” Smith said.

Ekins echoed this. “I don’t expect them all to rush to the Democrats. They’re going to sit at home and not turn out to vote in the midterms.”

Americans still like the idea of using tariffs to support domestic manufacturing, Ekins said, but they are far less enthusiastic about paying higher prices for it.

That reluctance is especially pronounced when the target is Canada. In the Cato/Morning Consult survey, 56 per cent opposed tariffs on Canadian goods — the strongest opposition among the countries tested. Meanwhile, majorities of 57 and 60 per cent, respectively, supported tariffs on China and Russia.

Ekins explained that U.S. voters seemed willing to accept tariffs when the duties are framed as a national-security tool against adversaries, not in trade with close allies.

“Canada is the one country Americans do not want to put tariffs on,” Ekins said, noting that Britain was a close second.

Kondik agrees, noting, “It’s a lot easier to point the pitchfork at China than it is to point the pitchfork at Canada.”

“Most Americans don’t understand why we’re having a trade war with Canada,” Hale pointed out.

He also noted that Navarro’s stark comments amounted to an effort to blame Canada for voter frustration with the administration’s tariff policy, rather than acknowledging the policy’s political cost.

As for election results, pollsters and trade watchers expect the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Representatives, while the Senate remains a closer call. Kondik puts it at 50/50 for now, but Smith expects the Democrats to also win that chamber.

Hale believes the administration is seriously underestimating how severe a midterm defeat Republicans could be facing.

“I think they’re in for a real pasting,” he said, adding, “I don’t think, quite frankly, this administration has tuned into how potentially horrific this could be for them.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


Strathroy Middlesex General hospital worried about its ability to operate, citing an accumulated deficit of over $24 million and an increased use of credit lines.

Ontario hospitals, forced to borrow privately in order to keep the lights on, owed banks more than $70 million in operating loans by the end of fiscal year 2025-26, according to hospital financial statements.

With 80 of the 129 Ontario hospital networks posting operating deficits last year, at least $1.45 million in public health-care dollars went to bank interest payments from just eight hospital networks, the Investigative Journalism Bureau found.

Niagara Health, for instance, paid about $549,000 in interest on operating loans, said the organization’s spokesperson, Erica Bajer. The Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance in southwestern Ontario paid $346,000 in interest on its operating borrowings, according to spokesperson Gerry Rucchin. CEO Andrew Williams said the institution continues “to focus on minimizing debt servicing costs wherever possible” while focusing on patient care.

Strathroy Middlesex Hospital, west of London, Ont., expressed concern in its financial statement about its ability to even continue operating.

And 12 Ontario hospital networks, including Scarborough Health Network, North York General Hospital and The Ottawa Hospital collectively increased their borrowing capacity from the previous year by close to $460 million, according to financial statements.

“The only way for them (hospitals) to survive is to borrow money … That’s totally unsustainable,” said Michel Grignon, a health economist at McMaster University in Hamilton. “It doesn’t make any sense that taxpayers would simply line the pockets of banks, that’s absolutely not the way it was supposed to work.”

The need to increase borrowing capacity last year is a “sign hospitals have been cut to the bone,” he said.

Neither the Ontario Ministry of Health, Ontario Health nor Health Minister Sylvia Jones responded to questions about hospital bank borrowing or provincial funding.

The true value of interest paid on operating loans remains shrouded in secrecy, with some hospitals not disclosing this information in their financial statements. Some declined to provide it to the IJB when asked.

A hospital network spokesperson from Waterloo Regional Health Network said she’d been advised not to disclose the hospital’s borrowing details, adding “there is nothing that’s going to serve our purposes.”

Jennifer Lawrance, CEO of Red Lake Margaret Cornehour Memorial Hospital in northwestern Ontario, said she believes it is “ethically wrong that taxpayers should be paying interest” for hospital borrowing.

“I’m not suggesting that the hospitals who are borrowing are wrong in doing so,” she added. “They’re doing that to keep their doors open, because funding isn’t keeping up with the operational costs.”

