Tag Archives: Procurement

Roundup: Putting vaccine procurement facts on the record

Posted on by

There was a very important interview released yesterday, with the co-chair of the government’s vaccine task force, which blew most of the narratives about the vaccine procurement out of the water. Particularly, it goes through the evaluation of domestic production capacity and candidate development, the decision to create a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates from international sources, and the fact that CanSino was just one of several options – it was never “all of our eggs,” as the Conservatives continue to lie about. She talks about how long it takes to build bio-manufacturing capacity, and people demanding that it be done overnight are like trying to tell a farmer to grow his crops faster. There are just so many falsehoods that the opposition has been circulating in order to give the impression that the federal government has been incompetent in their handling of this vaccine procurement, which this government has not been effective in pushing back against, even when the media does finally get Anita Anand to give proper answers – which tend not to stick in people’s minds. This notion that the government was simply incapable of signing good deals is ridiculous but corrosive (indeed, the opposition parties spent the whole day trying to use the Health Committee’s production powers to force the release of the vaccine contracts, in spite of the fact that they have rigid non-disclosure clauses, for which Liberals on the committee were filibustering), and yet here we are. So, it was good to finally get an interview with one of the people at the centre of this on the record, but man, it should not have taken this long.

Meanwhile, after Manitoba put on a dog and pony show about procuring their own domestically produced vaccines (which couldn’t happen until the end of the year at the earliest), Jason Kenney announced that he would do the same, but started talking about how the company – Provenance – would need 50 million doses ordered before they could properly scale up and produce them, and he wanted other provinces to sign up – err, at a point when everyone in the country should be vaccinated already – and insisted that they could simply sell surplus doses abroad. Well, the CEO of that company went on Power & Politics yesterday to say that oh no, Kenney must have been poorly briefed, and there was no 50 million dose minimum, and if they’re only contracted for two million doses, they’ll produce two million doses – but I’m not sure which of them to believe, because while Kenney is not exactly an honest broker, it’s quite possible he said the quiet part out loud when it comes to Provenance (though the industry minister is supposed to be meeting with the CEO today, so we’ll see).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford is steering Ontario into the third wave

Posted on by

Ontario is seeing the biggest rise in the B117 variant of COVID – known colloquially as the UK variant – and yet Doug Ford is promising to start lifting restrictions later this week. We’ve only just gotten first doses to residents of long-term care facilities, and even those vaccinations won’t have a dent in ICU admissions, and yet, Ford and company are barrelling ahead with nonsensical plans. Another example was to delay March Break until April, ostensibly to prevent travel (because there is always travel over holidays), but it seems to also fly in the face of measures related to closing schools to prevent more spread, and that it could have had that utility.

Nevertheless, the province’s own modelling shows a disastrous third wave oncoming because of these more transmissible variants, and point to the need to keep up current restrictions. Ford plans to go ahead with loosening them. And then there was this remarkable exchange where a TVO reporter asked if the province was headed for disaster on this current course, and the public health officials essentially confirmed it.

Ontario is being governed by a group of murderclowns. There is no other explanation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s use of stock photos is telling

Posted on by

You may have noticed that Erin O’Toole has been launching a new social media campaign about the dire state of our economy, using stock photo images to illustrate his points. Over my years in journalism, I have come to be very wary of the use of stock images by parties in their advertising, because much of it is inherently deceptive or manipulative (aside from being cheap to slap into their products) – and I will fully credit Glen McGregor for this.

