Albertans are being asked to vote this fall on a series of referendum questions that, taken together, amount to a rebuke of immigration and immigrants. Of the 10 proposed questions so far, five deal directly or indirectly with newcomers to the province.

Several of the proposed questions would give Alberta greater authority over immigration, while others would limit access to services such as health care and education for some non-permanent residents. Supporters argue the measures would ease pressure on housing, jobs and public services.

If you believe immigrants are responsible for every social ill Alberta faces, you may be inclined to vote yes across the board. But before doing so, it is worth asking whether the problems being blamed on newcomers are actually being caused by them.

Take health care. Alberta’s health-care system is under strain, but not because of a sudden flood of immigrants. It is struggling because successive governments, including the current one, have failed to build a system capable of keeping pace with population growth and changing needs. Newcomers did not create those policy failures.

The same applies to the labour market. One of the referendum questions suggests immigrants are somehow depriving Albertans of employment opportunities. Yet many newcomers are filling jobs that employers have struggled to fill for years, from health care and construction to agriculture, transportation and food services.

Housing is a more complicated issue. Alberta’s population has grown at a breathtaking pace, and housing construction has not kept up. Immigrants accounted for roughly 24 per cent of Alberta’s population in the 2021 census, up from about 17 per cent in 2001. Over that same period, the province’s population grew from just under three million to more than five million. That growth has driven up housing demand and made it harder for many people, especially young people, to enter the market.

But who invited much of that growth?

In 2022 and 2023, the Alberta government actively encouraged Canadians from other provinces to move here through its Alberta Is Calling campaign. The province advertised its affordability, employment opportunities and quality of life. People responded exactly as the government hoped they would. Having invited people here, Alberta can hardly feign surprise that they came.

At the same time, Alberta’s economy has continued to outperform much of the country. Recent economic forecasts project Alberta’s economy will grow by 2.6 per cent this year, roughly three times the national average. The province enjoys one of Canada’s strongest labour markets, relatively affordable housing compared with Toronto or Vancouver, and growing industries in technology, aviation, tourism and food processing.

That hardly sounds like a province being crushed under the weight of immigration.

None of this is to suggest that Canada’s immigration system has been managed perfectly. Far from it.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau badly mishandled immigration after the pandemic. Population growth surged far beyond the country’s ability to build housing and infrastructure. Temporary foreign worker programs expanded rapidly. International student numbers ballooned. Oversight often lagged behind reality.

The result was predictable: rising housing costs, strained services and growing public frustration.

Governments make mistakes. On immigration, Ottawa made a mess of things. Voters are entitled to demand that government do a better job.

What does not follow is the conclusion that Alberta should respond by restricting access to health care, education and social programs, or by attempting to seize far greater control over immigration policy than it currently possesses.

That is the fundamental flaw in these referendum proposals. They confuse poor government policy with the people who were affected by it.

Alberta is hardly powerless when it comes to immigration. Through the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program, the province can nominate immigrants whose skills match its economic needs, although the federal government makes the final decision. That’s a long way from the helplessness some referendum supporters often claim

Nor is there evidence that immigrants are draining public resources. Numerous studies have found that immigrants contribute more than they consume over the long term through taxes, entrepreneurship and labour-force participation.

That is why these referendum questions are so troubling. They are built on the assumption that immigrants are the source of Alberta’s problems when, in most cases, they are not.

There is a difference between fixing a bad policy and turning newcomers into political scapegoats.

Alberta’s future prosperity depends on attracting workers, entrepreneurs and families from around the world. A smart immigration system, properly managed, strengthens both the province and the country. The answer to Ottawa’s immigration failures is better policy, not resentment dressed up as reform.

Albertans should look carefully at these proposals and ask a simple question: are they solving the problems created by bad government policy, or merely blaming the wrong people for them?

The answer should determine how they vote.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.

The post Alberta is blaming immigrants for Ottawa’s policy failures first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

A well-maintained 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross can deliver affordable all-wheel drive, but service history is critical when shopping used.

A used 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross can look like a steal. Many examples sell for thousands less than a comparable Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-5 or Toyota C-HR. That’s appealing enough on its own, but every Canadian model also came with all-wheel drive.

That’s the attraction.

But before getting excited about trim levels, options or even price, you should verify the transmission’s maintenance history. The Eclipse Cross uses a continuously variable transmission, or CVT. While many owners report years of trouble-free service, these transmissions depend heavily on regular maintenance. If problems develop, repairs can quickly become expensive.

While the Eclipse Cross has not generated the volume of transmission complaints seen in some earlier CVT-equipped vehicles, service records are particularly important. If the seller cannot show proof that transmission maintenance was performed regularly, keep shopping. There are plenty of Eclipse Cross models on the market and no shortage of alternatives.

