Discover Narcity
Get the latest and greatest stories every day in your inbox.
Health ministers set to meet in Winnipeg after Ottawa announces funding extension
Canada's health ministers set to meet in Winnipeg
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby
Canadian health ministers meet in Winnipeg today after the federal government announced it would extend funding for mental health, addictions and home care by one year.
Federal Health Minister Marjorie Michel made the announcement on social media late Wednesday, saying the extension represents $1.2 billion in funding.
The existing funding was set to expire next year.
Manitoba Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara is to host provincial and territorial counterparts today, and Michel is to co-chair Friday's meeting.
Provincial health ministers had said they were worried about "profound and negative" effects on patients and health-care jobs if the federal funding agreements weren't renewed in this year's budget.
Provinces and territories also raised concerns about the future of the Canada Health Transfer as the federal budget states the minimum growth rate will drop to three per cent from five per cent in 2028.
Asagwara says after meeting with Michel that she has shared the unanimous concerns of health ministers and is keen to hear more on federal health funding.
"I am thrilled to be able to say that I feel Minister Michel has been listening," Asagwara said Wednesday.
"I look forward to hearing some news from the minister on this, we all do."
Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, said funding commitments should be a priority.
She said the federal government can't lose sight of the importance of health care as it ramps up spending on defence and other priorities.
"There has to be a just balance, and we have to see our health-care system as an investment, as a human rights issue, and as proud Canadians, it's the core of our fabric, and we need to hear our prime minister speak more loudly about it."
The Canadian Medical Association said in a release Wednesday that the meeting is an important opportunity for the federal government to provide certainty on funding to provinces and territories.
The association said strong and reliable federal funding to maintain universal health care is foundational to growing Canada's economy.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 15, 2026.
By Ian Bickis | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
Supreme Court hears challenge of law clearing path for Ontario Place redevelopment
Top court hears challenge of Ontario Place law
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
The Supreme Court of Canada plans to hear arguments today from a coalition challenging the constitutionality of legislation that smooths the way for major changes at Ontario Place.
The case unfolding in Canada's top court could reverberate far beyond the Toronto waterfront park that opened in 1971.
Over the years, the theme park featured a spherical theatre that showed movies on a huge screen, children's play areas, a revolving concert stage and several pavilions suspended above the water.
The provincial government wants to redevelop Ontario Place to include an elaborate spa operated by a private company, a relocated Ontario Science Centre, revamped play and shoreline areas, a parking facility and a provincial police detachment.
The coalition Ontario Place Protectors challenged the province's Rebuilding Ontario Place Act on the basis that it insulates state action from scrutiny by the courts and therefore violates the Constitution.
The coalition also argued that exemptions from environmental and heritage laws and municipal noise regulations amount to a breach of public trust.
An Ontario judge dismissed the application in 2024 and a challenge of the ruling in the provincial Court of Appeal was also unsuccessful.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous Court of Appeal, Justice Grant Huscroft said there was no doubt that the provincial government's decision to redevelop Ontario Place is strongly opposed by a number of concerned citizens and organizations.
Political opposition to the plan has not swayed the government and the coalition has turned to the court in an effort to stop it, Huscroft said.
"But there is no basis for the court to do so. The court is not an alternative forum for resolving political grievances. The only legitimate question for the court is whether the impugned provisions of ROPA violate the law or the Constitution," he wrote.
"They do not, and the appeal must be dismissed."
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Ontario Place Protectors' case.
The coalition says provincial superior courts have historical and inherent jurisdiction to review laws and government actions protected under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and to provide effective remedies when governments do not respect the limits on their powers.
The coalition says the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act's scope is unprecedented and appears to violate section 96 by removing the essential core powers of the courts.
It argues the legislation severely limits or entirely eliminates the ability of courts to hold Crown officials accountable through declaratory actions, damage awards and injunctions when they have acted beyond their powers.
The coalition is also seeking to have the doctrine of public trust acknowledged as an unwritten constitutional principle rooted in English common law and inherited by Canada.
It argues the doctrine of public trust maintains that natural and cultural assets are essential to public welfare and must be safeguarded by the state in its role as trustee.
Margie Zeidler, the daughter of Ontario Place architect Eberhard Zeidler, remembers visiting the park as a child.
"It was extraordinary. It was a public place," she said in an interview. "You could have a picnic in the forest. You could watch films at Cinesphere. You could watch any musical performance at the forum."
Zeidler, a member of the Ontario Place Protectors coalition, says the provincial government's actions have made the fight about more than just the historic theme park. "It became more, not about Ontario Place, but about, wait a minute, what democracy are we living in here?" she said. "I didn't know governments could do that."
In their written submission to the Supreme Court, the Crown and the Ontario attorney general say the case should be dismissed.
The immunity provided by the provincial legislation does not go as far as the coalition alleges, the submission says: "(The act) does not make Ontario Place a lawless zone."