One of the biggest percentage deficits recorded this year was from Anson General Hospital in northeastern Ontario, in Iroquois Falls, near Timmins, which finished the year in the red for the fourth consecutive time.

 Iroquois Falls’ Anson General Hospital: ‘No fat to trim.’

Asked if the hospital expects to find efficiencies that would return it to a balanced position, Paul Chatelain, CEO of the MIC Group, which includes Anson General Hospital, told the IJB, “We don’t have any fat to trim.”

“Our reserves are not keeping up, they’re almost depleted.”

Ontario law requires hospitals to plan for a balanced budget each year but the province can give special dispensation to end the year in the red. Financial records show the province can also provide one-time shortfall funding, including at least $325 million given to 30 hospital networks last fiscal year, according to the IJBs analysis of hospital financial statements.

The latest IJB findings come six months after the Ontario government pledged an additional $1.1 billion in funding for hospitals as part of its 2026 budget, up four per cent from the previous year. The Ontario Hospital Association says costs are increasing by six per cent a year, due to an aging population and inflation.

David McNeil, CEO of Health Sciences North, in the greater Sudbury region, told the IJB that his hospital had identified $18 million in savings over the past three years, mostly by reducing the use of private agencies to staff nurses.

Still, Health Sciences North, which had total revenues of close to $800 million last year, explicitly states in its financial statements the need to rely on “temporary financing through its existing credit facilities” in the short-term.

“We would prefer not to have to rely on lines of credit to sustain the operations of the hospital. That’s the fundamental piece and that’s what we’ve been struggling with as an industry,” McNeil told the IJB. “Efficiency itself is not going to be sufficient enough to close the gap between what hospitals need and what they’re spending today.”

McNeil said his hospital keeps the provincial health ministry “well informed” of its bank borrowing.

 David McNeil, left, president and CEO of Health Sciences North, listens to nurses in the medical device reprocessing department of HSN.

Variations in financial reporting across the province’s hospital sector make annual comparisons of indebtedness difficult to monitor.

A January IJB investigation found Ontario hospitals paid at least $4 million in interest on borrowing in the fiscal year 2024-2025. Nearly $2 million of that was paid by Hamilton Health Sciences.

This year, the hospital would not disclose any interest paid on its borrowing for 2025-2026.

Hamilton Health Sciences financial statements show it owed $40 million on its two operating lines of credits by fiscal year-end and intended to “rely on temporary financing through its existing credit facilities” in the short term.

Waterloo Regional Health Network (WRHN) owed close to $9 million on its operating line of credit in March 2026 and paid close to $1 million in interest on this line and its two operating loans. The hospital reported defaulting on its bank loans in its most recent financial statement.

The network’s spokesperson, Cassandra Easton, told the IJB the loans did not relate to operating borrowing, but declined to disclose how much interest the network paid on its borrowings to sustain daily operations, saying she’d “been advised not to provide anything further.” Easton declined to say who provided that directive.

In March, the hospital’s annual financial statement showed it was “in violation of the covenants” relating to several loans. The hospital network reached an agreement with the bank, which is not named in the financial statement, not to demand a repayment until April 2027.

“Access to credit is a common treasury management tool used by large healthcare organizations to support liquidity and maintain financial stability,” Easton said in an email, adding the hospital “maintains ongoing discussions” with the province about financial pressures.

Among the hospitals that increased their borrowing capacity from last year was the Ottawa Hospital (TOH), which increased its operating lines of credit to $120 million in 2026, up from $24 million in 2025.

“Having sufficient line of credit as a liquidity buffer is a standard industry best practice of managing financial risks actively and does not warrant any funding issues,” TOH spokesperson Michaela Schreiter said in an email.

“TOH recognizes the importance of minimizing the interest burden on taxpayers. Hence, the hospital manages its working capital prudently and draws on the line of credit only when needed,” she added. As of March 2026, it had not drawn on this line of credit.

 The Ottawa Hospital has increased its borrowing capacity over the last year.