Most 2018 examples today sell for roughly $12,000 to $20,000 on the used vehicle market, depending on condition, mileage and trim level. Comparable Honda and Toyota models often command higher asking prices on the used market.

The 2018 Eclipse Cross, which arrived as Mitsubishi’s newest compact crossover, never became a major seller, which helps explain why used prices remain relatively affordable today.

The good news is that the Eclipse Cross has generally avoided the major engine-related controversies and oil-consumption complaints that affected some competing compact SUVs from the same era. The turbocharged 1.5-litre engine has generally developed a reputation for reasonable durability when maintained properly.

Price remains the Eclipse Cross’s strongest argument. Buyers get standard all-wheel drive and a vehicle that has generally held up reasonably well over time. For Canadian drivers who regularly deal with snow and ice, having all-wheel drive (AWD) on every model remains a meaningful advantage.

Beyond the transmission, buyers should inspect carefully for oil leaks around the turbocharged engine, worn suspension components, sticking brake calipers and electronic glitches involving the infotainment system, backup camera and driver-assistance features.

Like most compact crossovers approaching 10 years old, the Eclipse Cross will eventually need suspension work. By 100,000 kilometres, many examples will require brakes, tires and suspension repairs. Once mileage climbs beyond 150,000 kilometres, buyers should pay particularly close attention to the transmission, wheel bearings and other components that help transfer power to the wheels.

Rust has not emerged as a major weakness, but that doesn’t mean buyers should ignore it. Vehicles from regions that use heavy road salt should be inspected carefully around the wheel arches, underbody, brake lines and suspension mounting points.

Buyers should also confirm that all recall work has been completed. Early Eclipse Cross models were subject to recalls involving Forward Collision Mitigation software and other safety-related systems. A Mitsubishi dealer can quickly verify whether any recall work remains outstanding.

Fuel economy isn’t likely to be a deciding factor. Most owners report between eight and 10 litres per 100 kilometres, which is about average for an AWD crossover of this size.

Trim level matters less than condition and maintenance history, but mid-range SE models often represent the best value. They include many desirable safety and comfort features without commanding the higher asking prices of Diamond Edition models.

Shoppers willing to spend more have no shortage of alternatives. The Honda HR-V generally offers stronger resale value and a reputation for long-term durability, while the Mazda CX-5 feels more refined. Hyundai Tucson and Kia Sportage models from the same era are also worth considering.

The 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross’s biggest advantage is simple: it usually costs less. In many cases, buyers can save several thousand dollars compared with those rivals. For shoppers who want dependable AWD transportation without spending Honda or Toyota money, that makes the Eclipse Cross difficult to ignore.

Our Verdict

The 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross remains one of the better bargains in the used compact crossover market. Standard AWD, reasonable reliability and lower-than-average resale values make it an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers. But before buying one, make sure the maintenance records are complete and the transmission has been serviced regularly. If the paperwork isn’t there, walk away. A well-maintained Eclipse Cross can provide years of dependable service. A neglected one can quickly erase the savings that made it attractive in the first place.

| Auto Desk

The post That 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross bargain comes with a catch first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Job seekers spend far too much time worrying about things they can’t control and not enough time improving the things they can.

They obsess over ghosting, employer timelines, internal candidates, hiring freezes and hiring decisions while neglecting the factors that actually improve their chances of getting hired.

Nearly 2,000 years ago, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus offered a simple solution: focus on what you can control and let go of what you can’t.

Most job seekers do the opposite.

The Enchiridion of Epictetus opens with a straightforward truth: “Some things are in our control, and others are not.”

I strongly recommend job seekers adopt Epictetus’s “dichotomy of control”—a simple way of separating what belongs to you from what doesn’t. When you focus on what you can control rather than external factors, your job search becomes more productive and far less frustrating.

Most job seekers know what they should be doing. Yet many spend more time worrying about employer behaviour than improving their candidacy.

Why?

Because they mistake control over their effort for control over the outcome.

You can prepare thoroughly and still not get hired.

You can submit an excellent application and still lose out to another candidate.

You can perform well in an interview and still discover that factors beyond your knowledge influenced the decision.

Every day, I see job seekers pin their hopes on factors beyond their control: how employers design their hiring process, whether recruiters provide feedback, whether hiring managers respond promptly and whether they ultimately receive an offer.

If you’re feeling anxious before an interview, remind yourself that your preparation, attitude and presentation are yours to manage. The interviewer’s mood, biases, company policies, what other candidates offer and factors you can’t see, such as timing, internal politics and personal chemistry, are not.

Worrying about them won’t improve your performance. Preparing thoroughly will.

I regularly hear job seekers explain rejection by blaming recruiters, internal candidates, biased hiring managers or flawed hiring processes.

