Mediaboss Marketing

The federal governments payment program for the vaccine-injured is getting a $36 million top up from the feds, but accessing that money is proving difficult.

Of the 2,233 claims made to the Vaccine Injury Support Program, just 138 a little over 6% have been approved by the medical review board for the program, which has paid out $11.2 million so far.

The Liberals have allocated an additional $36 million in the recent budget to the Vaccine Injury Support Program, over the next two years.

Oxaro administers the Vaccine Injury Support Program for the feds for all provinces and territories, except Quebec, which has itsownprogram.

Ross Wightman, who was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre system after receiving a COVID vaccine, was one of the recipients, getting a one-time payout of around $250,000, the maximum offered by the program. He also receives $90,000 annually in income replacement.

I dont know if theres even an amount that would ease the pain, said Wightman.

Despite being poked, prodded, and tested for months, doctors were fearful of the consequences they might face from superiors if they officially declared that the vaccines caused Wightmans injuries.

He has permanent nerve damage in his hands from the Guillain-Barre. He can no longer work or do simple tasks around the house, resulting in his wife no longer being able to work, as she needs to take care of the household tasks and children.

Given the extent of the permanent life-changing injuries, a couple hundred thousand dollars isnt much, thats for sure. No. Its just a wake of destruction thats left behind for family and all that stuff, he added.

It took months of struggle and jumping through hoops for Wightman to get paid. Even still, hes struggled with being reimbursed for expenses. He said that he finally received $15,000 for his expenses after hounding them for four months, but it was only a quarter of what hed had to spend.

Waiting years for payment from the vaccine injury program is the best some could hope for.

Julie Gamble has been dealing with the program for years, only to face being hung up on by the phone and not getting replies to her emails.

Shes connected with many others through various vaccine-injured support groups, only to find that theyve faced the same struggles having submitted all of their medical records and hearing nothing but excuses as to why theyre not getting back to us.

Our families have been destroyed. We stepped up to the plate and did what was asked of us. Nothing about this is fair to any of us, said Gamble.

Gamble says she was permanently injured by the vaccine with polyneuropathy, estimating she has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and lost income.

She said that her short-term memory is very poor, and she has almost no muscle remaining in her hands. She does not think she will ever work again.

Its the biggest regret of my life that I got this vaccine, she said.

She almost didnt get her second shot. After having a horrific reactionto the first dose, she said her pharmacist did not want to give her the second. She went to see an immunologist at the pharmacists recommendation. Instead, she was admitted to the hospital waiting room and consulted by a doctor, who encouraged her to get the second shot, which she did.

On my way home, I knew Id made a mistake, she said. That night, I ended up blind in my right eye. My bladder let go. My eyeswere swollenlike eggs. I had a rash all over my body, and I couldnt stay awake. I tasted metal in my mouth.

Since her injury, Gamble has been trying to connect with people in similar situations online. Any time she posts about vaccine injuries, she said she gets suspendedfrom Facebook and other social media platforms for false and misleading information.

Despite her husband working as much as he can and receiving CPP disability payments, Gamble has had to use food banks to get by.

True Northreached out toHealth Canada, the Vaccine Injury Support Program, and Oxaro but received no response.

View post:
Only 6% of vaccine injury claimants have been paid as Liberals earmark $36 million for program - True North

PC leader Tony Wakeham focused Mondays question period on how the provincial government has handled mental health and addiction problems.

PC Leader Tony Wakeham focused Mondays question period on the provincial governments handling of mental health and addiction problems. (Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly)

The Progressive Conservatives hammered the Newfoundland and Labrador government over ongoing drug overdoses Monday, arguing it's a health-care problem that has people slipping through the cracks to become a criminal justice problem.

PC leader and Stephenville-Port au Port MHA Tony Wakeham said the province has seen number of overdose deaths accelerate in recent years and asked Premier Andrew Furey if he thought the government was doing enough to address them.

Wakeham said 51 people died last year due to overdoses, a 143 per cent increase over 2019, when 21 people died, according to an access-to-information request filed by his party.

"In September it was reported that in eight months 24 Newfoundlanderand Labradorianresidents had died due to overdose. Four months later, that number more than doubled to 51," said Wakeham.

Furey said everyone in the province has been touched in some way by mental health and addiction problems and his government was doing its best to support people.

"Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that has gripped the entire nation, starting west and moving east. And we're not immune here," said Furey during question period in the House of Assembly.

Furey said it's an "evolving crisis" and drugs have gotten stronger. He said his government is focused on education and mental health and addiction strategies.

