LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Who goes first?

Assuming Canada gets enough of the Covid-19 vaccine anytime soon a big assumption, given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's admission that we won't who gets to go first?

Other countries are starting to vaccinate their citizens this month.  Britain, Germany and the United States have announced their plans to vaccinate millions of their people before Christmas.

Trudeau, meanwhile, says that, "if all goes according to plan, we should be able to have a majority of Canadians vaccinated by next September."

A first-year law student could drive a Pfizer transport truck through the weasel words in that statement.  But let's give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt, and assume a majority Canadians not just a tiny minority will be lining up soon to get the potentially life-saving vaccine.

Who should be in that line-up?

Unsurprisingly, other nations have devoted a considerable amount of thought to answering that question.  Equally unsurprisingly, Canada's federal government hasn't, as much.  They put out a web page.

In November, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) said the vaccine should first go to folks in retirement homes, chronic care and long-term care facilities.  After that, Canadians over the age of 80 should get the shot, says the NACI.

That's consistent with what our allies are doing.  But there are key differences, still and there's still lots of debate raging, too.  Is our goal preventing death among the vulnerable?  Or is it to reduce the rate of infection, so we can all get back to something resembling a normal life?

Here's some of the flashpoints in the who-goes-first vaccine debate.

Essential workers: What is an essential worker, anyway?  In the U.S., the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) says essential workers make up a whopping 70 per cent of the work force and include everything from tugboat operators to pest exterminators.  That category is way, way too broad, and has too many people in it.

Adults, age 18 to 30: This group experiences a lot less serious Covid-caused sickness and death than the elderly but is responsible for much more asymptomatic transmission.  If our objective is stopping the spread of the virus, shouldn't this demographic get the vaccine earlier?  But if they do, will we have enough left over for other groups, like…

Children: Kids are affected less by Covid, but they can and often are pint-sized super-spreaders.  Shouldn't we vaccinate them earlier, then?  Perhaps, but not one of the vaccine candidates has been approved for anyone under the age of 18.

Prisoners and prison guards: Nobody (with the possible exception of bad guys) wants bad guys to get the vaccine before law-abiding citizens.  But when you consider that social distancing is close to impossible in a crowded jail and that inmates have close to a 600 per cent greater chance of developing Covid-19 it's a question worth pondering.  After all, in April, one in six coronavirus cases in Illinois were traced back to the Cook County Jail.

Geography: Atlantic Canada, with its "bubble," has had far fewer cases than other regions.  Alberta, recently, has been devastated by outbreaks and has even reportedly considered requesting field hospitals from the Red Cross to help handle the surge.  Should such Canadians living in places Alberta get the vaccine sooner than, say, PEI?

Minority communities: Minorities have been buffeted by the deadly virus upscale white-dominated neighborhoods less so.  Should race and affluence be a deciding factor?  Who decides?  Politicians?  Bureaucrats?

And so on, and so on.  These kinds of decisions are just subjects for debate, for now.  But for many, they literally have life-or-death consequences.

One thing is for certain: as an exasperated-sounding Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Monday, Canadians need specifics about the vaccines from the Trudeau government.  And a lot more of the vaccines.

And we're not getting either.

[Kinsella is a former Chief of Staff to a federal Liberal Minister of Health]

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


If you want the media to lavish you with praise, there's an easy formula to follow.

All you have to do give an impassioned statement that includes a nasty remark about some group that's outside the ruling class and it'll make you an instant hero.

Emotion and class conflict it's a one-two-punch journalists simply can't resist.

So, it's not surprising therefore that a speech Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister recently delivered to defend his handling of the pandemic crisis, is going "viral" and getting lots of media acclaim, because not only was he seemingly on the verge of crying, but he also called anyone who doesn't believe COVID is real, an "idiot."

In short, since Pallister aggressively and colourfully reinforced the conventional wisdom of the ruling class, i.e., COVID is a threat that justifies any and all draconian restrictions, while also ridiculing any dissenting opinion, it instantly makes him a media darling.

But just because the media is fawning over Pallister's fiery remarks, doesn't mean he was also effective in terms of persuasion.

As matter of fact, I'd argue Pallister only further polarized opinion over how to handle COVID.

Why do I say this?

Well, I don't know about you, but if someone called me an "idiot", I certainly wouldn't be predisposed to thoughtfully consider that persons arguments; if anything, I'd be predisposed to double down on whatever opinion he or she wanted me to change.

In other words, hurling insults is no way to wins friends or influence people.

What will help in influencing others, I'd contend, is to understand their thoughts.

Simply put, in order to persuade, you must first respect the opinions of others, if you try to understand where they're coming from, if you make an attempt to reach out to them, then maybe they'll be more open to your arguments.