Maybe they’re right. But none of those explanations improve their chances with the next opportunity.

Employers don’t owe you an interview. They don’t owe you feedback. They don’t owe you an explanation. Their responsibility is to hire the person they believe is the best fit for their business. Your responsibility is to give them a reason to choose you.

It took me years to learn this lesson.

The fastest way to reduce stress, frustration, anger and anxiety is to separate what belongs to you from what belongs to everyone else.

Focus only on what you can control. Accept the rest.

Once you’ve submitted a strong application, the timeline belongs to the employer. What happens next is largely out of your hands. Rather than waiting for a response, redirect your energy toward other opportunities.

You’ll never fully understand the preferences, assumptions or biases of the person reviewing your resume or LinkedIn profile. No two recruiters or hiring managers evaluate candidates exactly the same way.

Then there are internal candidates. Employers often post jobs despite having someone in mind. While you can’t control who else is being considered, you can control how effectively you communicate your value.

And, of course, random events happen. Companies downsize. Hiring freezes occur. AI changes job requirements. Work moves overseas.

None of those developments become easier because you spend time worrying about them.

What matters is how you respond.

Start with the quality of your resume, LinkedIn profile and cover letter. The information you provide employers is critical to securing interviews. Focus on measurable achievements rather than opinions about your performance. Quantify your contributions whenever possible.

And yes, write a cover letter. A strong cover letter can motivate someone to read your resume with greater interest.

Networking remains one of the most effective job-search strategies because most opportunities are attached to people.

Many job seekers approach networking with the wrong mindset. They focus on what they can get instead of what they can contribute.

When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself: “How can I help this person?”

People remember those who create value.

Know the company, understand the role, research your interviewer and be prepared to explain how you’ll solve problems and contribute to the organization’s success.

Ask questions that demonstrate you’re focused on what you can offer the employer rather than solely on what the employer can offer you.

Your online reputation matters as well. Employers routinely search online for information about candidates. They’re looking for evidence that confirms who you say you are.

Letting go of what you can’t control isn’t surrender. It’s a strategy.

Every minute spent obsessing over ghosting, employer timelines, internal candidates or market conditions is a minute you’re not improving your resume, expanding your network or preparing for your next interview.

Before blaming the economy, AI, recruiters or hiring managers, ask yourself a harder question:

What have I done this week to become a stronger candidate?

The answer to that question lies entirely within your control.

Nick Kossovan is a syndicated columnist and career expert with over 20 years of experience in the corporate hiring landscape. He specializes in providing pragmatic, unsweetened advice on career navigation, workplace dynamics, and professional growth.

The post The best job search strategy is surprisingly simple first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Canada has no shortage of natural resources, educated workers or innovative entrepreneurs. Yet concerns about productivity, economic growth and business investment continue to dominate public policy discussions. As governments search for ways to strengthen the economy, one source of inspiration comes from an unlikely place: the ideas of British entrepreneur and public policy advocate Lord Vinson.

Earlier this year, I was informed by the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom that I had been selected as a Lord Vinson Scholar. As I prepare for a residency at the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship, I have been reflecting on the ideas and legacy of the man whose name the scholarship bears.

While Lord Vinson is not widely known in Canada, many of the economic principles he championed remain highly relevant to our country’s future prosperity.

Born Ronald Alfred Vinson, he built his reputation first as an entrepreneur. In 1952, at the age of 21, he founded a small plastics company that grew into a major industrial enterprise employing more than 1,000 workers. The company later received the Queen’s Award for Industry and became publicly traded.

What distinguished Lord Vinson was not simply his business success but his belief that economic growth should be broadly shared. Long before employee ownership became a popular policy topic, he allocated a portion of company shares to employees, giving workers a direct stake in the firm’s success.

Canada now ranks near the bottom of the OECD in business investment growth, and productivity gains have lagged behind many of our competitors. Productivity growth is widely regarded by economists as one of the main drivers of rising incomes and living standards over time. Economists across the political spectrum increasingly agree that long-term prosperity depends on producing more value with the same labour and capital.

That is why entrepreneurship matters. New firms are often the source of innovation, competition and productivity improvements that established businesses fail to deliver. Encouraging more Canadians to start businesses, invest in innovation and build wealth-producing enterprises should be a national priority.

Lord Vinson believed that entrepreneurship was not merely a private activity but a public good. Economic growth, in his view, begins with individuals willing to take risks, innovate and create value.

His experience also demonstrated the importance of ownership. A healthy economy is not simply one in which people earn wages. It is one in which citizens participate in wealth creation through business ownership, investments and capital accumulation.