So, what have we seen with two of O’Toole’s posts? One of them was about January’s brutal job numbers, accompanied by a stock photo of a young white guy in a hoodie, looking somewhat distressed. The problem? Those same job numbers showed disproportionate losses among women and visible minorities because the most affected sectors were wholesale and retail trade, as well as accommodation and food services – which makes sense given all of the closures in the second wave. In other words, the images he put up was not only tone deaf, but speaks to just who he thinks his voter base will respond sympathetically to, which says a lot. (The only upside here is that he model was actually Canadian and not a Romanian, but when said model found out about it, he chimed in).

https://twitter.com/TunaPhish09/status/1359408430264377347

O’Toole posted another one yesterday about standing up for Canadian workers, using a photo of a (white) construction worker. But again, if you look at last month’s job numbers, construction jobs were actually up – they were the main driver of goods-producing jobs (which were a net gain rather than a net loss on the month). Again, though, this is about what O’Toole is signalling what kinds of jobs he thinks matters, and it’s not where the losses have been. As he starts to make a lot of noise about his recovery plans and supposed economic dream team, he is sending very loud signals about what he thinks the recovery should look like, and it appears to be pretty divorced from what everyone else thinks it should look like, and that is something worth paying attention to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CSIS has a warning and a request

Posted on by

The head of CSIS gave a rare speech yesterday, in which he did two things – called for more modernisations to the CSIS Act in order to let the organisation collect more digital information, and to warn about state actors who are targeting the country’s economic secrets, often though partnerships that they then take advantage of (pointing the finger on this one specifically at China).

Meanwhile, here’s former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis’ assessment of what she heard in the speech, which has a few interesting insights.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213965851697154

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213967906865152

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359214670624792576

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215146657341441

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215476224704512

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s risky, ideological experiment

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole met with the Toronto Star’s editorial board yesterday, and indicated that any election won’t be his doing, which would indicate that he’s in no rush to call non-confidence with this government – and why would he? Should he topple the government (in a pandemic), he would not only have to wear that decision, but also try to explain how he would do things differently around things like vaccine procurement – something which he won’t actually do because he knows that we don’t have the domestic capacity to produce them, and that the current delays are outside of this government’s control. He won’t say those things out loud, because he needs to create a narrative about this government “failing,” even though he couldn’t do any better, but the truth has apparently never been a barrier for O’Toole (nor his predecessor).

What O’Toole is trying to do is set up a competing narrative for the post-pandemic recovery, where he gets to frame the Liberals’ plans of “build back better” – focused on green and inclusive growth – as being some kind of risky, ideologically-driven “experimentation.” The problem with this, of course, is that his plans for getting the economy back to status quo is that the old normal led us to this point – including the thousands of deaths that happened as a result of this pandemic. It would seem to me that trying to get to the old normal is risky and ideological, because they have proven to have failed, and were stifling growth – remember that calls for inclusive growth predate the pandemic and were highlighted by those radical ideologues at the Bank of Canada as a necessary pathway if the Canadian economy was to continue growing at a point where we had reached “full employment” and future growth was going to be constrained. Nevertheless, O’Toole is pandering to a voter base (and, frankly, a pundit class) that fails to see that the future economic drivers are going to be the green economy and ensuring that we get more women and minorities into the workforce. For a party that likes to fancy itself as “good economic managers,” they seem to be completely blinkered on where the market is heading, and are trying to chart a path that everyone else is rapidly abandoning.

Meanwhile, O’Toole’s finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, has been putting on a big dog and pony show about our unemployment rate over the past few days, and thinks he has a winning line in talking about “paycheques versus credit card debt,” but he’s basing it on a false premise that unemployment figures are directly comparable – they’re not, and as a former employment minister, he knows that and is lying to you. (He also knows that places like the US have their economies opened with massive death tolls as a result, but those are just details, right?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nuancing the discipline debate

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Aaron Wherry wrote a piece about party discipline, comparing Derek Sloan’s ouster from the Conservatives in Canada, with Marjorie Taylor Greene’s censure in the US. While I think Wherry makes a few interesting points, he misses a boatload of nuance that should probably be included in there – including the fact that I’m not sure that control over nominations is necessarily an issue of party discipline per se, and I fear that the piece suffers a bit of conflation as a result.

