I was hopeful that when the COVID-19 pandemic drew attention to the plight of senior citizens, the attention might result in meaningful change. Instead, seniors seem to be for .

Let me set some context. The is a remarkable document. It is simple and clear. Provinces must adhere to the principles of universal, reasonable access to comprehensive hospital and doctor care throughout Canada, without charge for medically necessary care and with funding from a publicly administered, non-profit health insurance plan.

Those with a health-care card can go to any hospital or doctor and do not have to worry about health-care bankruptcy or losing health-care coverage if they change jobs or travel across Canada. Because the rich use the same beds as everyone else, they have a vested interest in all beds being high quality.

A good start with good principles

The CHA and the public insurance programs that preceded it dramatically improved access to quality care, quality jobs and — not incidentally in these times — it promoted solidarity across ages, classes and genders through what became Canada’s best loved social program.

Of course, it was not perfect or perfectly equitable, but .

However, there are three basic problems with it. First, it was supposed to be the first step towards a system that covered home care, long-term care, eye, dental and pharmaceutical care, but it . Second, the principles depended on the federal government using its spending power for enforcement. And third, it failed to prohibit for-profit services being paid public money or doctors from operating in private practices.

So when the federal government started tinkering with funding, changing from providing cash to match half provincial costs and instead offering provinces tax room, . When Ottawa then failed to keep up funding, provinces and territories started defining hospital and doctor care more and more narrowly, .

Increasingly, more necessary care had user fees or lacked public financial support. , undermining solidarity in the process. This is especially the case for seniors, whose care needs are increasingly defined as chronic rather than acute and therefore not requiring hospital care. are especially likely to have low incomes, making them unable to buy care.

Seniors’ election issues

Which brings me to this federal election and seniors, and to issues that are being swamped by a .

There are gaping at home and in long-term care as well as to hospital care and primary care services. And equally important, there is less access to good jobs providing this care.

We hear a lot about how , but staying at home often requires skilled care, special facilities and support for things like food, cleaning and maintenance, as well as help with dressing and walking. Too often, what we mean by care at home is 24/7 , untrained and unpaid for the work, too often doing so to the detriment of their own health and economic future.

Too often it is about shifting costs and labour to families and individuals, not about choice or overall cost savings. Too often .

There has been new , a significant amount of which is unconditional and thus available for home care. But we have seen little effective expansion.

The recently appointed seems primarily focused on getting better data and more migrants to provide care, to attracting and keeping the staff.

If we are serious about home as the place to be, we need to provide the public support for the option, support that needs to go well beyond a few more temporary work permits for care providers.

Nursing homes

Which takes me to nursing homes. At the same time as home care is talked about as the first choice, . We forget though that many people do not have homes, many homes are unsafe physically and/or in terms of abuse, many homes are isolating, and many people have 24-hour extensive care needs that cannot be accommodated in a private home.

When we ask residents about whether there is compared to their private home, many say yes; they feel safe, there is company, there are activities, and women especially say there is someone to clean the bathroom and make the meals. Of course, we can and should make nursing homes better for people to live, work and visit in them, but we can’t forget that we need them and significantly more of them as well as more people to work in them.

The federal government did but then it has done little with those standards. We need more beds, more staff and enforced standards. As with hospital care, the federal government could use its spending power to play a critical role, doing so through the .

And we need more community care clinics providing the full range of services. Here too the but we need more and we need to severely limit private practice that contributes to fragmented care.

Care vs. profit

And in all these areas, we need to ensure the .

Of course good and fair health care costs money. But we have to remember that , in equity and in solidarity. The money does not go into a hole. It circulates in the economy. And investments in providing good conditions of work can save money at the same time as they promote care, given that the conditions of work are the conditions of care.

We need to put senior care back on the agenda in the aftermath of this election.

By Distinguished Research Professor of Sociology , 91ŃÇÉ«

The post Why seniors’ care should have been on the election agenda appeared first on News@91ŃÇÉ«.

91ŃÇÉ« experts are available to comment on the upcoming Canadian federal election from party strategies and polling to campaign issues, including immigration, border security and trade relations.