Decades before employee ownership became fashionable, Vinson understood that workers who share in a company’s success have a greater stake in innovation, productivity and long-term growth. At a time when wealth inequality and economic insecurity are growing concerns, broader ownership may offer a way to strengthen both prosperity and social cohesion.

That idea deserves renewed attention in Canada.

Expanding opportunities for employee ownership and entrepreneurship could help strengthen Canada’s middle class while boosting economic opportunity.

These ideas did not remain confined to Lord Vinson’s business career.

After leaving day-to-day business operations, Lord Vinson turned his attention to public policy. During a period of significant economic uncertainty in Britain, he became involved with organizations such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies. These influential think tanks helped shape many of the market-oriented reforms associated with the Thatcher era.

Whether one agrees with all of their policy recommendations is beside the point. Economic prosperity is shaped not only by markets and governments but also by the ideas that guide public policy.

Perhaps his most enduring legacy is his commitment to economic education. In 2018, his philanthropic support led to the creation of the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham. The centre promotes research, teaching and public engagement focused on economics and public policy.

On the centre’s launch, Lord Vinson explained his motivation: “As an entrepreneur, I have been exceptionally fortunate in life. I also wanted to foster the qualities that create new businesses, because they are the foundation of the prosperity of any nation.”

If Canada is serious about improving productivity, encouraging investment and strengthening economic growth, it would do well to embrace Lord Vinson’s insight.

Constantine Passaris is a professor of economics at the University of New Brunswick. He is a recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal and the Order of New Brunswick.

The post Why Canada must embrace entrepreneurship first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Access to primary care in Canada is in decline and has been for the past decade. This should alarm Canadians. In 2024, one in five Canadians lacked access to a regular family doctor or nurse practitioner. Even more concerning, the share of adults with a regular family doctor declined in seven of 10 provinces between 2015 and 2024.

This matters because access to primary care is the front door to the health-care system. Without a regular provider, Canadians face greater difficulty accessing timely care and managing their health needs. Yet the problem is also not affecting everyone equally. In 2024, lower-income Canadians were less likely to have a regular health provider than higher-income Canadians, and that gap showed no improvement over the previous decade.

The declines have been particularly severe in Atlantic Canada. In Prince Edward Island, the share of adults with a regular family doctor fell from 88 per cent to 53 per cent between 2015 and 2024. Newfoundland and Labrador saw a decline from 86 per cent to 67 per cent, Nova Scotia from 86 per cent to 72 per cent, and New Brunswick from 88 per cent to 76 per cent. Other provinces also experienced declines, including British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

One bright spot is the growing role of nurse practitioners. Although they still provide care to a relatively small share of Canadians, access to a regular nurse practitioner increased between 2015 and 2024, demonstrating their growing importance in strengthening primary care.

But the overall problem persists. One explanation is that governments have focused on the wrong solutions. Across Canada, many primary care reforms have centred on changing or increasing physician compensation. Yet these efforts have not translated into improved access to care.

A deeper problem is the continued reliance on the independent contractor model, in which doctors and nurse practitioners are expected to own and operate a business. And because it’s tough to run a business and care for patients at the same time, one result is the growth of investor-owned corporate chains. That trend raises new concerns—about care delivery, quality and the commercialization of patient data.

Canada’s provinces, therefore, need to move away from a system that relies primarily on individual practitioners operating as small-business owners. Instead, governments should invest in not-for-profit primary care infrastructure and expand team-based primary care.

In fact, Canada should implement lessons from the Scottish public health system, which in 2018 began to assume responsibility for clinic premises, reducing the financial risks and administrative burdens for doctors’ practices. It also began to employ multidisciplinary teams with the goal of improving work-life balance for medical professionals and access to care for patients. And the early results suggest that more publicly supported, team-based primary care appeals to the preferences of newer generations of family physicians.

Canada’s community health centre model, Community Health Centres (CHCs), also lets physicians work in multidisciplinary teams without running a business. Ontario’s more than 300 CHCs have been instrumental in expanding access to primary care in that province. However, while their flexible core funding model supports innovation, provincial policy still favours independent physician contractors, and this makes it difficult for the CHC model to become more widespread.

So, there is more work to be done, especially by the federal government, which needs to show more leadership in this space. Federal funding should be tied to progress in closing the primary care access gap, and governments should be held accountable for ensuring that all Canadians have timely access to a primary care provider or team.

The path forward is clear: the primary care crisis will not be solved simply by paying doctors more. It requires structural reform, investment in community-based clinics and a renewed commitment from governments to ensure that access to primary care is available to everyone.

Andrew Longhurst is a senior researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and author of the new research study Failure, By Design: Ontario’s deepening hospital funding crisis.

The post Paying doctors more won’t solve Canada’s primary care crisis first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Alberta just achieved something most Western governments have failed to do for 30 years: build overwhelming democratic support for nuclear energy.

