Tag Archives: Public Health

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 →

QP: Disputing the vaccine math

Posted on by

Another day of the Liberals only putting up Mark Gerretsen in the House, another day of their ongoing contempt for what Parliament means in the face of a pandemic – made worse by this being PMQ day, and the prime minister would only appear virtually. Erin O’Toole led off, in person, on Enbridge Line 5 once again, noting that Imperial Oil is making contingency plans to move the oil by rail if it is shut down, and demanded action. Justin Trudeau, appearing by video, assured him they were engaging with the Americans on Line 5. O’Toole insisted that Trudeau wasn’t engaged as it wasn’t mentioned in any of the readouts of his calls with top US officials, and Trudeau repeated that they are engaging on Line 5 and pointing out its importance. O’Toole pivoted to the front page of the Globe and Mail and its denunciation of the vaccine plan, and demanded a new one — err, which is mostly provincial jurisdiction. Trudeau reminded him of their strong procurement plan, and investments in domestic options. O’Toole changed to French to raise the issue of PnuVax not getting any domestic production contracts, to which Trudeau reminded him of all the domestic investments they made. O’Toole railed that no shipments arrived last week, to which Trudeau reminded him that there will be the fulfilled contracts by the end of the quarter, in spite of fluctuations week-to-week.

Yves-François Blanchet got up to lead for the Bloc, and he lamented the vaccine numbers before demanding the contracts be made public, to which Trudeau contested his assertions.  Blanchet wondered if he got any contracts about getting Pfizer doses from the US, to which Trudeau called out his fear-mongering, and said that they were working to ensure supply chains remain open.

Jagmeet Singh was then up for the NDP, and in French, he wondered why the government didn’t plan for domestic production a year ago, to which Trudeau reminded him that they did invest in domestic options from the very start. Singh accused the government of giving “mixed messages” on domestic production — which is not actually true — before repeating his question in English, for which he got the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Domestic vaccine production…eventually

Posted on by

There was a sliver of positive news yesterday, when it was announced that the federal government had signed a deal with Novavax to produce their vaccine in the future National Research Council facility in Montreal. The catch? That facility won’t be completed construction until summer, and then it will require Health Canada approval, so it may not be able to produce new doses until the end of the year – at which point, most Canadians should already be vaccinated using the Pfizer and Moderna doses we’ve contracted for. That doesn’t mean this facility still won’t be for naught – it’s possible we will need booster shots for the other vaccines, possibly do deal with different variants (and Novavax has shown success with the B.1.1.7 variant first spotted in the UK), and it also means that we will be able to produce for export to other countries who will need it.

Of course, this started back in on the same questions about why we weren’t able to produce vaccines domestically earlier, and why this plant is taking so long. Of course, this plant is actually moving faster than is usual – Good Manufacturing Practices facilities to produce vaccines usually take two or three years to build, not a single year, and there are several other facilities under construction across the country for other vaccine candidates. As for the same questions about why we didn’t contract to produce other vaccines here, it was because there were no suitable facilities – particularly from the approved ones. (This NRC facility was in talks to produce the AstraZeneca vaccine, but there is also talk about why the PnuVax facility in Montreal has not yet been tapped – but it may yet be for a future candidate once approved). And for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, we simply didn’t have facilities in this country that could produce mRNA vaccines to scale (most existing mRNA production was on a single-dose system for tailored vaccines used for treating particular cancers). And these are things we a) can’t build overnight, and b) didn’t know were even viable because it’s a new technology that had not yet been approved for a vaccine, especially on the scale of the one we’re dealing with now. It would have been a hell of a gamble to build a facility to GMP standards for a vaccine technology that may not have panned out.

