Business
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0e8ed/0e8edd95ee05491567d93f88425e2870389ad4cc" alt=""
Why Can’t We See the Canadian Institutes for Health Research-Funded Research We Pay For?
Right off the top I should acknowledge that a lot of the research funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is creative, rigorous, and valuable. No matter which academic category I looked at during my explorations, at least a few study titles sparked a strong “well it’s about time” reaction.
But two things dampen my enthusiasm:
- Precious few of the more than 39,000 studies funded by CIHR since 2011 are available to the public. We’re generally permitted to see no more than brief and incomplete descriptions – and sometimes not even that.
- There’s often no visible evidence that the research ever actually took place. Considering how more than $16 billion in taxpayer funds has been spent on those studies over the past 13 years, that’s not a good thing.
If you’ve been reading The Audit for a while, you know that I’ll often identify systems that appear vulnerable to abuse. As a rule though, I’m reluctant to invoke the “s” word. But here’s one place where I can think of no better description: the vacuum where CIHR compliance and enforcement should be is a national scandal.
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
I’ve touched on these things before. And even in that earlier post I acknowledged how:
…as a country, we have an interest in investing in industry sectors where there’s a potential for high growth and where releasing proprietary secrets can be counter productive.
So we shouldn’t expect access to the full results of every single study. But that’s surely not true for the majority of research. And there’s absolutely no reason that CIHR shouldn’t provide evidence that something (anything!) productive was actually done with our money.
Because a well-chosen example can sometimes tell the story better than huge numbers, I’ll focus on one particular study in just a moment. But for context, here are some huge numbers. What follows is an AI-powered breakdown by topic of all 39,751 research grants awarded by CIHR since 2011:
Those numbers shouldn’t be taken as anything close to authoritative. The federal government data doesn’t provide even minimal program descriptions for many of the grants it covers. And many descriptions that are there contain meaningless boilerplate text. That’s why the “Other – Uncategorized” category represents 72 percent of all award dollars.
Ok. Let’s get to our in-the-weeds-level example. In March 2016, Greta R. Bauer and Margaret L. Lawson (principal investigators) won a $1,280,540 grant to study “Transgender youth in clinical care: A pan-Canadian cohort study of medical, social and family outcomes”.
Now that looks like vital and important research. This is especially true in light of recent bans on clinical transgender care for minors in many European countries following the release of the U.K.’s Cass report. Dr. Cass found that such treatment involved unacceptable health risks when weighed against poorly defined benefits.
A website associated with the Bauer-Lawson study (transyouthcan.ca) provides a brief update:
As of December of 2021, we have completed all of our planned 2-year follow up data collection. We want to say thanks so much to all our participants who have continued to share their information with us over these past years! We have been hard at work turning data into research results.
And then things get weird. That page leads to a link to another page containing study results, but that one doesn’t load due to an internal server error.
Before we move on, I should note that I come across a LOT of research-related web pages on potentially controversial topics that suddenly go off-line or unexpectedly retire behind pay walls. Those could, of course, just be a series of unfortunate coincidences. But I’ve seen so many such coincidences that it’s beginning to look more like a pattern.
The good news is that earlier versions of those lost pages are nearly always available through the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine. And frankly, the stuff I find in those earlier versions is often much more – educational – than whatever intentional updates would show me.
In the case of transyouthcan.ca, archived versions included a valid link to a brief PDF document addressing external stressors (which were NOT the primary focus of the original grant application). That PDF includes an interesting acknowledgment:
This project is being paid for by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This study is being done by a team of gender-affirming doctors and researchers who have many years of experience doing community-based trans research. Our team includes people who are also parents of trans children, trans adults, and allied researchers with a long history of working to support trans communities.
As most of the participants appear to have financial and professional interests in the research outcome, I can’t avoid wondering whether there might be at least the appearance of bias.
In any case, that’s where the evidence trail stopped. I couldn’t find any references to study results or even to the publication of a related academic paper. And it’s not like the lead investigators lack access to journals. Greta Bauer, for example, has 79 papers listed on PubMed – but none of them related directly to this study topic.
What happened here? Did the authors just walk off with $1.2 million of taxpayer funding? Did they do the research but then change their minds about publishing when the results came in because they don’t fit a preferred narrative?
But the darker question is why no one at CIHR appears to be even mildly curious about this story – and about many thousands of others that might be out there. Who’s in charge?