Conventional wisdom holds that nuclear energy and democratic politics cannot comfortably coexist. Nuclear is too technical, too associated with Cold War anxiety, too easily weaponized by opponents who understand that fear is more politically durable than fact. In April 2026, Alberta’s Nuclear Energy Engagement and Advisory Panel delivered findings that challenge that assumption directly.

After months of structured public engagement, 67 per cent of survey respondents strongly supported nuclear development in the province. A further 15 per cent were somewhat in support. Only 17 per cent were opposed. Eighty-one per cent agreed nuclear would help keep electricity costs low and improve grid reliability. Nearly 6,000 Albertans responded to the surveys. The panel met with more than 30 Indigenous communities and 51 municipal representatives.

An 82 per cent net support rating is not a thin mandate. It is a governing mandate. How Alberta got there matters as much as the number itself.

The panel was chaired by Chantelle de Jonge, Parliamentary Secretary for Affordability and Utilities and an economist by training, who ran a process spanning the better part of a year and produced a report with the rigour to withstand public scrutiny. Credit to Premier Danielle Smith for an appointment that proved its worth.

Alongside de Jonge sat a former NDP cabinet minister who had served as minister of economic development; the CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada and a member of Samson Cree Nation; a 25-year electricity industry veteran; a nuclear law and policy scholar from the University of Calgary; and a strategy professor who had served on Alberta’s 2008-09 Nuclear Power Expert Panel.

This composition was a deliberate act of institutional intelligence. Most governments fill their panels with technical experts and industry-adjacent voices, then wonder why the public treats the results as a scripted conclusion.

By including a senior NDP-era minister, the panel’s findings could not be dismissed as a governing-party echo chamber. Including a prominent Indigenous energy executive gave those findings weight with the communities whose engagement mattered most. The ideological and experiential breadth of the panel was not window dressing. It was the mechanism of legitimacy.

The most important structural decision Alberta made was to run a two-phase engagement, treating the first phase as an education problem before addressing it as a communications problem.

Phase one, from August to October 2025, did not ask Albertans what they thought about nuclear. It asked what they needed to know. What were their information gaps? What concerns would a substantive conversation require addressing?

The panel listened, mapped public concerns and information gaps, and designed the second phase accordingly, with public webinars, town halls in Peace River, Fort McMurray, Bonnyville, Calgary and Edmonton, and dedicated sessions for Indigenous communities.

Here is the core lesson most jurisdictions refuse to learn. Most governments approach contentious energy debates by polling first, collecting a noisy result shaped by fear and prevailing media narratives, and then spending years trying to move numbers that politics has already locked in.

Alberta inverted the sequence. Inform first. Engage genuinely. Measure sentiment after. The result is not just a better number; it is a more durable mandate because the public that produced it engaged with the evidence.

Former Alberta Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf modelled the right approach to nuclear’s hardest question, waste management, when he addressed it head-on at the report’s release. He said Albertans will not face that waste for 35 to 40 years, but they deserve a real answer before the province proceeds. That framing builds political durability precisely because it does not oversell.

Every Western democracy that has tried and failed to advance nuclear energy in the past 30 years has failed the same way: by treating public sentiment as an obstacle to manage rather than a resource to cultivate. Technocrats believe the public is too unsophisticated to evaluate complex trade-offs. Communications professionals believe the public can be moved by the right message. Both are wrong and produce the same result: a public that feels managed and responds accordingly.

Alberta’s premise was that citizens, given honest information and a genuine forum, can reach sensible conclusions about complex trade-offs. Durable infrastructure policy in democratic societies requires public legitimacy, not merely regulatory approval.

Too often, modern consultation processes are designed less to cultivate legitimacy than to manage dissent while preserving predetermined outcomes.

The technology has never been the central obstacle to nuclear energy in democratic societies. The politics have been. Alberta is exploring small modular reactors, or SMRs, as electricity demand rises and the province looks for reliable, low-emission baseload power.

Alberta demonstrated that the politics can be resolved, not by managing public opinion, but by respecting it. Alberta’s real innovation was not technological. It was political.

Dr. Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice-President of Research and Policy at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An expert on radical revolutionary movements and political identity, he is a recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal for exemplary public service. He is the author of three books, including the 2023 release Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic, co-authored with Barry Cooper.

The post Alberta just proved that nuclear energy isn’t a political suicide mission first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Doing the right thing in life is always the right thing to do. I doubt many readers would disagree with this obvious assessment. There are additional aspects to consider when choosing a path that is moral, ethical and just, too. These could range from prioritizing the greater good in the decision-making process to ensuring that openness, honesty and transparency are integral parts of the equation.

