Navigator logo

Canadians demand change in Health Care: Navigator’s latest research reveals the urgent need for reform

At a glance

A new study by Navigator reveals Canadians are no longer questioning the basis for major health-care reform, but are demanding immediate action to meet their needs.

For two decades, Navigator has been at the forefront of public opinion research on the Canadian health-care system. Our latest study reveals that Canadians are no longer questioning the need for major health-care reform but are demanding immediate action. With nearly 90 per cent of Canadians calling for change, the message is clear: the system must evolve.

The latest findings provide crucial insights into the attitudes of Canadians and their expectations of our system.

Key findings from Navigator’s Research

  1. Broad Consensus for Reform: Canadians are overwhelmingly concerned about the health-care system’s ability to meet the needs of a rapidly aging population. Nearly 90 per cent believe that the government has neglected necessary improvements for too long and 73 per cent – an increase of 14 percentage points since 2022 – agree the system needs major reform, signaling widespread agreement that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
  2. Access is a Major Concern: As staffing shortages and wait times worsen, nearly half of Canadians say their access to public health care has worsened in the last few years and almost two-thirds have experienced unreasonable waits. Additionally, 94 per cent of Canadians agree they want better access to provincial health care.
  3. Shifting Assumptions: Traditional beliefs that health-care reform is politically perilous have been upended. Navigator’s research demonstrates Canadians are increasingly receptive to reform, including private sector involvement. The demand for access to high-quality, timely, and personalized care has shifted perspectives from concerns over affordability to a more consumer-focused approach.
  4. Support for Private Sector Involvement: There is growing support for integrating the private sector to address surgery backlogs and improve efficiency. Eight in 10 Canadians endorse private sector surgeries when publicly funded, and a majority seek innovative solutions rather than additional government funding.
  5. Openness to Innovation: Canadians are embracing new approaches to health care, including services from pharmacists and nurse practitioners and digital solutions like online appointments. However, acceptance of newer technologies, such as artificial intelligence, remains cautious.
  6. Commitment to Public Values: While there is strong support for private sector involvement, Canadians still value the principles of public health care. There is significant concern about user pay models and a call to ensure equitable access.

Navigating the future

“This shift underscores the urgent need for decision makers and opinion leaders to address the evolving demands for health-care reform, or face significant consequences. Our data tells the story of a system that stands on the precipice of profound change.

As the health-care landscape evolves, the greatest risk lies not in embracing change but in resisting it. Success will hinge on public trust, transparency, and a commitment to the well-being of all Canadians.”

– Jaime Watt, Executive Chairman, Navigator Ltd.

Methodology

Navigator’s 2024 health-care study is based upon an online national survey with 1,500 Canadians. This research aims to offer valuable guidance for policy-makers and stakeholders in navigating the future of Canadian health care.

Want to learn more?

Contact us to book a presentation: Jenna Dotzert, jdotzert@navltd.com

See how our study is shaping the conversation in The Globe and Mail.

Download a copy of the research summary below:

If Justin Trudeau steps down this is what it will look like

“A tough but strong decision.”

“Put our country first.”

“His decision to withdraw from the race was in the best interest of the country.”

“A historic example of a genuine public servant.”

These are the words of a world leader, a former House Speaker, a member of the Republican party and a former president. All of them united in their praise of U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to end his re-election bid.

They could almost convince you that Biden was supremely selfless — guided only by love of country where other politicians are driven by ego and pride.

Almost.

To the intended audience, this heap of praise was a carefully co-ordinated rollout. But for Biden, it was a parachute. A lifeline. A safe landing ground. And the fact is, even despite the overwhelming pressure, he would not have done the right thing and stepped aside were it not offered to him.

Today, there is much confusion over why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, facing similar pressure, has yet to step down.

But the reason is dead simple: he doesn’t have a parachute.

I wrote in this space, regarding Biden’s exit, that it was the job of political advisers to speak truth to power. To strip away the illusions of a miraculous comeback. The same thinking applies in this case. But to be effective, that truth must be packaged and presented in the right way.

If members of Trudeau’s inner circle are to convince him to step down, they don’t just need to create that parachute — they need to make him trust that when he pulls the rip cord, it will actually open.

To do this, there are three key steps his advisers must follow.

First, they need to find their Nancy Pelosi.

No new disastrous byelection defeat, no sobering poll or scathing editorial will crack through Trudeau’s stubborn resolve. There is no new logic that will magically do the job. Trudeau and his enablers are past this point.

What they need is a credible messenger to deliver that logic.

By many accounts, it was the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who delivered the final push for Biden to exit. Apparently, as a result, they’re no longer on speaking terms.