Electoral strategy, polling and voter sentiment

, a professor of political science and Chair of the Department of Politics in the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies (LA&PS), is focused on issues of democratization and democratic reform in Western countries. In 2007 he published The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System, in 2009 he co-edited British Columbia Politics and Government, and in 2013 he published Wrestling with Democracy: Voting Systems as Politics in the Twentieth Century West. Pilon has acted as a consultant on election issues for legal firms, political parties, trade unions, community groups, and the Auditor General of Canada. He is a member of the National Advisory Board of Fair Vote Canada, a citizens’ group focused on gaining more proportional methods of voting for Canadian elections, and sits on the editorial board of Canadian Dimension magazine.

Pilon is available to comment on:

• election administration
• electoral strategy
• political parties, including party branding and strategies
• voter reactions
• ±č´Ç±ô±ôľ±˛Ô˛µĚý
• election results from the perspective of voters

Public policy proposals and Canada-U.S. relations

is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration in LA&PS. His research interests are public administration and public policy, including bad policy and digital public administration as well as financial services sector policy. He previously worked on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing policy, and foresight in government. He is the co-editor of the forthcoming book at Bristol University Press (April 2025), as well as the recently released .

Roberge is available for interviews in both English and French. He can offer political analysis and comment on:

• federal politics
• federal-provincial relations
• the federal election campaign
• Canada-U.S. relations

National identity and regional tensions in the election

, professor of Canadian Studies at 91ŃÇɫ’s Glendon College, is an expert on the history of nationalism in Canada. He received the Governor General's International Award for Canadian Studies from the International Council for Canadian Studies (ICCS) in recognition of his work in the field, as well as a Certificate of Merit from the ICCS. He has researched the trade of dairy products between Canada and the United Kingdom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when American tariffs restricted Canadian access to southern markets. 

Coates is available for interviews in English and French. He can comment on:

• the role national identity is playing in the election campaign
• how regional identities and tensions could influence the federal election
• the history of Canadian attempts to expand into other markets when Americans have raised tariffs in the past

Employment and labour policies, retirement, pensions and income insecurity

is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration in LA&PS. His focus is on Canadian social and labour policy, including employment, and income security (unemployment insurance and pensions). A particular area of expertise is labour market policy, including the transition from school to work and the role of training and education. 

He is available to speak on:

• employment and labour in Canada, including labour market and income security policies
• retirement and pensions
• dynamics of the upcoming federal election
• Canada-U.S. relations

Energy, environment and climate change: policy and Canada-U.S. relations

is a professor in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change, co-chair of the Faculty's Sustainable Energy Initiative, and coordinator of the Joint Master of Environmental Studies/Juris Doctor program offered in conjunction with Osgoode Hall Law School. He has published articles, book chapters and reports on a range of topics from climate change and environment to energy law and policy in Canada and North America. He is a co-editor of the book . He has taught U.S. Government and Politics in the past, and is currently co-editing a volume on carbon federalism in Canada, the U.S., Australia and the European Union.

Key areas of expertise:

• energy and climate change policy
• environment and natural resources policy
• critical minerals and impact assessment
• Canada-U.S. energy trade and relations
• electricity, nuclear energy and Ontario politics

Patriotism and immigration, and changes in U.S. policy

is an assistant professor in the Department of Equity Studies in LA&PS and the director of the Centre for Refugee Studies at 91ŃÇÉ«. Su is a specialist in forced migration, climate change-induced displacement and queer migration. She has worked extensively with vulnerable communities in Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, including refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, trans sex workers, indigenous communities, and 2SLGBTQIA+ folks. She has published 26 peer-reviewed works in journals like Third World Quarterly, Journal of Gender Studies, and International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction as well as more than 40 opinion pieces, newspaper articles and academic blogs in The Washington Post, The Conversation, and The National Observer.

Su is available to comment on:

• Canadian patriotism and immigration issues
• the Canada-U.S. border
• immigration, temporary migration and refugees
• politics related to international students, and the issues facing them
• changes in U.S. policy, including mass deportations

Border security and surveillance, and migration

is a lawyer and anthropologist specializing in border technologies. She is the associate director of the Refugee Law Lab at 91ŃÇÉ« and is a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. She is the author of , which was a finalist for the 2024 Governor General’s Literary Awards in Nonfiction.