Scarborough Health Network arranged for a new $120-million operating line of credit, and North York General Hospital took out a new $60-million loan to finance day-to-day operations, the financial records show.

In a response to questions, Scarborough Health Network spokesperson Leigh Duncan said it is “one of Ontario’s most efficient hospital systems,” and “continues to experience significant growth and demand pressures.”

“Any borrowing capacity available to the organization is a financial management tool that helps ensure continuity of operations and patient care while we work within existing funding structures,” Duncan said.

North York General Hospital did not respond to requests for comment.

Strathroy Middlesex General, which worried about its ability to operate, cited an accumulated deficit of over $24 million and an increased use of credit lines.

“As a result, there is material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the hospital’s ability to continue as a going concern,” read the hospital’s financial statements.

Julie McBrien, CEO of Middlesex Hospital Alliance, which Strathroy Middlesex General belongs to, declined to comment on the specifics of the hospital’s financials, but said the hospital system “continues to navigate significant system pressures while remaining focused on delivering safe, high-quality care.”

Len Brooks, professor emeritus of business ethics and accounting at the University of Toronto, told the IJB that hospitals borrowing from banks “is not unreasonable” given that the province itself operates in a deficit.

“There’s lots of good work that can be done if hospitals have funds in the short run, even if sourced from banks,” said Brooks. “It might be a very good thing for them from the perspective of patients.”

The problem, says Brooks, is when hospitals routinely cite chronic, structural deficits as reasons for borrowing, which means they are routinely spending more than they are taking in.

“That signals to the government that there’s something to watch for and to look into.”

Health-care workers say ongoing deficits are being felt across hospital floors.

Dr. Raghu Venugopal, an emergency physician who works across three Toronto hospitals, told reporters that despite the uptick in provincial funding, things are “worse than ever before.”

“Hospital budgets are literally the issue of life and death,” he says. “One of the markers that can’t lie is the number of hallway stretchers, and that’s just metastasized like cancer.”

Citing a lack of acute care beds, he said patients have died, “because we didn’t get to them and we didn’t do the medical work because there was nowhere to offload them.”

The Ontario Nurses’ Association has claimed that hospitals have cut more than 1,500 nursing positions since December 2025, attributing the cuts to underfunding. The province has not provided an official number.

“Letting go of those nurses means, of course, the quality of care is going to decrease,” said health economist Grignon. “This is going to translate into more adverse events. It is going to translate into patients not being taken care of in a timely manner.”

The Investigative Journalism Bureau (IJB) at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health is a collaborative investigative newsroom supported by Postmedia that partners with academics, researchers and journalists while training the next generation of investigative reporters.

Find your hospital’s finances: Use the IJB’s Ontario Hospital Finance Explorer

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Jodine Millar was 57 when she was killed in her own home by her daughter's ex-boyfriend.

A man who killed his ex-girlfriend’s bipolar mother and hid her body in the woods to be ravaged by wild animals before her remains could be found will spend two years in prison, a B.C. judge ruled earlier this month.

In October 2023, Coquitlam RCMP arrested and charged Carson Saul MacKay , 33, with the second-degree murder of 57-year-old Jodine Millar almost a year earlier in November 2022.

The Winnipeg native, who was apprehended in Calgary, pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges this January and was sentenced by Justice David M. Layton in a New Westminster courtroom on Sept. 15, after accepting a joint submission from Crown and defence counsel.

Layton said the sentence “reflects a properly functioning justice system, as opposed to one that has broken down, and accounts for the hard decisions Crown and defence counsel must legitimately make in difficult cases.”

According to an agreed statement of facts in his recently published decision , MacKay and Millar’s daughter, Sara, had been in a relationship since 2017. In July 2021, it was agreed that Millar would come to live with them in Kelowna and the trio moved to a home in Coquitlam the following year, where the couple resided on the main floor and she in the basement, with shared common spaces.

“Millar had experienced mental health difficulties, including bipolar disorder, and Sara wanted to look after her,” the judge wrote, noting that the older woman “sometimes failed to take her medication as prescribed.”