For Ontario Premier Doug Ford, doing the right thing could entail an aspect that few ever have to truly face or consider. What would it be? A financial cost, believe it or not.

We’ll tackle this shortly.

Our tale begins with the Ontario government’s decision to purchase a $28.9 million pre-owned private jet for the Premier’s use when travelling across Ontario. The plane, a 2016 Bombardier Challenger 650 which had reportedly been owned by an unnamed individual based in South America, was purchased directly from Bombardier after several months of negotiations. It would have allowed for “more certain, flexible, secure and confidential travel,” according to a statement from the Premier’s Office to CBC News.

The timing couldn’t have been worse for this type of purchase.

“Canada is in the midst of an affordability crisis,” as I wrote for Troy Media in an April 21 syndicated column. “Prices have escalated between 30 and 50 percent on most products. Grocery bills have escalated, along with the cost of gas, electricity, construction materials and more. Individuals and families are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, someone in the Premier’s Office-or the Premier himself-thought it was a good idea to buy a private jet and spend nearly $30 million in taxpayer dollars … The decision was tone-deaf on so many levels, it’s not even funny.”

This left the Ford PCs wide open to scrutiny and clever little comebacks. To wit, Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles’s April 17 post on X noted that “Ford ran on a promise to stop the gravy train. Then he spent $30M of your money on his gravy plane. He should be flying economy like the rest of us.” It was an amusing juxtaposition to “gravy train,” a popular phrase largely associated with the Premier’s late brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. “The major difference is that derailing a gravy train is based on fiscal prudence and responsible spending of taxpayer dollars,” I wrote in my column, “whereas riding a gravy plane has an opposite effect.”

The Premier apologized and reversed course. “Despite the best of intentions, I have heard and agree that now is not the right time for the expense of a government plane,” Ford said. “The province is working with Bombardier and other partners to sell the plane as quickly as possible.” And they did just that.

The gravy plane controversy won’t go away, however.

In spite of selling the $28.9 million private jet back to Bombardier, it turns out that provincial taxpayers, according to CBC News, will reportedly be paying $190,000 in “aviation-related costs.” A much smaller amount, to be sure, but an unnecessary bill that most Ontarians would have preferred not to be on the hook for.

Stiles and the NDP have called on Ford to pay back the entire amount. The Ontario Premier said that no one is more “ticked off” about these costs and it “frustrates the heck” out of him. That being said, he doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in committing to repaying them.

You can’t completely blame him. Who would want to willingly do something like this?

Then again, if Ford wants this controversy to disappear from the news cycle, and I’m sure he does, then maybe he should consider the possibility of paying some or all of this amount back.

And yes, I’m being completely serious.

Think about it this way. The aviation costs related to the private jet are an isolated, one-off expense. It wouldn’t set a precedent for Ford’s expenses as Premier going forward. It would show that he recognizes this was a political mistake and Ontario taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot any portion of this bill. Plus, the Premier could write some of this amount off—which means his total cost wouldn’t be this high.

Long story short, this could actually work to Ford’s advantage. He and his family have always talked about standing up for the little guy. This could be the perfect moment to put his money where his mouth is. Taking the gravy off the plane and putting it back on the train would be the right thing to do.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

The post Doug Ford owes Ontario taxpayers $190,000 first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Five years after the Kamloops announcement, the evidence has still not caught up to Parliament’s genocide declaration.

On October 27, 2022, the House of Commons gave unanimous consent to a motion by opposition MP Leah Gazan of Winnipeg Centre, declaring that Canada’s Indian Residential School system constituted genocide under the United Nations Convention. No formal recorded vote took place. Parliament committed the country to that designation without a division of the House.

The motion arrived 14 months later. On May 27, 2021, Chief Rosanne Casimir of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc announced that ground-penetrating radar had detected the remains of 215 children at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau ordered flags to be flown at half-mast. Churches burned.

Not one body has been found. Not at Kamloops. Not anywhere.

The scan described soil anomalies, not confirmed human remains. Archival records showed that septic field tiles installed in Kamloops in 1924 produced GPR readings indistinguishable from those of graves. Of roughly 20 similar announcements by 2023, excavations yielded no residential-school-related burials.

Some will say that further investigation may yet confirm what Chief Casimir announced. Perhaps. The resolution passed on no evidence and unrealized expectations.

In a free society, accusations of genocide require evidence, at least proportionate to the gravity of the charge. Parliament chose to dispense with that requirement. It declared Canada guilty of one of humanity’s greatest crimes while the claims remained unverified. That is not due diligence. It is political theatre masquerading as moral certainty.

Canadians were never obliged to prove that genocide did not occur. The burden rested, and still rests, on those making the allegation. Yet Parliament reversed that principle, endorsing the conclusion before the evidence.