A bitter pill requires someone with both the authority and credibility to administer it. Trudeau’s team must search high and low for their “Canadian Nancy Pelosi,” someone who can convince him to swallow that hard truth. Maybe someone with his best interests at heart — or at least, someone whose voice carries enough weight that Trudeau will finally listen.

Second, they must convince him that stepping down can be framed as an act of selflessness.

The reason Biden needed to step down was because of Biden. His performance, his polls, his reputation — all of it.

The same is true for Trudeau.

But advisers cannot build their case solely on cold, often humiliating, facts. They must try to separate the personal narrative from the political reality. Instead, they need to offer a storyline that paints Trudeau’s exit as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good — an honourable and strategic move to secure his legacy.

Third, his advisers can underline a concept that he will surely be familiar with: generational change. Just as he inherited a Liberal party on the brink of extinction and reinvigorated it with new energy, ideas, and imagery over a decade ago, the time has once again come for new voices.

Positioning this as the torch being passed, they can make the case that Liberalism will be best carried forward by renewal. And that willingness to embrace change is ironically the only way to protect the achievements that he carries most proudly.

The fundamental point about these steps is that they don’t need to be convincing to anyone other than one man.

Trudeau must believe this is the best path forward, not only for his legacy but for his party’s survival. In the end, it’s not about public opinion or pressure — it’s about the ability for his team to craft a narrative he can live with.

And if they can build an enticing narrative and sell it to Trudeau, he will do what he needs to — leave.

Republicans don’t like Kamala Harris’ family dynamics. Here are two ways she can use that to her advantage

Kamala Harris’s family won’t be standing beside her on the debate stage Tuesday night.

Nor will they be grilled on policy or cross-examined on their legislative record.

And yet, they are — nonetheless — very much in the spotlight, their lives open to scrutiny, dissection and debate.

For the longest time, seemingly all political families aspiring to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home needed to look one way: nuclear.

Harris’s family is not. Hers is non-traditional, multiracial and complicated.

In a word, normal.

And that’s why each of them is proving to be a major asset.

It’s not that her husband, Doug Emhoff, stole the show with a note-perfect speech at the Democratic National Convention last month.

Nor is it because her stepchildren Cole and Ella are proving to be a powerful force on social media, unlocking young voters for the Harris-Walz ticket.

Rather, it’s simply the fact that they exist as a genuine, relatable family unit that has laid the perfect strategic trap.

And Republicans have walked straight into it.

The more right-wing commentators and candidates decry Harris’s mixed-race family and criticize her husband’s previous marriage while simultaneously supporting a twice-divorced man with a history of extramarital affairs, launch “weird” diatribes about “childless cat ladies,” (not to mention bullying Tim Walz’s son), serve to reveal just how out of touch the MAGA movement is with the modern American family.

But more importantly, these misguided attacks open the door for Democrats to execute two key strategies.

First, to seize upon the rhetoric of “freedom.” Traditionally the mantle of the Republican party, the Harris-Walz ticket has successfully reclaimed the concept.

In his convention speech, after sharing the story of how he and his wife turned to fertility treatments to conceive their first child, Walz declared, “I’m letting you in on how we started a family because this is a big part about what this election is about. Freedom. When Republicans use the word freedom, they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office.”

Democrats, he countered, have a better message: “Mind your own damn business.” A sentiment Harris has effectively echoed in response to personal attacks.

Second, with all its diversity and complexity, Harris’s family allows her to connect with a broader range of Americans. Voters know Trump’s story inside and out. Harris, on the other hand, is still being introduced to much of the country and her family adds depth to that introduction.

The fact is voters don’t just want politicians to represent their interests — they want them to reflect their own lives and experiences.

It has long been an article of faith that reflection needed to look like “Leave It to Beaver.”

And then everything changed. Now it looks like something quite different — more diverse, modern, and in tune with the realities of today’s families.

Drawing back to what I argued in this space about Tim Walz last month, it’s this personal connection that transforms a candidate from a distant figurehead into someone authentic — who can credibly claim to understand the values and struggles of everyday people. When a candidate says they know what it’s like to make tough family medical decisions or to navigate the complexities of being a working stepmom raising a blended family, it allows them to connect with voters on a deeper, more personal level.

Crucially, it’s from this foundation of authenticity that a candidate can more effectively address wider issues — the pinch of rising grocery bills, the weight of health-care costs, and the stress of finding affordable child care.

Once this foundation is built strong, people won’t just show up at the polls to tick your name — they’ll stay with you.

Politics may be a team sport, but it’s also a family affair.

That family can either be a powerful asset or a potential liability. Kamala Harris’s family, non-traditional as it is, has proven to be the former — a reflection of modern America that resonates beyond politics. And, as a result, come January 2025, the new first family of the United States might look more reflective of the nation’s evolving identity than ever before.