Molnar is available for interviews in both English and French. She can comment on:

• border security and surveillance
• the role of private companies
• migration issues in general

For experts available to comment on trade, tariffs and the economy, see: /news/2025/03/13/york-experts-trump-tariffs-trade-agreements/

The post Federal election and party politics: 91ŃÇÉ« U experts available for media opportunities appeared first on News@91ŃÇÉ«.

Donald Trump  for 

Prior to Trump’s arrival on the American political stage, such  would have probably immediately . That’s seemingly no longer the case as the Republican party once again places their hopes in Trump to win the White House in November.

This latest Trump smear takes place as public trust in government is declining  and the . Justin Trudeau is the first prime minister to . Trump is the first .

Unethical behaviour by elected officials knows no borders or party lines. In both Canada and the U.S., pivotal elections are looming that will determine the political landscape for the remainder of the decade. In those upcoming elections, does running an ethical campaign still matter for politicians seeking their country’s highest office?

 involve political campaigns adhering to the principles of honesty, integrity and transparency, and assisting the electorate in making informed decisions. Unethical campaigning undermines public trust, fosters confusion, sows division, amplifies cynicism and leads to negative sentiments about government.

There are four practices candidates can implement to ensure they conduct an ethical campaign.

1. Avoid mudslinging

Campaign civility has shifted in the Trump era. Dirty campaigning, which includes tactics like name-calling, belittling opponents and incivility, is becoming de rigueur.

In July, Trump — notorious for his &˛Ô˛ú˛ő±č;—&˛Ô˛ú˛ő±č;. Less than a month later, the Republican presidential nominee  against her during a Pennsylvania rally.

At the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Barack and Michelle Obama took personal jabs at Trump, with Barack Obama even  to insinuate that Trump’s fixation on small crowd sizes was related to the size of his genitalia.

If voters consider ethics important, they’d do well to consider how often candidates resort to tactics like name-calling and incivility. At the same time, the mudslinging cycle is hard to stop. Some observers liked that the Obamas stopped  and believe the Democrats need to 

2. Prioritize truth

At the 2024 Democratic and , Trump and Harris were fact-checked multiple times for false statements.

Trump has become the master of repeating untrue statements so often that his audiences start to believe his lies. After the results of the 2020 election, the former president repeatedly spread false claims about voter fraud and a stolen election, .

In an age of short messages sent over social media, with great competition for eyeballs, the more outrageous statements will garner attention.

The dissemination of misinformation erodes trust in campaigns and election outcomes, while distorting the knowledge needed for informed policy debate. Misinformation makes it difficult for voters to make an informed choice at the ballot box.

3. Clarity over confusion

Ambiguity on contentious policy issues, through vague or mixed statements by candidates, can be an effective strategy in some circumstances. While this kind of rhetoric has some upside, it poses risks to transparency and trust.

Voters can become cynical and distrustful of grandiose promises and lazy slogans, ultimately eroding public confidence in democratic processes. Prioritizing clarity and honesty will result in greater voter trust and uphold democratic integrity.

4. Transparent campaign financing

The 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign has already seen megadonors pour in billions of dollars. The  have already contributed US$1.5 billion to political action committees and other interest groups supporting candidates on both sides.

Critics have argued that the growing disconnect between politicians and their constituents is partly due to . In the U.S., .

So-called  â€” political action committees — can only finance independent expenditures and independent political activity. The funds do not go to political candidates, which raises serious concerns about transparency.

These committees can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and unions to overtly advocate for or against candidates. The result is that voters are not sure whose interest political candidates seek to serve.

 regarding political financing are essential to the integrity of political campaigns. Candidates who disclose the source of campaign funding minimize conflicts of interest and reduce the risk of being captured by special interests.

What's next

If behaving morally still matters to those running for office, and to voters, then adopting ethical campaign practices that align with civility, transparency, honesty and integrity is a step in the right direction.

If campaign ethics no longer matter, the U.S. and Canada will face more contested elections, greater political division and further erosion of trust in politicians.

By Professor Thomas Klassen, School of Public Policy and Administration, 91ŃÇÉ«, and Matthew Cerilli, Bachelor of Arts with Honours, Political Science, 91ŃÇÉ« '24

This article is republished from .

