Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Canadians are not buying the ‘climate change’ narrative: government poll

Published

1 day ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

In-house Privy Council research shows that Canadians are not concerned with ‘climate change,’ despite the constant fear-mongering by the ruling Liberal Party

Government polling reveals that most Canadians are not alarmed over “climate change” and will continue to eat meat. 

According to in-house Privy Council research obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, over one third of Canadians think “climate change” could benefit Canada while almost half believe that “adapting to the impacts of climate change is cheaper than preventing it.” 

“The purpose of this study is to provide the Privy Council, Department of Environment and Department of Natural Resources with high quality data and information on Canadians’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviour relating to climate change,” the report said. “This includes support for existing and proposed climate policy and programs.”  

The research, which questioned 13,700 Canadians, discovered that climate change is not at the forefront of Canadians’ minds, with many pointing out that prediction models are not accurate, and Canada could actually benefit from climate change.   

The poll found that 35% of Canadians felt that “the impacts of climate change in Canada will be overwhelmingly positive because it is a cold country.” 

Similarly, nearly half of those polled believe that “adapting to the impacts of climate change is cheaper than preventing it.”  

At the same time, 24% believed that most climate models are not accurate in their predictions.   

According to the poll, 27% revealed that they have “never” discussed “climate change or its impacts,” with family or friends. 23% reported that they discussed it “once in the last two months.”  

Similarly, the poll showed Canadians are very much attached to their current diet and are not interested in changing it in the name of “climate change.”

“How frequently or infrequently have you made efforts to eat a more plant-based diet?” the survey questioned, to which 30% said “never,” 25% said “occasionally,” and 19% said “rarely.”  

In Canada,  the dubious”climate change” narrative has been routinely used by the Trudeau government to levy taxes against citizens.

Since taking office in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” 

When it comes to so-called man-caused “climate change,” which leftists have been preaching about for years, a June 2017 peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician found that most of the recent global warming data have been “fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening.” 

Meanwhile, Western Canadians involved in oil, gas and manufacturing are routinely attacked by the federal government. However, two court rulings have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws, after provinces Alberta and Saskatchewan took on the federal government over laws impacting important industries.

The most recent was when the Federal Court of Canada last November overturned the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.” 

The second ruling comes after Canada’s Supreme Court sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court ruled that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over resource pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion. 

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 7 hours ago

Alberta government should reform hospital funding to help shorten wait times

Addictions / 9 hours ago

‘We just hand out pills’, father of overdose victim tells MPs about safer supply programs

Censorship Industrial Complex / 10 hours ago

Chinese firms show off latest police-state surveillance tech at security expo

Alberta

Alberta government should reform hospital funding to help shorten wait times

Published on September 27, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Alicia Kardos

Other high-performing countries with universal health care (Australia, Germany, Switzerland) use “activity-based funding.” Under this model, hospitals receive funding based on the amount of care they provide.

Earlier this year, the Alberta Medical Association sounded the alarm on “rolling surgical outages,” patients diverted to other treatment sites, and the potential capping of services at major provincial hospitals. Unfortunately, the delays these problems create aren’t new to Albertans, as patients continue to face lengthy wait times.

According to the latest data, Albertan patients faced a median wait time of 33.5 weeks in 2022 for non-emergency medical treatment, a delay that was nearly six weeks longer than the national average, and three times longer than what patients in the province experienced in 1993 (when national estimates were first published).

When broken down, the wait in Alberta includes the first 16.4 weeks it takes for a patient to see a specialist after referral from their family doctor—then a second wait of 17.2 weeks to receive treatment after seeing that specialist. And these figures don’t account for the wait to see a GP in the first place, which is a significant issue in a rapidly growing province where remain without a family doctor.

Of course, we hear the predicable calls for more money. But in reality, spending more won’t get Albertans out of this problem. In a recent comparison of high-income countries with universal coverage, Canada (in 2021) was already one of the highest spenders on health care (as a share of their economy) while having some of the fewest doctors and hospital beds (after accounting for differences in population age among countries).

And when compared to nine other high-income countries in 2020, Canadians were found to have the longest waits for medical care. Specifically, Canadians were the least likely to report waiting under four months for non-emergency surgery (at 62 per cent) compared to higher-performing countries such as Australia (72 per cent), Switzerland (94 per cent) and Germany (99 per cent).

So what’s the solution?

In a word, reform. For example, Alberta could change the way it funds hospitals. Canada’s predominant approach is to provide hospitals a set amount of money each year, regardless of the level of services provided. This means that the money hospitals receive isn’t tied to the actual number of services they provide. This discourages hospitals from providing more care because each patient represents a drain on their budget rather than an opportunity.

In contrast, many other high-performing countries with universal health care (Australia, Germany, Switzerland) use “activity-based funding.” Under this model, hospitals receive funding based on the amount of care they provide. This creates a powerful incentive for hospitals to treat more patients, because each patient represents an opportunity for the hospital to earn more money.