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
Business
Trump and fentanyl—what Canada should do next
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b738c/b738ccf12448d62f18bc18512063b8056a088ae0" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
During the Superbowl, Doug Ford ran a campaign ad about fearlessly protecting Ontario workers against Trump. I suppose it’s effective as election theatre; it’s intended to make Ontarians feel lucky we’ve got a tough leader like Ford standing up to the Bad Orange Man. But my reaction was that Ford is lucky to have the Bad Orange Man creating a distraction so he doesn’t have to talk about Ontario’s high taxes, declining investment, stagnant real wages, lengthening health-care wait times and all the other problems that have gotten worse on his watch.
President Trump’s obnoxious and erratic rhetoric also seems to have put his own advisors on the defensive. Peter Navarro, Kevin Hassett and Howard Lutnick have taken pains to clarify that what we are dealing with is a “drug war not a trade war.” This is confusing since many sources say that Canada is responsible for less than one per cent of fentanyl entering the United States. But if we are going to de-escalate matters and resolve the dispute, we should start by trying to understand why they think we’re the problem.
Suppose in 2024 Trump and his team had asked for a Homeland Security briefing on fentanyl. What would they have learned? They already knew about Mexico. But they would also have learned that while Canada doesn’t rival Mexico for the volume of pills being sent into the U.S., we have become a transnational money laundering hub that keeps the Chinese and Mexican drug cartels in business. And we have ignored previous U.S. demands to deal with the problem.
Over a decade ago, Vancouver-based investigative journalist Sam Cooper unearthed shocking details of how Asian drug cartels backed by the Chinese Communist Party turned British Columbia’s casinos into billion-dollar money laundering operations, then scaled up from there through illicit real estate schemes in Vancouver and Toronto. This eventually triggered the 2022 Cullen Commission, which concluded, bluntly, that a massive amount of drug money was being laundered in B.C., that “the federal anti–money laundering [AML] regime is not effective,” that the RCMP had shut down what little AML capacity it had in 2012 just as the problem was exploding in scale, and that government officials have long known about the problem but ignored it.
In 2023 the Biden State Department under Anthony Blinken told Canada our fentanyl and money laundering control efforts were inadequate. Since then Canada’s border security forces have been shown to be so compromised and corrupt that U.S. intelligence agencies sidelined us and stopped sharing information. The corruption went to the top. A year ago Cameron Ortis, the former head of domestic intelligence at the RCMP, was sentenced to 14 years in prison after being convicted of selling top secret U.S. intelligence to money launderers tied to drugs and terrorism to help them avoid capture.
In September 2024 the Biden Justice Department hit the Toronto-Dominion Bank with a $3 billion fine for facilitating $670 million in money laundering for groups tied to transnational drug trafficking and terrorism. Then-attorney general Merrick Garland said “TD Bank created an environment that allowed financial crime to flourish. By making its services convenient for criminals, it became one.”
Imagine the outcry if Trump had called one of our chartered banks a criminal organization.
We are making some progress in cleaning up the mess, but in the process learning that we are now a major fentanyl manufacturer. In October the RCMP raided massive fentanyl factories in B.C. and Alberta. Unfortunately there remain many gaps in our enforcement capabilities. For instance, the RCMP, which is responsible for border patrols between ports of entry, has admitted it has no airborne surveillance operations after 4 p.m. on weekdays or on weekends.
The fact that the prime minister’s promise of a new $1.3-billion border security and anti-drug plan convinced Trump to suspend the tariff threat indicates that the fentanyl angle wasn’t entirely a pretext. And we should have done these things sooner, even if Trump hadn’t made it an issue. We can only hope Ottawa now follows through on its promises. I fear, though, that if Ford’s Captain Canada act proves a hit with voters, the Liberals may distract voters with a flag-waving campaign against the Bad Orange Man rather than confront the deep economic problems we have imposed on ourselves.
A trade dispute appears inevitable now that Trump has signaled the 25 percent tariffs are back on. The problem is knowing whom to listen to since Trump is openly contradicting his own economic team. Trump’s top trade advisor, Peter Navarro, has written that the U.S. needs to pursue “reciprocity,” which he defines as other countries not charging tariffs on U.S. imports any higher than the U.S. charges. In the Americans’ view, U.S. trade barriers are very low and everyone else’s should be, too—a stance completely at odds with Trump’s most recent moves.