By August, the couple had split up and while Sara moved out, Millar stayed in the basement. The decision does not explain why.

On Nov. 26, Millar “was in a manic state, and was acting in a paranoid and erratic manner,” resulting in her overfeeding her dog and the animal vomiting on the stairs outside her bedroom door.

As MacKay was cleaning up the mess, a “paranoid and angry” Millar emerged from her room yelling at him while holding the steak knife she used to cut her pills. The two “got into a physical altercation,” during which MacKay pushed her hard, causing her to fall on her bedroom floor.

He went back upstairs and left Millar “space to calm down.” When he returned some 10 minutes later, he found her in a pool of blood from a wound caused by the knife that had become “lodged in her body” when she fell.

Fearing someone would think he’d intentionally murdered Millar, MacKay wrapped her “body in blankets and bound it with tape, rope and a dog collar” and drove it in her car to “an empty lot on Burke Mountain where he buried it in a clandestine grave in a forested area.” He reported her missing to police the following day.

According to Coquitlam RCMP, her vehicle was involved in a single-vehicle collision along Highway 1 at No. 3 Road in Abbotsford shortly after 9 p.m. on Nov. 28. The vehicle was empty when police arrived.

When discovered under undisclosed circumstances in May 2023, her decomposed remains showed damage “consistent with large animal scavenging.”

 Jodine Millar’s Hyundai Tucson was empty when Abbotsford RCMP showed up a single-vehicle crash.

In her victim impact statement, read aloud in court, Sara didn’t address Millar’s mental struggles but called her a hard-working and supportive mother who “put herself through trade school to become a journeyman electrician.”

“Not knowing what had happened to her for so many months was traumatic, as was the later knowledge about how her remains had been disrespected and discarded,” the judge summarized.

Layton said he had to consider many aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether to accept the joint sentencing submission.

“Particularly aggravating,” he said, was MacKay “taking actions that desecrated” Millar’s body by hiding it and not reporting it to authorities. Also working against him was that she was killed in her own home, “which should have been a place of safety,” and the impact on the family by burying Millar “in a surreptitious grave” and depriving her family the chance to mourn and bury her appropriately.

Layton also said MacKay’s youth and his size advantage over Millar — six-foot-three and 160 pounds to her five-foot-five and 125 pounds — was another aggravating factor. In pushing her down, the judge said MacKay was “not protecting himself, but rather was acting out of frustration.”

On the mitigating side were the brevity of the altercation, the single push, the “significant element of chance” in Millar’s death, that it was out of character for MacKay and the strong community support for him.

MacKay also pleaded guilty before even pre-trial applications were heard, thereby sparing Millar’s family from “additional grief and anxiety.”

Layton noted his early plea meant MacKay surrendered several strong arguments that could have helped him fight the charge had it gone to trial. Chief among them was a Jordan application under section 11 (b) of the Canadian Charter — when the defence seeks a stay of proceedings for failing to resolve the matter in a “reasonable time,” as established by the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 R. v. Jordan case. In the case of a provincial trial, the period is 18 months.

“The parties acknowledge that the presumptive Jordan ceiling would have been surpassed by six months by the time the trial concluded, that no delay had been waived by the defence, and that despite attempts to schedule earlier trial dates it was not possible to do so,” Layton wrote, noting even the Crown stressed the importance of him forgoing the application.

The plea also meant MacKay gave up “‘very viable’ arguments for excluding Crown evidence, arising from alleged breaches” under sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter, which spell out the core legal rights protecting people from unlawful or unfair state interference.

The judge also said MacKay could have made a legitimate argument about identification after the Crown highlighted “numerous areas of weakness in its circumstantial case” during preliminary inquiry, “any of which may have ultimately affected the trial verdict.”

As highlighted by the judge, under the Criminal Code of Canada, a conviction of manslaughter without the use of a firearm normally carries a sentencing “range of four to fifteen years.”