Quebec decided in last year to fund all of its surgical procedures using this model, and now plans to expand the model to all hospital care by 2027/28. The Smith government has also taken some steps that lay the foundation for these types of reforms. This is good news for Albertans, if reform is actually on the way.

Across Canada, despite the availability of solutions, the status quo of long waits persists. Breaking from the past can be hard, but there may be hope on the horizon for patients in Alberta’s beleaguered and poorly performing health-care system.

Authors:

Mackenzie Moir
Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Alicia Kardos
Research Intern, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Addictions

‘We just hand out pills’, father of overdose victim tells MPs about safer supply programs

Published on September 27, 2024

By

Gregory Sword fights back tears during his testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health meeting ‘Opioid Epidemic and Toxic Drug Crisis in Canada’ on Sept. 24. (Screenshot/House of Commons)
Break The Needle

By Alexandra Keeler

In a House committee meeting Tuesday, grieving father Gregory Sword provided a poignant account of the problems with safer supply

In a poignant testimony that laid bare the devastating toll of Canada’s opioid crisis, Gregory Sword, father of a 14-year-old overdose victim, urged the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to confront the failures of safer supply programs.

Despite the emotional weight of his story, neither Liberal nor NDP committee members asked Sword any questions during the 2.5-hour session, choosing instead to engage with the expert witnesses.

“I had to sit there and watch my daughter commit suicide for a year without being able to help her,” Sword said during the committee’s Sept. 24 meeting.

His daughter, Kamilah, died from an overdose in August 2022. Sword is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the B.C. and federal governments for alleged negligence related to safer supply programs.

Since November, the House of Commons committee has been studying Canada’s opioid epidemic. The committee has been focused on the effectiveness of current harm reduction strategies, including controversial safer supply programs.

Proponents argue safer supply offers a regulated, pharmaceutical-grade alternative to toxic street drugs, which can prevent overdoses and connect individuals with addiction to treatment. Critics say such programs fail to address the root causes of addiction and potentially increase drug use and diversion.

The meeting underscored the ongoing tension between supporters and critics of these programs.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘One click’

In his testimony, Sword discussed how easy access to safe supply drugs — such as Dilaudid, or “dillies” — contributed to his daughter’s addiction and eventual death.

“The ease that she was able to get safe supply was just one click on Snapchat, and she would be able to get any drugs she wanted within five minutes,” he said.

Sword, who travelled from his home in Port Coquitlam, B.C., at his own expense to attend the meeting, shared the challenges he faced watching his daughter cycle between overdoses and hospitalizations for two years.

He expressed frustration with mental health professionals who quickly discharged Kamilah, and with drug counselors who insisted it was not possible to intervene because Kamilah was not explicitly asking for help.

He explained that the lack of action following his daughter’s death put her friends at risk. Several have overdosed multiple times since Kamilah’s death. He is also frustrated by the lack of funding for treatment, pointing out that one friend had to wait more than a month to secure a rehab bed after seeking help.

“Even after [Kamilah] died, [drug dealers] were still messaging her cellphone,” said Sword, in response to a question from Laila Goodridge, the Conservative MP who invited Sword to attend the meeting. “My friend had access to her Snapchat account, and they were still asking if she’d need any dillies.”

Other witnesses also emphasized the negative impact recent drug policies have had on youth.

Dr. Patricia Conrod, a clinical psychologist from Université de Montréal, highlighted the need for evidence-based prevention programs. She noted that safer supply initiatives have increased youth access to potent opioids, and stressed the importance of providing services such as therapy and counselling alongside harm reduction.

Conrod also pointed to social media as a youth drug-use enabler.

“Using social media impacts your cognitive development and makes a young person more disinhibited and impulsive, and it contributes to ADHD symptoms,” she said. “We know that all three of those behavioural profiles and symptoms place a person at much higher risk for early onset substance misuse.”
Dr. Patricia Conrod fields questions virtually during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health meeting ‘Opioid Epidemic and Toxic Drug Crisis in Canada’ on Sept. 24. (Screenshot/House of Commons)

Dr. Martyn Judson, an addiction specialist from London, Ont., criticized safe supply clinics for inadequate oversight, leading to opioid diversion. “The perpetuation of a supply of opioids is … perpetuating the addiction. It’s not doing anything to change the lifestyle of the individual.”

He condemned excessive doses and lack of witnessed dosing as “unconscionable” and “tantamount to negligence.”

After the session, Sword expressed his frustration about the lack of questions from Liberal and NDP committee members.

“I have no problems with the experts talking, but ask me some questions, and I probably could give you a better answer than the experts on how that really affects parents and their kids,” he said.

“I hope this opens up their eyes to realize that there needs to be accountability for their decisions,” said Sword.

“They can’t just be like, ‘Oh, we’re going to do this and it doesn’t affect us’ because there’s no face. Now they can put my daughter’s face to their decisions.”

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Subscribe to Break The Needle. Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X