Why I’m particularly annoyed about the return of these questions – particularly from the likes of Jagmeet Singh as he appeared on platforms like Power & Politics – is that they pretend that any vaccine facility can produce any vaccine, ignoring that not all vaccines are created equally, or that the technology to produce vaccines isn’t different across platforms. Singh’s notion that a nationalised vaccine producer should have been able to handle this is also farcical because again, what platform would it have bet on? All of them? It’s ridiculous and dishonest – as have been the demands to make the vaccine procurement contracts public (which no other country has done), because all that would do is allow other countries to look at what we paid, and then offer the companies more money to break the contracts with us. (And FFS, both Singh and Erin O’Toole are lawyers and should know this). The kinds of point-scoring that is taking place right now is getting to be beyond the pale, and it’s obscuring the actual kinds of accountability we should be practicing.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a Line 5 tantrum

Posted on by

It was another day of the Liberals showing contempt for Parliament by only putting Mark Gerretsen in the Chamber. Erin O’Toole led off in person, demanding that the prime minister stand up for Enbridge Line 5, to which Justin Trudeau, by video, reminded him of everything his government had done in order to push back against American encroachment. O’Toole said that this wasn’t raised in any call for the past several weeks, to which Trudeau dismissed Conservative armchair quarterbacking, asserting that they got the job done. O’Toole then pivoted to praise Northern Ireland for getting written assurances that they would be exempt from EU export controls on vaccines, and demanded assurances in writing, and Trudeau stated that they got “strong assurances” that Canada would not be affected by these transparency measures. O’Toole switched to French to call out the contradiction between the prime minister and industry minister as to when the Montreal vaccine facility would be able to produce the Novavax candidate — by summer, or the end of the year. Trudeau said that he had stated that the facility should be finished by the summer, and can start production before the end of the year. O’Toole then demanded a plan on vaccine delivery, to which Trudeau accused him of fear-no getting, and reiterated the talking points on the quarterly delivery commitments.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and moaned about health care transfers and that the federal government wants national standards — taking a swipe at the NDP while he was at it. Trudeau stated that they would increase health transfers, that they already had increased investments, and there would be more discussions going forward. Blanchet then railed about national standards over Quebec standards, to which Trudeau reminded him that the Canadian Forces stepped in to help those Quebec long-term care facilities.

Jagmeet Singh then got up for the NDP, and demanded paid sick leave, and fixing the existing federal benefit. Trudeau reminded him that they created a federal programme to help people immediately but it was great to see some provinces step up (because this is 94 percent provincial jurisdiction). Singh switched to French to raise his meeting with François Legault to demand an increase in federal health transfers, and Trudeau stated that they would continue to increase them, and reminded him of the tens of billions sent to province through the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not another Supreme Court reference

Posted on by

The medical assistance in dying bill is finally before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, as the (extended) deadline approaches for it to be passed to comply with a Quebec court ruling, and we have justice minister David Lametti saying that there is always the possibility that they could yet refer this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to get their judgment on whether it will meet the courts’ requirements. And I just cannot with this.

This is part of a pattern in this country where anytime there is a contentious or “moral” issue, parliamentarians of all stripes get afraid to put their necks on the line for something – no matter how right the cause is – and insist that the courts weigh in so that they can do the performative action of looking like they were dragged, kicking and screaming, into complying. They did this with lesbian and gay rights, they did this with safe injection sites, they did this with prostitution laws, and they did this with assisted dying – and in the cases of both prostitution laws and assisted dying, the laws drafted to replace those that were struck down were not going to comply with the court’s rulings, and yet they went ahead with them anyway so that they could force a new round of court challenges to really put on a show of kicking and screaming. It’s spineless, and it causes so much more unnecessary suffering (and in some cases, like with prostitution laws, deaths) when better laws could and should be drafted, but those MPs and senators who push for full compliance get sidelined by the skittish majority. And in the case of assisted dying, so many of those pushing to go back to the courts are simply seeking to re-litigate the action, which is not going to happen. A unanimous decision is not going to be scaled back on a second hearing.

While I am encouraged that Lametti did try to say that this option is not the best one, and his office later clarified that they have no plan to have yet another reference on assisted dying, but the fact that you have his clamour of people who don’t want to either make a decision, or who want to re-litigate the same issues, clamouring to send this back to the Supreme Court is disappointing. That parliament can’t respond to the Court’s ruling in a reasonable manner is one of the most irritating things about how we run this country, and it would be great if our MPs (and some senators) could forego the theatrics.

Continue reading →