The post Do campaign ethics still matter in the age of Donald Trump? appeared first on News@91ŃÇÉ«.

Even with the Ontario legislature rising , the province’s politics have been  of an early election call by Conservative Premier Doug Ford.

Past experience suggests that this could be a  strategy, especially only two years into a June 2022 majority mandate that ultimately rested on the ballots of less than  of eligible Ontario voters.

Why now?

A number of potential rationales for an early election call in Ontario have been offered:

— Getting ahead of further fallout from the Greenbelt land removal scandal that will flow from  and  investigation.

— A  in the federal government with the possibility of a new government being less willing to facilitate and finance Ford’s grandiose nuclear .

— A bigger potential for the consequences of earlier decisions to come home to roost, ranging from the  in the post-secondary education sector to ongoing challenges around ,  and affordable housing,  housing.

— An opportunity to interfere with the ability of the new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party to raise funds, establish a presence and build a public profile while the Ford government remains .

The basis of Ford’s political success

The Ford government’s political success so far, despite  , has a lot to do with the effectiveness of its rhetorical response to 

Ford’s form of  has combined a deeply pro-business policy approach with a populist focus on reducing costs to consumers, like taxes and hydro rates, in the short term. But in doing so, the province’s labour market has also become increasingly polarized in terms of geography, income and employment security.

Ford weathered the challenges of COVID-19 by incorporating a . At the same time, his political rivals failed to provide compelling alternative visions of Ontario’s economic future.

Those seeking to unseat the Ford government in the next provincial election will need to offer different and compelling ways to address the polarized labour market and economic divisions in Ontario. These ideas will need to move beyond  that underpin Ford’s political success.

Vulnerable on environment, climate

With this in mind, the environment and climate change remain key areas of vulnerability for the Ford government because they illustrate its fundamentally reactive governance style. Another bad forest fire season this summer could further underscore the province’s  plan for reducing GHG emissions or responding to the impacts of a changing climate.

Ontario’s record of emission reductions flowing from the 2003-2013 phaseout of coal-fired electricity and wider industrial restructuring has largely played out. Emissions , especially from the electricity sector, with a dramatic growth in the role of , along with increases related to building heating and cooling and transportation.

In those sectors, the government is focused on expanding access to fossil fuels —  for space heating — and building .

Voters agitating?

The successful mobilization of organized labour against the Ford government’s proposed use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to  highlights the risks of further significant social and political action against the government.

The  over the government’s removal of land from the Greater Toronto Area Greenbelt for urban development again emphasized Ford’s potential vulnerabilities, despite his current lead in the opinion polls.

The question of who actually wins under Ford’s market populism must also loom large — everyday Ontario residents or ,  industries and entrenched incumbents in  and  health-care sectors?

Fiscal irresponsibility?

There are also growing questions about the government’s fiscal responsibility.

Over the last two years, the government has committed at least $150 billion in large energy and transportation infrastructure projects. Many of these projects — including , the Highway 404-to-400  and the  nuclear station refurbishment — have been previously assessed as unnecessary and uneconomic.

The emerging  of accelerating the initiative to make beer and wine available at corner stores have the potential to add hundreds of millions more to the government’s pattern of casually scrapping stable long-term revenue streams. In addition to the $225 million in up-front compensation to The Beer Store, .

More broadly, the province has lost approximately $1 billion a year in revenues from  of the greenhouse gas cap and trade program, the elimination of vehicle licencing fees and .

What’s more, there’s an ongoing  of general revenues designed to artificially lower hydro rates. This strategy takes funds needed urgently in areas like health care and education and effectively uses them to hide the actual costs of previous nuclear refurbishment projects.

All of these factors should amount to a moment of deep political vulnerability for the Ford government. But how voters might actually respond to an early election call if —  â€” they respond at all, remains an open question.

By 91ŃÇÉ« Professor Mark Winfield, Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change.

This article is republished from .

The post Election rumours invite reflections on Doug Ford’s record in Ontario appeared first on News@91ŃÇÉ«.

The dismal environmental record of the Doug Ford government in Ontario . Despite some  the steel sector and , the province is on track to see major increases in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the .