Whichever way this plays out Canada has no choice but to go all-in on lowering the cost of doing business here, especially in trade-exposed sectors such as steel, autos, manufacturing and technology. That starts with cutting taxes including carbon-pricing and rolling back our costly net-zero anti-energy regulatory regime. In the coming election campaign, that’s the agenda we need to see spelled out.
How much easier it will be instead for Canadian politicians to play the populist hero with vague anti-Trump posturing. But that would be poor substitute for a long overdue pro-Canadian economic growth agenda.
Business
Trudeau billed taxpayers $81,000 for groceries in one year
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5b285/5b285f424e59a5ba50e9fb769dcdf61b86ef6ed8" alt=""
By Ryan Thorpe
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau billed taxpayers for $157,642 in household food expenses over a two-year period, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
“The fact that Trudeau spent more on food than what the average Canadian worker makes in an entire year is outrageous,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Here’s a crazy idea: how about the prime minister pays for their own groceries like everyone else.”
Trudeau billed taxpayers $81,428 in 2022-23 and $76,214 in 2021-22, the latest years for which records are available.
The CTF filed an access-to-information request seeking “records showing total spending on household groceries for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.”
The Privy Council Office released records to the CTF showing Trudeau expensed $188,864 for “food and food preparation” during the 2021-22 and 2022-23 fiscal years.
Taxpayers were forced to pay $157,642 (or 83 per cent) of the total cost.
For the sake of comparison, the average Canadian family spent a combined $29,989 on groceries during the 2022 and 2023 calendar years, according to Canada’s Food Price Report.
That works out to an average grocery bill of $288 per week.
Meanwhile, Trudeau billed taxpayers for an average of $1,515 in household food expenses per week – five times more than what the average family spends.
“The prime minister reimburses amounts related to food based on Statistics Canada data on household spending, which is adjusted using the consumer price index to account for inflation,” according to the records.
In 2022-23, Trudeau racked up $97,645 in grocery expenses, with taxpayers forced to pay $81,428.
In 2021-22, Trudeau racked up $91,218 in grocery expenses, with taxpayers forced to pay $76,214.
“Expenditures include all food related expenses incurred by the Prime Minister’s Residence,” according to the records. “In addition to household groceries, it also includes food expenditures for events that are hosted at the residence.”
The records do not make clear how much was spent on personal groceries versus event-related expenditures.
“It’s one thing for the prime minister to bill taxpayers for government business, but taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for a single cent of the prime minister’s personal groceries,” Terrazzano said. “The current policy needs to change, the government needs to improve transparency on this spending and anyone who wants to be the next prime minister needs to commit to not billing taxpayers for their personal groceries.”
The prime minister’s annual salary is $406,200. The average Canadian worker’s annual salary is about $70,000, according to Statistics Canada data.
Taxpayers also paid for Trudeau’s personal chef. The prime minister’s personal chef took home an annual, taxpayer-funded salary between $68,468 and $79,234.
Between 2015 and 2022, taxpayers were on the hook for an average of $57,538 per year for Trudeau’s household groceries, according to previous reporting from the National Post.
The Official Residence for Canada’s prime minister is 24 Sussex. But Trudeau has lived at Rideau Cottage – a two-storey, 22-room mansion on the grounds of Rideau Hall – since becoming prime minister in 2015.
However, Trudeau’s meals have continued to be prepared at 24 Sussex, then shipped to Rideau Cottage via courier, according to the National Post.
“While Canadians have been tightening their belts during a cost-of-living crisis, Trudeau was sparing no expense,” Terrazzano said. “The prime minister’s salary is nearly six times more than the average Canadian’s and he lives in a taxpayer-funded mansion, so surely he doesn’t need to stick taxpayers with huge grocery bills.”
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Budget 2025: Health and education
-
Business2 days ago
Trump Admin investigates Biden-era decision to kill 100 million chickens over bird flu
-
Crime2 days ago
Could the UK’s ‘Grooming Gangs’ operate in Canada?
-
Crime2 days ago
AG Pam Bondi confirms DOJ will release Epstein flight logs and names
-
COVID-191 day ago
RFK Jr. pauses $240 million contract for new ‘oral COVID vaccine’
-
Alberta1 day ago
Provincial Budget 2025: Meeting the challenge
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta 2025 Budget Review from the Alberta Institute
-
National12 hours ago
Doug Ford’s Conservatives win Ontario snap election