Rather, it immunizes the Crown, its servants and agents from civil causes of action arising from specific circumstances, the submission says.
The Crown and attorney general also urge the court to reject the claim that the legislation is invalid because of the doctrine of public trust.
"The novel doctrine articulated by the Appellant is not an unwritten constitutional principle, and even if such a doctrine existed in law, which is denied, there is no evidence in the record that could warrant applying this far-reaching new doctrine to Ontario Place," the submission says.
The case has attracted submissions from interveners, including several provinces, First Nations, civil liberties groups and environmental organizations.
The Supreme Court often reserves its decisions until a later date, meaning a ruling in the case might not come until next year.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 15, 2026.
By Jim Bronskill | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
'Hardly surprising' many Alberta business leaders staying mum on separation: expert
Unsurprising many CEOs mum on referendum: expert
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
The silence from many Alberta business leaders on the upcoming provincial referendum comes as no surprise to one corporate leadership expert.
Monday's vote includes 10 questions: one on whether Alberta should remain in Canada or move toward a binding separation referendum; five on immigration and four on constitutional matters.
Richard Leblanc, a professor of governance, law and ethics at York University, says there's a tradition in Canada for CEOs to stay in their lanes and not risk alienating shareholders or employees by taking a political stand.
But Leblanc says there may be times a company's board of directors agrees that a CEO should speak out on a matter that affects the well-being of the business, as Alberta taking steps toward a potential split from Canada arguably would.
A handful of leaders at big, publicly traded companies are among the more than 70 signatories to an open letter from the Calgary Chamber of Commerce warning of the economic fallout of separation, while the top brass at many prominent firms have stayed mum.
A few top executives have made their views known: Imperial Oil's John Whelan has spoken in favour of Alberta and Canada sticking together while Atco Ltd.'s Nancy Southern has warned of the disruption a split would cause.
"It's hardly surprising that a majority of CEOs are not speaking up," Leblanc said. "There's more to be lost than gained, generally, by speaking up about a political matter."
Some corporations have former prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers as directors on their boards, who can advise on when and how to weigh in on politics, Leblanc noted.
Atco's board includes former Alberta premier Jason Kenney, who has been a fervent voice in favour of the province staying in Confederation, as well as former federal cabinet minister Rona Ambrose.
Leblanc said customers and employees may have "legitimate expectations" that a CEO take a public stand on something that could affect the business, though getting board sign-off on the message is no easy feat.
"Sometimes the risk of not doing something can be far greater than doing something and dealing with the blowback."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 15, 2026.
Companies in this story: (TSX:ACO.X) (TSX:IMO)
By Lauren Krugel | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
Élisabeth Rioux répond à ceux qui se permettent de critiquer sa fille Wolfie sur Instagram
« Si seulement vous saviez combien de fois par jour les gens répondent à mes stories... »
En juillet 2020, l'entrepreneure et créatrice de contenu Élisabeth Rioux a donné naissance à sa fille Wolfie, qu'elle surnomme affectueusement Doupi. Depuis, elle a voyagé dans plusieurs pays en sa compagnie et partage plein de moments de son quotidien avec elle sur ses réseaux sociaux.
C'est d'ailleurs sous une photo du duo pendant leur voyage en Italie que la maman a adressé un sujet qui semble beaucoup faire jaser ses abonné.es.
Élisabeth mentionne qu'elle reçoit de nombreux messages concernant l'habillement de sa fille et elle avait besoin de passer un message :
« Si elle dit chaussettes & crocs, ce sera chaussettes et crocs. Je m'en fous de savoir si ce qu'elle porte match parfaitement avec son outfit, mais laissez-moi vous dire : Elle s'en soucie beaucoup! Ses choix peuvent parfois sembler intéressants pour moi, je pense que c'est ça la magie et je ne voudrais jamais limiter son imagination juste pour qu'elle fit plus dans les normes... »
Elle poursuit en expliquant que les gens disent toutes sortes de commentaires, autant sur les vêtements que les accessoires qui choisis par Wolfie :
« Si seulement vous saviez combien de fois par jour les gens répondent à mes stories pour me dire que ses outfits sont bizarres, pas corrects, pas assortis, trop enfantins, etc. Mon bébé est coloré, elle est extra, elle a de l'assurance et comme elle le répète à chaque fois qu'elle s'habille : "Doupi est belle." »
L'entrepreneure conclut son message en s'adressant à sa communauté : « Je suis fière d'elle, je suis fière de la laisser faire, mais parfois je suis vraiment préoccupée par les gens autour, je souhaite juste que quand elle grandira, la société le fera aussi et laissera chacun être lui-même dans ses propres couleurs. »
En story, elle a également profité de cette intervention pour rappeler aux gens d'être respectueux en soulevant que l'habit d'une petite fille ne devrait pas autant affecter les autres.