Mobile units timeline

Noting the 2024 budget allocated $1 million for seven mobile crisis teams, Wakeham said one unit is up and running in his district, but he wanted to know whether the others would be running by the end of the year and whether staff had been recruited.

Health Minister Tom Osborne said they're being held up because the budget still isn't official.

"As soon as the budget is passed, we can get on with that work in earnest," he said.

Health Minister Tom Osborne says his government is acting to address the problems but more can be done. (Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly)

Osborne defended the Liberal government's record, saying they were focused on increasing health-care positions, and accused Wakeham of being focused on cutting positions when he was CEO of the Labrador-Grenfell health authority.

"Mr. Speaker, that is the contrast between this side and that side," said Osborne to applause from his colleagues.

Wakeham shot back, "Speaker, I'm not even going to respond. Not even going to respond."

He then suggested the provincial government isn't acting with urgency to address the problem.

From health care to justice system

Harbour Main MHA Helen Conway-Ottenheimer said the number of files assigned to the drug investigative unit rose from 80 to 112 to 141 between 2021 and 2023, according to information obtained from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

"Does the justice minister acknowledge that the drug crisis in this province is only getting worse?" she asked.

Justice Minister John Hogan acknowledged it's getting worse and said it's being taken seriously.

"I think it is fair to say and it's obvious to say that it is getting worse," said Hogan.

Conway-Ottenheimer also said information from the RNC says charges laid by the drug enforcement unit had also risenmore than sevenfoldin two years,from 25 in 2021 to 181 in 2023.

"The drug problem in our province is spiraling out of control. When will this government treat the underlying addictions crisis as a health crisis and not leave it to our police to pick up the pieces for this government's failure to act?" she said.

Osborne said health professionals and law enforcement work together, and get training to handle mental health issues.

"There is training and so on in place for those that are involved in responding to individuals with mental health crises or mental health issues. That will continue. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where all individuals, all agencies, all groups are working together and must work together to ensure that we respond in the most appropriate way," he said.

Harbour Main MHA Helen Conway-Ottenheimer says there is a link between untreated mental health conditions and crime, and people go untreated when they have no access to health care. (Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly)

Conway-Ottenheimer said there's a clear link between untreated mental health conditions and crime, but people go untreateddue to a lack of access to health care.

She asked if Hogan knew how many people are incarcerated or facing charges who have untreated mental health conditions.

Hogan said he didn't have that number but the government is working to address facility issues, noting the budget has $15 million set aside to make additional space for services at Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

Terra Nova MHA Lloyd Parrott said a 2018 report estimated between77 per cent and 87 per cent of inmates had mental health issues, substance abuse issues or both. Six years on from that report, he said, he believes the situation is worse.

"Sadly, too many people fall through the cracks under this government's watch and instead they end up committing crimes before they have a chance to access the help they desperately need," said Parrott.

Osborne said there is "no question" that more needs to be done for people with mental health and addictions issues. He said the budget has support like the mobile crisis response units and efforts to enhance addictions centres.

He also said the six-bed mentalhealth unit at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bayis temporarily closed due to staffing issues, but it is expected to reopen in the spring.

Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Click here to visit our landing page.

See the original post:
PC opposition blasts Liberals over handling of mental health and drug crisis - Yahoo News Canada

Justin Trudeau was hoping his housing budget would reverse the governments slide in popularity. Instead, things have gotten worse.

For the good of the Liberal Party he leads, the Prime Minister needs to think about his future.

The government gambled everything on this budget. Younger voters are unhappy. Economic uncertainty and high interest rates have worsened housing shortages, making ownership impossible and rent exorbitant for many. Their support has shifted emphatically from the Liberals to the Conservatives.

The budgets answer: billions of dollars to support new housing starts, housing infrastructure and apartment construction, along with measures to make it easier to secure a first mortgage.

Party strategists hoped the housing-focused budget would narrow the huge gap in support between the two parties over the next few months by winning back younger voters. So far, its not working.

A Nanos postbudget poll showed Conservative support increasing to 42 per cent, with the Liberals down to 23 per cent. Ipsos has only 17 per cent of Canadians giving the budget two thumbs up, while 40 per cent give it two thumbs down. Similarly, Leger has half of all Canadians rejecting the budget and only 20 per cent welcoming it.

A capital-gains tax increase included in the budget may be part of the problem. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland insisted only the very rich would be forced to pay. But it turns out the very rich include family doctors, other small business owners and people hoping to sell the cottage one day.

It also didnt help that everyone from former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge to Bill Morneau the previous Liberal finance minister, for crying out loud attacked the budget for increasing taxes in a time of weak productivity and little or no growth.