Parliament paid a price for that failure. The number of Canadians expressing confidence in the federal government fell below 50 per cent in 2023 and has not recovered. Credibility, once spent on an unverified premise, does not return easily.

Canada has been here before. In August 1914, Parliament passed the War Measures Act hastily, enabling the internment of more than 8,500 persons in the First World War and around 22,000 Japanese Canadians in the Second. The Mulroney government repealed the Act in 1988 and issued a formal apology. Urgency and unanimity are not substitutes for sound judgment.

The internment parallel is instructive given what followed. Two years after the genocide motion passed, Ms. Gazan introduced Bill C-413, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment for denying or downplaying the residential school system; prorogation killed it but Gazan re-tabled it in 2025. First declare a genocide on unverified evidence, then criminalize asking whether the evidence warranted it. That is the logic that produced internment camps.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded in 2015 that the system amounted to cultural genocide: a coercive assimilation policy. It did not find physical extermination. Calling the schools cultural genocide is an arguable historical verdict. Calling them genocide, unmodified, tells Indigenous children that their country tried to murder their ancestors wholesale. Those are not the same claim.

Reconciliation built on a false foundation will not hold. A Parliament willing to trade its judgment for moral approval will not recover the trust it forfeits in the transaction.

Any sitting MP can introduce a motion to rescind or amend Ms. Gazan’s resolution. The evidentiary foundation on which it rested has not been confirmed, and the historical record does not support the unqualified genocide designation. The Government of Canada ran an assimilationist program, not a mass murder campaign. Parliament should be capable of saying both things at once.

Indigenous children deserve the truth. All of it. Parliament, which failed them once with a rush to judgment, can begin to make that right. It would go a long way toward restoring what has been squandered.

Dr. Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice-President of Research and Policy at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An expert on radical revolutionary movements and political identity, he is a recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal for exemplary public service. He is the author of three books, including the 2023 release Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic, co-authored with Barry Cooper.

The post Parliament’s genocide declaration fails Indigenous children first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Protests have rocked the United Kingdom following a murder conviction that raised stark questions about police conduct and equal treatment under the law. In December 2025, 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak was fatally stabbed during an altercation with Vickrum Digwa in Southampton.

When police arrived, Digwa claimed he was the victim of a racially motivated attack. Officers handcuffed Nowak in response, even as he pled innocence and said he could not breathe.

After Digwa was convicted of murder, public anger grew when it emerged Nowak had been handcuffed while fatally wounded.

For many Britons, this has become a symbol of alleged “two-tier policing.” But the concern it reflects is broader and shared. Across Western democracies, including Canada, very different communities are asking the same question: Is the law applied consistently, or does it shift depending on who you are and what you believe? Regardless of the answer in any particular case, confidence in the justice system depends on the public believing the law is applied fairly and impartially.

In the UK, the Nowak case lands on top of existing unease. Since Oct. 7, 2023, Britain has seen frequent protests related to the Israel–Gaza conflict. Jewish groups documented demonstrations where slogans they regard as openly hateful or threatening were chanted. Critics say police often justify inaction by appealing to the need to “keep the peace,” yet in other settings, such as individuals praying near abortion clinics or questioning controversial gender ideologies, police intervened more quickly and firmly.

In Canada, Jewish leaders and some social conservatives similarly claim enforcement is tougher on their demonstrations than on others. Not every allegation will stand up to scrutiny, but the pattern is telling: when communities disagreeing on almost everything else converge on the view that the law is not being applied evenly, it signals a deeper problem of confidence in the justice system.

This brings us to an older and more fundamental question: what is justice for? The Noahide Code is a set of seven moral laws that Jewish tradition teaches apply to all humanity. The seventh Noahide commandment places a positive obligation on all societies to establish courts of justice and systems of law.

As Rabbi Moshe Weiner explains in The Divine Code, these are not mere instruments of control. hey are meant to be the moral foundation of societal life, establishing righteousness and ethical conduct for all.

Jewish law sets out a demanding standard of impartiality known as Lo Takiru (literally “do not recognize faces in judgment”). Judges and law enforcement must not show favouritism based on social class or other identity markers. Both parties in a dispute must be treated symmetrically: if one stands, both stand; if one sits, both sit; both must be fully heard. Even subtle signs of leaning toward one side are treated as serious ethical failings.

All of this flows from a simple but profound idea: all people are created equal in dignity and worth. A just system does more than follow procedure; it affirms, case by case, that every person matters equally.

That is why perceived “two-tier” enforcement is so corrosive. Once citizens believe the law protects some but not others, the moral foundation of public life begins to crack. People may still comply with the law out of fear or habit, but respect for the institutions that uphold it weakens dramatically.