But bearing all the factors in mind, Layton said he had “no difficulty in concluding that this is one of those cases where the circumstances justify a sentence below the range of four to fifteen years’ imprisonment.”

MacKay was sentenced to two years and 99 days, but received credit for 99 days spent in pre-sentence custody. He is also prohibited from owning a firearm for 10 years after release, was ordered to submit a DNA sample, and have no direct contact with the Millar family while in prison.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


“Citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the Court,” the Federal Court judge wrote in his judgment.

A claim for refugee protection in Canada by a family of three has been rejected because their appeal was apparently generated by artificial intelligence tools and riddled with fake cases and false legal arguments.

The Federal Court issued a sharp rebuke of a court filing that challenges an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decision that refused asylum to the trio, with Justice Roger Lafrenière saying the appeal is riddled with nonsense and calling it “an abusive document.”

A lawyer representing the failed refugee claimants had requested the court accept the late filing of its documentation in their appeal. The IRB had previously found the asylum claim “manifestly unfounded.”

Lafrenière said the mistake over the filing date might have been excused until he saw the arguments relied on “fictitious citations” and “wholly inaccurate references to legal precedents.”

Lafrenière said the lawyer’s arguments cited case law from five prior Federal Court cases. The “cases,” however, cannot be found at the citations provided, nor do the citations to real cases make the argument the filing claims.

“The Applicants’ Memorandum of Argument is replete with inaccurate and, dare one say, misleading arguments,” Lafrenière wrote in a decision released Monday. In some of the cases, the precedent cited says the opposite of what the filing claims.

For example, the document cites two cases in support of an argument over judicial discretion. “However, nothing of the sort is stated in either of the two cases,” wrote Lafrenière. The document also gives one citation as being found in paragraphs 28–33 of a judgment that has only 10 paragraphs, and it is on an irrelevant subject.

“Citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the Court,” Lafrenière wrote in his judgment. “In addition, making misleading arguments to the Court violates professional ethics and counsel’s fundamental legal duty of candor.”

Government lawyers flagged concerns over the written material of the three applicants. The parties were given an opportunity to answer the allegations but failed to respond, court said.

“I can only conclude that AI was used in the drafting of the Applicants’ Memorandum of Argument without careful human judgment being applied to the output,” said Lafrenière.

“AI tools promise efficiency; however, their indiscriminate use in drafting legal arguments constitutes a pernicious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. Fabricated case citations distort and corrupt the case law. Superficial fluency also creates an illusion of competence and genuine legal reasoning that masks underlying inaccuracies. In addition, inaccurate legal arguments shaped by AI also results in the waste of scarce resources, both judicial and those of the opposing party.

“Whether accidental or deliberate, reliance on false citations and advancing misleading arguments on matters of substance cannot be condoned by this Court. For these reasons, I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicants.”

Washim Ahmed, a lawyer with OWS Law in Toronto, is listed as the lawyer of record in the case. He said he is investigating what happened.

“I was shocked to see it,” Ahmed told National Post. He said filings are sometimes made by others at the firm in his name.

“Based on my preliminary review and discussion with the associate lawyer who worked on the file it appears that an earlier draft was inadvertently included when the applicant’s record was compiled. A revised version had been prepared but was not included in the compiled record. This was an inadvertent error,” he said.

Ahmed said his office also did not receive the government’s reply that originally flagged the citations, and was unaware of the court’s concern.

He is preparing a motion asking the court to reconsider the decision on the refugee appeal, to allow him to provide a new version of the document and explain how the error occurred, he said.

Lafrenière’s ruling suggests that even if he had allowed the motion to accept the late filing, it would not have made much difference to the claimants’ prospects of being granted asylum in Canada.

“The determinative issue before the (IRB’s Refugee Protection Division known as the RPD) was credibility. The panel also found that the Applicants’ claim was clearly fraudulent given the repeated reliance by the principal claimant… on fraudulent documents to mislead the RPD on central components of his claim,” Lafrenière wrote on the substance of the applicants’ complaint.