Mr. Trudeau is now ratcheting up his attacks on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who recently consorted with some anti-Trudeau protesters once again, and who has earned the dubious distinction of being endorsed by lunatic-fringe commentator Alex Jones in the United States.

But this isnt likely to matter much to people whose mortgages are up for renewal.

The most important legislative item, outside the budget itself, is the pharmacare bill. Once it passes, the legislative record of this government will largely be complete.

The supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is supposed to last until October, 2025. But its more likely the government will fall over the next budget in spring of next year, if not before. Once pharmacare is law, what possible reason would New Democrat Leader Jagmeet Singh have to keep this tired government alive?

Mr. Trudeau has pretty much run out of opportunities to change the narrative. Interest rates have not gone down as hoped. Housing starts will be down again this year, and will remain weak over the following two years, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whatever the budget might promise. The economy crawls forward on its stomach.

The government has reached the point where it must both raise taxes and increase debt to fund programs that most of us dont care about or dont support. People have crossed their arms. They are simply waiting for the day when they can vote Mr. Trudeau out of office.

The Prime Minister has a choice. He can step down this spring or early summer, and let the party select a new leader. Or he can stay on and meet his fate.

Mr. Trudeau may believe that he and only he can prevent the ruination of Canada as he sees it at the hands of Mr. Poilievre. But how can that be true? Given the Liberals current electoral prospects, wouldnt someone else anyone else likely fare better?

Stories have surfaced that Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc might be interested. Mark Carney, former governor of the Canadian and English central banks, is giving speeches. Others are testing the waters.

A new leader doesnt guarantee a Liberal victory in the next election far from it. But more might be saved than in an election with the current leader.

The Liberal Party was in the ditch when Justin Trudeau came to its rescue in 2013. He needs to ask himself in what state it will be if he stays.

Visit link:
Opinion: For the good of the Liberal party, Trudeau needs to think about his future - The Globe and Mail

Open this photo in gallery:

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland deliveres the federal budget in the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 16.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

In her budget speech this month, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland pointed to 1980s-era tax changes by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney as a precedent for boosting the tax take on capital gains.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney raised the capital-gains inclusion rate to 75 per cent higher than the rate were establishing today, she said.

If one were to leave it at that, the Liberals come off quite well, having decided to boost the inclusion rate for capital gains the amount subject to tax to two-thirds, well below that of the latter years of the Mulroney government.

But Ms. Freeland was only telling half the story. The Mulroney government did raise the capital-gains inclusion rate, in two steps, to 75 per cent from 50 per cent. But that action was just one element of a broad tax reform that also included cuts to the corporate tax rate and top personal income tax rates, and a generous exemption for capital gains.

The Liberals have headed in the opposite direction, starting in 2016 with an increase in the marginal tax rate for individuals with a taxable income of $200,000 or more. The Trudeau government hasnt increased the broad corporate tax rate, but it has targeted sectors with so-called windfall taxes. So this months changes to the inclusion rate for capital gains feeds into a higher tax rate for higher earning individuals an increase on top of an increase.

The result is a bigger tax bite on capital gains: $19.4-billion over five years for the federal government, with a $6.9-billion spike this fiscal year. On top of that, Ottawa estimates that the provinces and territories will reap as much as 60 per cent of its own total, up to an additional $11.6-billion. All told, individuals and corporations could be handing over as much as an extra $31-billion in the coming half-decade.

Without the $6.9-billion windfall, Ms. Freeland would have had to rein in $17.2-billion in program-spending increases in fiscal 2024-25. The Liberals arent trying to improve the tax system; they are plugging a hole in the budget.

It is true that the changes proposed by the Liberals do equalize the tax treatment of dividends and capital gains. Thats an important principle of tax policy the idea of a buck is a buck, and that tax considerations should not distort investment decisions, notes University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe. On that narrow basis, increasing the capital-gains inclusion rate makes some sense.

But levelling the playing field does not mean it has to be levelled up. As was the case in the 1980s, the Liberals could have boosted the inclusion rate for capital gains but then cut the tax rates applied to those gains for individuals and corporations. Prof. Tombe notes that, had the Liberals taken a revenue-neutral approach, they would have been able to cut the top personal income tax rate by four percentage points rolling back their 2016 hikes.

The Liberals have gone to great pains to portray the capital-gains changes as a tax paid by the ultrawealthy, saying just 40,000 Canadians with an average gross income of $1.4-million would be affected. In other words: not your problem, middle-class Canada.

That assertion glosses over a couple of important facts, however. First, the intimation that the bigger capital-gains tax bite is linked to a seven-digit income is largely a red herring. The underlying income of anyone with capital gains doesnt affect their exposure to the higher inclusion rate. A person selling a family cottage where the individual capital gains exceeded $250,000 will pay more in taxes, even if they have a middle-class income.