What I thought in particular was his point where parties can exert more control over who can and cannot get nominations in Canada, where party influence is much weaker in American primaries. The ability for party leaders to be able to veto nominations is a fairly recent development, dating back to the Canada Elections Act reforms in 1970, when they needed an accountability mechanism when party names appeared on ballots for the first time, and in the interests of not burdening Elections Canada with intra-party disputes over nominations, they gave party leaders the ability to sign off on nominations. At no point in the debates (and I did read the Hansards and committee transcripts when I was researching for my book) was the possibility of this being used as a tool of party discipline raised. Nevertheless, this became essentially a tool of blackmail, where leaders could threaten to withhold signing the nomination papers of any MP who wanted to run again if they didn’t toe the party line. But this is only a tool of discipline for an incumbent, not someone who has never run before, which is more what Wherry is talking about with Sloane and Greene.

In either of those cases, these were newbies to the party, and control over who is and is not running is part of the argument he is making – that it’s tighter control in Canada than in the US, and maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think there is more elegance to the argument than that. When it comes to the more substantial difference between Canada and the US when it comes to quality control of who winds up on the ballot is how the grassroots mechanisms different. In Canada, it is ostensibly a matter for the riding association, which can be hundreds of thousands of members – especially if there is a membership drive for a contested nomination – but that’s not the same as a primary, which is many, many times larger. There is a more robust intra-party green-light process in Canada that has grown up over time, but the bigger problem right now is it is being abused, and parties are gaming the nomination process, in many cases to favour candidates that their leader would prefer, and this is a problem that very much needs to be solved as soon as possible. While yes, it may be preferable that we have a bit more quality control over our candidates (emphasis on “bit” – plenty of people get elected who never should have made it past their green-light process), it should still be a more grassroots driven process, and not be the sole discretion of the party leader. That is the part that is harming us more than helping us, and the happy medium won’t be found until we get back to a place where we aren’t selecting party leaders through membership votes, and the grassroots has their proper role in ground-up democracy restored.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, there won’t be a spring election

Posted on by

I wanted to take a few moments to vent, dear readers, about the constant talk about an election. Because, quite frankly, there is too much talk about it right now and it’s starting to do my head in. There is no chance that anybody actually wants to go to an election right now, and yet that’s all anyone can talk about. We’re seeing another round of “exclusive polls” being published here, there and yonder, because everyone is super keen on it, for no reason other than the pundit class has become bored and are itching for something to do.

Guys. Stop trying to make an election happen. It’s not going to happen.

We are still not out of the second wave, and there won’t be sufficient vaccine distribution to reach the bulk of the population until the end of September. Any party that tries to push an election before then is going to be suicidal, no matter how high their poll numbers may be looking for them. The Liberals are not going to force it now because their numbers are healthy, because Canadians know when parties are cynically trying to take advantage of those numbers and force an unnecessary election – there is plenty of precedent of governments being punished for doing so. The fact that the vaccine rollout has had hiccups that have punished them at the polls (in part because these same pundits have decided to coalesce on the narrative of “botched” and “off-the-rails,” in spite of facts and logic) would make anyone too hesitant to pull the trigger, even on the strength of what they’re offering on the budget. Unless the other parties vote down said budget or a non-confidence motion (over what? Something that the PM has little control over and they could do no better on), any attempt to go to the GG or the Administrator outside of that would immediately be clocked as a cynical ploy while there’s a pandemic on. The fact that some provinces have done so is not licence for the federal government to do so.