Ask yourself, why do my opponents disagree with me?  What concerns them?  What scares them?  Are their worries, perhaps warranted?

Only when you understand what others are thinking and feeling, can you hope to allay their fears and anxieties.

The idea is to turn opponents into friends.

Alas, this sort of thinking is out of fashion these days.

Nowadays, everybody wants that quick jolt of fame that comes from denigrating political opponents.

Rather than persuade we insult, rather than communicate, we attack, rather than winning people over, we verbally run them over.

Think of how Hillary Clinton infamously referred to Trump voters as a "Basket of deplorables"; or how Sarah Hoffman, Alberta's former NDP Deputy Premier, labelled Wild Rose supporters "sewer rats" or how Ontario Premier Doug Ford once called those opposing his COVID lockdown "Yahoos".

Maybe this trend all started in reaction to US President Donald Trump, who has taken disrespectful invective to a new level.

I don't know.

All I do know is that I miss the days when we had politicians like Ronald Reagan, a leader who'd make his points without disparaging others.

Indeed, one tactic Reagan often employed when seeking to persuade was self-deprecating humour.

Mind you, persuading in this way is difficult, it requires work and it likely won't make you a media star.

It's much easier just to demonize.

I guess that's why Pallister took that route.

However, recent polls, indicate his support in the province is falling, with one poll placing him as the least popular premier in Canada, with only a 37 percent approval rating.

So maybe Pallister should re-think his communication strategy, maybe he should emulate Don Rickles less, and Ronald Reagan more.

Photo Credit: CTV News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Bill Morneau might not have been ousted because of the WE scandal after all.  Yes, the former Finance Minister took his leave in the aftermath of damning information about his carelessness around the ethical rules regarding his relationship with WE Charity.  It seems clearer now however that WE was an excuse for Prime Minister Trudeau to get rid of an impediment in the implementation of his vision, such as it is.

In the days before Morneau's sudden realisation that his ultimate goal in life was to lead the OECD, we heard about "a deepening rift" between Trudeau and Morneau.  Trudeau wanted to let the money flow freely in the wake of the coronavirus crisis.  He wanted to use the pandemic to Build Back Betterâ„¢ and spend on a whole lot on green initiatives.  Time to reset Canada!

At the time, folks were speculating that helpful PMO spinmeisters were simply laying down the groundwork to give political cover for the dismissal of the Finance Minister.  But then, the day after Morneau's replacement, Chrystia Freeland, tabled the government's economic update, Canada's top bureaucrat in the Finance department, Deputy Finance Minister Paul Rochon suddenly announced he was leaving his job.

That is unusual timing indeed.  The day after hundreds of billions in emergency spending are announced, the civil servant in charge of it all is a goner.  This seemed to confirm that the rift between PMO and Finance was really there.  Morneau, Rochon and others pushed back too long and too hard against other cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, on their insatiable appetite for announcing support programs of all kinds, despite much questions about the effectiveness or the fairness of these measures, or the historic deficit being shovelled down the throats of future generations in the process.

The almost immediate appointment of Michael Sabia as Rochon's replacement seems to add weight that his departure was not voluntary.  Sabia had just been appointed Chair of the Board of Canada Infrastructure Bank in April 2020 after serving as CEO of La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.  Seems very soon to move on.

Sabia has a wealth of experience in how to spend other people's money for grandiose projects with dubious benefits for ordinary citizens.  It was Sabia for example who pushed for a new transit infrastructure in Montreal, the Réseau Express Métropolitain (REM).  The REM is a $6.7 billion rail system, independent and indeed competing against Montreal's public transit system.

The project was destroyed by a report from the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), which underlined a lack of transparency, insufficient information about the project's financial model, deficient environmental impact study, and unknown consequences on ridership levels on the existing public transit networks in and around Montreal.

But transit is green and progress can't be stopped.  Trudeau is no doubt also impressed by the fact that Sabia served as co-chair on the G7 Investor Leadership Network on Climate Change, Diversity and Infrastructure Development.

In September, Trudeau talked about his conception of a great reset and the opening created by the pandemic: "This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change."

Yet, the business community is ecstatic at Sabia's arrival.  Cue Goldy Hyder, a former Conservative operative and now President & CEO of the Business Council of Canada: "News of Michael Sabia being named Deputy Minister later today is very welcomed by (the) business community.  He will bring rich, diverse experience & wisdom along with a realization that Canada needs a clear economic growth strategy led by private sector."

Let there be now no doubt about Trudeau's real priority.  There will be more money for nothing and things for free, especially for big business.  But it will actually achieve little to help ordinary people.

Photo Credit: Financial Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.