More broadly felt will be the second-hand effect from higher capital-gains taxes on corporations. Shareholders (both individuals and pension plan funds) will feel that pinch, indirectly.

There is another basic principle of taxation policy: Whatever you tax, contracts. Higher tobacco taxes mean fewer cigarettes will be bought, for instance a point Ms. Freelands budget makes in hiking excise taxes.

Whats true for smokes is true for investment: increased capital-gains taxes will be a disincentive. Given Canadas deepening productivity woes, it is precisely the wrong policy.

There is a thoughtful plan that would create a level playing field for investment capital, iron out distortions and galvanize private-sector growth as the Mulroney Tories did in the 1980s. The Liberal tax hike, designed to pay for a spending spree, instead punishes prosperity.

Continued here:
Globe editorial: The Liberals' capital-gains tax hike punishes prosperity - The Globe and Mail

After a decade of failed policies and inaction to address housing affordability, the Liberals have reaffirmed their commitment to forcing workers to raid their superannuation to access housing and have now indicated that they will make every cent of workers retirement savings available at auction which will further inflate house prices.

This is an act of compounding bastardry.

The Liberals would once again as they have with other universal entitlements when they have had the determination to do so pull the generational ladder out from under young Australians.

Peter Duttons plan for the housing market is to make this generation of first-home aspirants choose between a dignified retirement and a house, a choice he did not have to make himself.

This will supercharge house price growth. Every first-home buyer would be forced to raid their super just to remain competitive if all of their competitors are tapping their super balances too. This policy is absolutely salivating to property developers, boomer property investors, and the banks who will get to write ever-increasing mortgages with this generation.

In an auction where everyone is bidding with their super, the only winner is the seller.

The Liberals policy robs workers of the magic of compound interest to enjoy in retirement. Workers, with their unions, fought for universal superannuation alongside an adequate age pension to ensure every worker not just the wealthy and management had a pool of retirement savings that maintained their income and standard of living into retirement.

A report by the Super Members Council this year found that forcing first-home buyers to raid their super savings could force median prices in the five biggest Australian cities to increase by $75,000. If a couple of 30-year-olds withdrew $35,000 in super for a house today, they can expect to retire with $195,000 less in todays dollars.

If the Liberals have their way, their policy would also widen the gender gap in retirement savings and disproportionately harm working women, who already retire with $136,000 less in superannuation over their working lives, according to a 2023 report by The Australia Institutes Centre for Future Work.

This thoroughly bad policy wouldnt just rob the workers who are forced to drain their super for a deposit, it would cripple the retirement returns of every worker in Australia. The preservation of superannuation for retirement is a core reason why superannuation funds have been able to get phenomenal returns for everyone and why super funds generate better rates of return than banks.

The fact that superannuation funds do not have to have cash on hand for them to use at any moment means they can invest for the long term. This means that rather than investing in something for a short-run return, they can build and generate returns from nation-building infrastructure like roads, property and airports. If superannuation funds are required to have the cash on hand to pay out their members for a house deposit, the capacity for workers to benefit from compound interest is completely diluted.

Every aspect of this generates harm and perpetuates the problems it purports to solve.

It doesnt make houses more affordable it makes them more expensive.

It doesnt help first-home buyers get a house it just makes them drain their super for houses that might have otherwise been cheaper.

It makes those who drained their super poorer in retirement by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It makes every worker in Australia poorer by smashing the ability of super funds to invest.

It is clear that this policy, promulgated by one-note anti-super ideologue Andrew Bragg, is designed to undermine the super system.

Setting the housing market on fire will do nothing to help people buy a house. It is clear we need additional supply of housing to make houses and rents more affordable. Building more housing, including social, affordable, and public housing, will make housing more affordable. This can also be facilitated by taking the handbrakes off supply, which is a meaningful step forward.

We need better rights for renters, so they arent subject to excessive rent increases and have more secure housing. And we need to ensure theres a fair level of Rent Assistance for retirees and those out of work to alleviate rental stress.

Combined with more secure jobs and higher wages, an evidence-based housing policy will mean more workers will get access to permanent housing and affordable rents.

A policy distractions like the one Dutton is tying himself to is yet another example of a policy that doesnt work for working people, but does work for landlords, property investors and the big banks.

Joseph Mitchell is assistant secretary of the ACTU, and a former organisation political director and policy officer, as well as working with the Innovation and Growth Taskforces

Read this article:
Liberals' plan to destroy super will drive up house prices - The New Daily