“But they need to do it this year or it’s not going to happen!” is usually what I hear as an excuse. Maybe in the fall, on an economic update – maybe. But frankly, with the vaccinations rolling up then, and the economy re-opening for realsies (we hope), frankly I would presume people to be too busy or preoccupied to focus on an election, or to want one for no reason other than for the Liberals to try and regain a majority parliament. Nevertheless, anyone who thinks it’s going to happen in the spring or even the summer is huffing the fumes of those polls.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not releasing the contracts

Posted on by

It seems that prime minister Justin Trudeau has rejected a call by the premiers to release the details of the vaccine contracts – as well he should have. So much of the past couple of weeks’ panic over the delays in Pfizer and Moderna doses has been this self-assuredness that the federal government must have negotiated a bad deal, and they’re going to “prove it” by demanding to see what’s in the contracts. After all, most of the conservative-leaning premiers are still operating under the assumption that Trudeau is some kind of naïf who can barely put his own pants on let alone govern a country (while most of them believe themselves to be super-geniuses). Of course, all that making the contracts public would do is to allow other countries to start trying to outbid what we paid for our doses in order to get the companies to break the contracts in order to get their own orders faster.

With this in mind, I would point you in the direction of this longread from Maclean’s, which goes through the story of the procurement process for these vaccines, including talking to some of the players involved, and while no secrets are divulged, some of the calculations on the part of the companies is better fleshed out, including the fact that our public healthcare system ostensibly makes out rollout likely to go more smoothly, which is good for the companies because it means fewer wasted doses. Now, mind you, it’s not going to be even across the country given the disparities in health systems between provinces, and the varying levels of incompetence that some of the provincial governments display, but there are some good insights in the piece, so I would encourage you to take the time to read it through.

Continue reading →

QP: Pouncing on COVAX

Posted on by

There was a second Liberal in the Chamber today, with Francis Drouin joining Mark Gerretsen, not that this made the situation any better. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives, appearing by video, and she demanded government support for their Supply Day motion on the creation of a Canada-US committee. Chrystia Freeland, also by video, responded that the Conservatives’ plan around Trump’s tariffs was to wave the white flag. Bergen tried again, bringing in the concerns over Line 5, to which Freeland offered calm assurances that they were working with the Americans on this file. Bergen then switched to the topic of vaccines, worrying that we were dropping in rankings, to which Freeland gave the usual assurances about the portfolio and that the schedule was still intact. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he said it was “humiliating” that the government was drawing from the COVAX fund, misconstruing the deal. Freeland responded that COVAX was always part of the strategy, and this proved the system was working. Deltell pressed upon the urgency of the need for vaccines, and Freeland gave the same assurances.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too brought up the false reading of the COVAX programme, calling it “embarrassing,” and Freeland repeated that it was always part of the strategy and listed other allies who were part of it. Therrien demanded a plan for vaccinations, for which Freeland calmly stated that they also shared the sense of urgency, which is why they are sharing all of their information.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he tied the loss of lives to vaccine delays, and wanted to know why the government let people down. Freeland read off the talking points on the breadth of our vaccine portfolio. Singh switched to English to repeat the same ghoulish framing and brought up COVAX to repeat the same question on letting people down. Freeland once again repeated that this was always part of the strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The COVAX conundrum

Posted on by

It was another day of less than optimal vaccine news yesterday – first a warning that there was going to be more fluctuation in future shipments including what appears to be another reduction in the next Moderna shipment (of which we’re still not sure the allocation yet), followed by news that we are in line for a shipment from the COVAX facility, which comes with its own particular special challenges.

Why? Because part of COVAX is to provide vaccines to the developing world, and it appears that Canada is accepting vaccines that would be going to them. Except that’s not the deal we signed – while we are funding vaccines for the developing world through COVAX (and will be sending our excess doses once our own population is vaccinated), part of the procurement diversification strategy was the stream under COVAX that we get some doses while also funding for the developing world. But of course, that wasn’t clearly explained – and the minister did have to do the media rounds to do that later in the day, by which it was too late, and you had everyone tut-tutting that we’re taking doses from those who need it more than we do. Which, incidentally, is happening at the same time that the government is being yelled at for not procuring more doses faster (as though yelling will make Pfizer’s retooling go faster or Moderna’s supply chain issues resolve themselves), and lo, we have doses that we paid for, but we’re going to look like jerks if we take them. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Good thing this government can communicate effectively. Oh, wait…

Continue reading →