“The result reached (by the RPD) was transparent, intelligible and among the alternatives available to the panel on the evidence and arguments before it.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X:

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis speaks during question period in the House of Commons in Ottawa, April 20, 2026.

New details are emerging in the defamation case against York University by MP Leslyn Lewis, a former leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Lewis alleges the Toronto school cultivated a “toxic culture” of “wokeism” that allowed a professor to blindside her with unfair and defamatory questions in the interview process for a scholar position reserved for a Black person of African descent.

Lewis applied for this job while also campaigning in the 2021 federal election, when she won the position she still holds, representing Haldimand-Norfolk in rural southern Ontario.

In a new filing in Ontario Superior Court in reply to York’s statement of defence, Lewis accuses the school of “gatekeeping” her candidacy, and gives further detail on her claim that the school is liable for the “traumatizing” experience of not getting the job on what she claims are unfair ideological and political grounds.

She accuses one professor in particular of working behind the scenes to alert academic decision makers to his defamatory allegations that Lewis was racist, anti-gay, anti-refugee and opposed to women’s reproductive freedom.

“Faculty who disagreed with her on ideological grounds worked against her behind the scenes,” reads the reply her lawyer filed with the court.

She alleges Sean Rehaag, a professor of refugee law named as a defendant along with York, acted in a manner that was not “relevant, foreseeable, or within the proper scope of a recruitment seminar. Without notice, Professor Rehaag used excerpts of her political media appearances that he had prepared in advance and questioned her on political matters unrelated to her academic presentation.”

The fact she was allowed to answer these questions did not make the process fair, Lewis claims.

More broadly, she says the ideological environment at York was not “neutral or ordinary,” and that she was forced to take an unscheduled break, and claims the chair of a committee later phoned her to apologize.

Lewis denies that the alleged defamation of her character is saved by fair comment or justification, as York and Rehaag have claimed in their defence against the lawsuit. Both York and Rahaag say there was never any campaign of “vetting out” or “lobbying” against Lewis.

“Identifying isolated political positions does not prove the far broader sting that Dr. Lewis is racist, anti-refugee, or hostile to the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and material facts about her record were omitted or not investigated,” Lewis’s legal reply reads. It mentions her work as a refugee lawyer on behalf of sexual minorities.

Lewis claims York is “directly liable in negligence and vicarious liability for Professor Rehaag’s conduct.”

“The true issue was not whether Dr. Lewis met the advertised qualifications, which she did, but whether her conservative political, philosophical, and Christian beliefs made her acceptable for a position created for a Black scholar,” reads Lewis’s reply. “Political beliefs, religious beliefs, and ideological conformity were not among the advertised and assessed criteria.”

Rehaag’s suggestion of seeking input from groups representing racial or sexual minority students was not “a neutral consultation” but rather an effort by Rehaag to make “sweeping and damaging characterizations of Dr. Lewis’s character and beliefs.”

“I think it’s important people understand that this is a university that likes to trumpet its DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) bona fides,” said Lewis’s lawyer Darryl Singer. “But there’s two places where it doesn’t occur.”

One is with Jewish people, Singer said, and his firm is involved in a separate class action lawsuit against York University and the York Federation of Students claiming the school failed over many years to address antisemitic incidents, in violation of its non-discrimination policies. That claim has since expanded to include other schools and student unions across Canada.

“The other place it doesn’t apply is in Leslyn’s case,” Singer said.

“It’s not just York, we’re seeing it all over now. They like to say we’re all about equity, and we’re all about diversity, and we’re all about women and Black empowerment,” Singer said. “Unless the woman happens to be part of the Conservative party.”

“When you go out there trumpeting these values, and then you act completely contrary to those values for the sole reason you don’t like her political party, that’s a story to me,” Singer said. “If she was an NDP candidate, she certainly in my view would have been treated with the dignity and respect that she deserved and certainly would have been given a fair opportunity.”

Next steps include mandatory mediation in advance of a potential trial.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.