The government’s emphasis on  in the Greater Toronto Area is further evidence of this trend.

The Ford government’s record on environmental issues is an extension of its wider approach to governance. It has broken from the  of Ontario politics, which have emphasized moderation and administrative competence, .

Looking back on Ford’s four years in power reveals four themes about his approach to governance — and what the next four years might have in store if .

1. Reactive governance

The Ford government’s agenda seems driven by . It came to power with scant vision for what a provincial government  other than cut taxes, red tape and hydro rates. It’s struggled when confronted with more complex problems that required the province to play a much more active role.

The resulting governance model has been fundamentally reactive, and  perspectives. The government has tended to act once a situation reaches the crisis stage, rather than identifying potential problems and taking action to prevent them.

This pattern has been most evident in the government’s hesitant responses to the . It tended to  waves of COVID-19 infections rather than anticipating them and taking measures to minimize their impacts, even when given clear and consistent  to do so.

Issues like the environment and climate change are destined to do poorly under such a reactive governance model. They require taking action now to avoid problems in the future.

We are constantly reminded of this by the reports of the  and  and  environmental commissioners. Only responding when problems have become too obvious to ignore tends to mean it’s already too late.

2. Creeping authoritarianism

The government’s run-up to the election has placed a strong emphasis on “” — it’s the Progressive Conservative party’s campaign slogan — in areas like housing and highway and transit construction, in particular.

The flip side of this emphasis has been increasingly aggressive exercises of provincial authority, particularly over local governments. One of the government’s first moves was to arbitrarily cut  in half. The province threatened to invoke, for the first time in the province’s history,  of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the notwithstanding clause, to get its way.

°ż˛ÔłŮ˛ą°ůľ±´Ç’s&˛Ô˛ú˛ő±č; have also been rewritten, not only at the provincial level, but down to the level of  within individual municipalities, almost universally in favour of developers’ interests.  â€” which circumvent local planning processes and public consultations, designating land use without the possibility of appeals — are no longer the exceptions they once were.

Instead, they seem the new norm for planning in Ontario. Broad powers have been given to provincial agencies, most notably the , to build what are often  and  transit projects.

The province’s  have sought  the roles of local governments in planning matters and to eliminate public consultation requirements as red tape.

The notwithstanding clause was ultimately invoked by the government as it pertained to its  that seemed designed to silence potential critics.

Even local  were forbidden to adopt COVID-19 containment measures more stringent that those put in place at the provincial level.

3. Friends with benefits

While the Ford government has gone to great lengths to silence voices of critical constituencies, it’s been extraordinarily open to the voices that support it.

The overall decision-making model that has emerged is based  and .

The government has demonstrated a distinct tendency to uncritically accept whatever its favoured industry lobbyists tell it to do. This has been evident in its approaches to , , , ,  and .

4. Spend but don’t increase taxes

A final defining feature of the Ford government has been a tendency to disregard the fiscal consequences of its decisions. The focus instead has been on short-term savings for consumers.

The cancellation of the previous Liberal government’s cap-and-trade system immediately following the 2018 election cost the provincial treasury . Hundreds of  were spent cancelling renewable energy projects.

Hydro rates are being artificially lowered through an annual  in subsidies from the provincial treasury, money that could otherwise be spent on schools and hospitals. The pre-election cancellation of tolls on Highways 412 and 418 will cost at least  over the next 25 years, while the cancellation of vehicle licensing fees will cost the province an estimated  each year.

 to provincial gasoline taxes would cost nearly $650 million in annual revenues. And the projected deficit on the government’s  was almost $20 billion, a record.

All of this is at odds with previous Progressive Conservative governments in Ontario, which were largely fiscally prudent.

It isn’t clear yet to what extent the potential political success of a governance model organized around these four themes represents a fundamental break from the traditional norms of Ontario politics. If Ford wins again, is it due to  of the alternatives being offered to Ontario voters, or does it signal a permanent realignment in the province’s politics?

Either way, June 2 could be a watershed moment in the province’s history, defining a “new normal” for politics in Ontario.

The post Ontario election: 4 ways Doug Ford has changed the province’s politics appeared first on News@91ŃÇÉ«.