The key question, then, is how a decent society responds when justice appears to falter. The answer is not to abandon confidence in the idea of justice, nor to demonize everyone who wears a uniform or sits on the bench. It is to firmly but respectfully demand that the system live up to its own standards: to operate fairly, impartially, and consistently.

Police and justice officials also need to recognize that the appearance of bias can be nearly as damaging as bias itself. When responses to similar situations differ, authorities should explain clearly why. There may be legitimate differences, including crowd size, credible threats and available resources, but if these are never articulated, suspicion fills the gap.

The Nowak case, or any other similar case, must never be used as a pretext to target any ethnic or religious community. The answer to failures in justice is not collective blame; it is to ensure police and courts function as they should.

This is where the Noahide Code offers a clear lens. Establishing just legal systems is not an optional extra for civilized societies; it is a foundation. Without fair courts and impartial enforcement, other moral commitments become hollow. Justice systems are the scaffolding holding society together, but that scaffolding only holds if people trust it.

Joseph Quesnel is the founding director of the Canadian Foundation for Universal Ethics Education. A seasoned journalist and policy analyst with over 15 years of experience, he has provided expert testimony to both the Senate and the House of Commons on public policy. He holds a degree in political science and history from McGill University and a Master of Journalism from Carleton University.

The post Two-tier justice is breaking our country first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

It’s disappointing to see people fall short of their full potential, especially when they were so close to succeeding.

That’s how taxpayers feel about Finance Minister Jim Reiter’s budget.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation just released its annual report cards for all provincial finance ministers. Reiter received an overall grade of B-. That makes him the best-performing finance minister in the country. He received a B+ last year.

But topping the class doesn’t mean much when everyone else is failing. Saskatchewanians don’t feel any better about wasting money on debt interest just because the Quebec government wastes more.

Reiter didn’t earn a single A. That’s because he can’t earn top marks until the government stops racking up debt and wasting more than $1 billion a year on debt interest payments.

All it will take is a little extra effort for Reiter to put Saskatchewan in an enviable position.

Saskatchewan is blessed with huge swaths of natural resources and hard-working people. The government should not be using the taxpayer credit card to make ends meet. But the government is increasing the debt by $3.4 billion to $26.8 billion by the end of the year.

That debt comes with a debt interest bill of more than $1 billion this year. That works out to about $816 per Saskatchewanian.

Wasting more than $1 billion on debt interest payments should be setting off alarm bells in Reiter’s office.

Instead, the government increased spending nearly across the board. Reiter increased spending in 10 out of 11 of the government’s main spending areas this year.

The government is wasting about twice as much on debt interest as it collects annually from the provincial fuel tax.

That means if the government didn’t have to spend $1 billion on debt interest, Saskatchewanians could be saving about $11 per fill-up at the gas station right now. With more than $500 million to spare. Those are the real consequences of chronic overspending and irresponsible borrowing.

But all is not lost. Reiter has an opportunity to get the province’s fiscal truck out of the ditch and back on the highway. Taxpayers need him to take it.

Oil prices are hovering around $100 USD per barrel. If that holds, more than $500 million could flow into the province’s coffers this year from extra oil revenues alone.

Reiter needs to take that money, along with any other revenue windfalls, and use it to reduce government borrowing and, if possible, pay down debt.

It’s what Saskatchewan used to do. After an unexpected resource revenue windfall, former premier Brad Wall paid down about 40 per cent of Saskatchewan’s debt in one year. That saved $180 million in debt interest payments annually.

Wall used those savings to make life more affordable for Saskatchewanians by cutting taxes.

The Saskatchewan Party says it believes in a “steady, gradual reduction in government spending and taxation while maintaining a firm commitment to balanced budgets,” according to its guiding principles.

That means that Reiter needs to resist the urge to spend those extra resource-revenue windfalls and increase spending over and above what he promised to in the budget.

On this front, Reiter will have to buck the trend. That’s because the Saskatchewan government spent $970 million more than budgeted in both 2025 and 2024. In 2023, it went over budget by $2.2 billion. In 2022, it was $1.4 billion.

Paying down debt. Holding the line on spending. And using the debt interest savings to provide tax relief. That’s the clear criteria from taxpayers on how Reiter can earn top marks for his budget.

Now it’s up to Reiter to hit the books, listen to taxpayers and make sure that Saskatchewan reaches its true potential.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. A former legislative assistant on Parliament Hill and an award-winning journalist with experience at the CTV Parliamentary Bureau and Sun News Network, Sims brings decades of experience covering big government and fiscal policy. Gage Haubrich, Prairie Director at CTF, is a fierce critic of government overspending and a champion for Prairie taxpayers. 

The post Saskatchewan is burning $1 billion a year in interest payments first appeared on Edmonton's Business.