LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Joy.

Relief, too.  And excitement.  You could feel it.

It was Friday afternoon, and we were waiting for my Mom to get her shot.  Out in the clinic's hallways, across the road from Toronto's East-end Michael Garron Hospital, lots of happy chatter and laughter could be heard.

The vaccine had finally arrived.  The vaccine was being injected into the arms of seniors.

The joy was a bit infectious.  One masked-up woman a finance and systems expert held a clipboard in one hand and a pen in the other.  She was there, she said, to ensure that everything was running smoothly.  Everything was.

The clinic started vaccinating octogenarians with the Pfizer vaccine on Wednesday.  They were doing over a 100 a day, she said, and they hoped to be soon doing many more.

When I told her how everyone seemed so happy and relieved even though double-masked she looked a bit misty-eyed.

"I've experienced so much joy this week," she says, her voicing cracking.  "So much joy."

A nurse with an Irish name steps into the tiny room where my Mom and I are waiting.  "On the first day, there were lots of tears," she says, extracting from a sealed plastic bag a pre-loaded syringe containing the coveted Pfizer shot.  "It's been so hard for a lot of people."

After asking my Mom a series of questions about allergies and symptoms, the nurse plugs some information into a provincial web site called Vaccine Management.  She uses her personal cell phone to open it up, to authenticate her identity.

The Ontario government software program is tracking the use of every milliliter of the vaccines, she says.  And a pilot program is underway at the hospital, to determine the safest and fastest ways to get the life-saving vaccines into peoples' arms.

We talk about what is happening outside the hospital, in Canada and elsewhere.  We talk about the United States.

"I feel so happy for the Americans," the nurse says.  "They had such a hard time at the start.  So many deaths."

What about Canada, she is asked.  Now we are so behind the Americans where they are vaccinating more than two million people a day.  Us Canadians, we're not doing as well as we should be.

"It's heartbreaking," she says.  "We're so far behind."

And we are.  We languish around the sixtieth spot, globally, for vaccines.  The Justin Trudeau government is raiding a supply of vaccines set aside for impoverished nations earning itself condemnation from OXFAM and Doctors Without Borders.  And people are angry, the pollsters say.

Holding the syringe, the nurse carefully explains to my mother what she may experience.  There me be some soreness and redness afterwards, she says.  Headache, chills, fatigue.  Take a Tylenol to offset all that.  Anything more serious?  Call 911 and get to the hospital.

But of the nearly 300 vaccinated so far, the nurse assures my Mom, nothing serious has happened yet.

And then she gives my Mom the first of two Pfizer vaccine doses, in her left deltoid muscle.  (My Mom is a painter, and intends to use her right arm to paint a big canvas I brought her.).

Above her two masks, I can see my mother's eyes smiling, a bit.  The year from Hell is almost over.  She is closer to being able to hug her tiny grandson again.

The nurse tells us to wait.  Someone else is coming with an Ontario government certificate to verify the first Pfizer dose.  It bears the Ontario logo.  My mother surveys it.

"I'm very disappointed with the federal government," says my Mom, a lifelong Montréal Liberal.  "But I'm happy with Doug Ford.  He's trying the best he can, the poor guy."

But that's the political stuff.  Today is not a day for politics, my Mom says, as I help her into her coat.

We step out onto Colwell Avenue, where the sun is shining, and where taxis are lined up, to take relieved senior citizens to get their shots.  I ask my mother what she feels.

"Relief," she says, as we head to my truck.

"And joy.  Lots of joy."

Photo Credit: Warren Kinsella

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.


It's been a big week for economic data, and more to the point, for how those numbers are being spun for the public's benefit.  Conservative leader Erin O'Toole in particular is trying to establish that his is the party of sound fiscal management, and it's in his particular interest to make the numbers look as bad as possible, and to try and drive the narrative home that the Liberals are somehow incompetent economic managers.  The problem, of course, is that O'Toole and his MPs have been vociferously lying with statistics, but they've been aided in the task by a largely innumerate media that looks for narratives of doom and won't challenge the context of those figures.

The big news out of the week was the release of the fourth quarter GDP figures for 2020, which were surprisingly strong the second strongest in the G7.  One might suppose that this would be worth mentioning, but no, every headline and O'Toole press conference focused on the fact that on an annual basis, the country suffered the biggest hit to GDP since comparable records started being kept in the 1960s.  Never mind that our recovery from the depths of the pandemic-related downturn has been particularly strong, and that the preliminary estimate for January's figures were that they would grow and not contract in spite of the second wave of lockdowns and mockdowns across the country.  This should be good news relatively speaking but you'd be hard pressed to read that.

But while the bigger economic picture attracted the narrative of doom, there were other reports out that looked at the pandemic-related benefits like CERB in the face of wage losses, and the calculation that those benefits were outweighing the wage loss according to the statistical data, giving rise to the notion that perhaps CERB was too generous.  Of course, this would rely on those benefits only being CERB, but it wasn't it was also a number of things like increased Canada Child Benefit or GST credit payments, which absolutely helped those on the very bottom of the income scale, which makes it difficult to try to simply claim that CERB with its rather meager $500 per week payments was "too generous."

This is compounded by other reports, looking at the same StatsCan data, that show that the vast majority of job losses were among those earning below-average wages, and this should come as zero surprise because we know that this has been a demand-side downturn that has largely impacted service industries most especially wholesale and retail trade, and accommodation and food services.  Even more to the point, these are the kinds of jobs that disproportionately employ women and minorities, and the numbers confirm that they have been the worst impacted by this downturn.  It's one of the reasons why this is being termed the "she-cession" (along with the fact that women in other areas of the economy are being forced to drop out of the workforce for the sake of childcare), and why there is such a focus by this government around inclusive growth as the cornerstone of their recovery strategy.

What I found particularly difficult to swallow was O'Toole tweeting about this report, saying "I'm very concerned by the findings of this report.  I don't want any Canadian worker to be left behind or forgotten.  We need to get people back to work safely and quickly."  I'm having a hard time buying his concern for those being "left behind" because he and his party spent the summer railing that CERB was so generous as to be a disincentive to work never mind that in a global pandemic it was necessary to pay people to stay at home, and the fact that it was barely paying more than minimum wage.  If $500/week was indeed a disincentive, then perhaps the problem just might be the low wage rates themselves but his silence about that fact certainly makes it look like his concern is more about people accepting the benefits than the working conditions themselves.

Amidst all of these numbers are of course the deficit figures, which O'Toole again likes to trot out to make the claim that his party would be better economic managers, but I'm not sure there is enough of an attempt to look at the counterfactuals.  Could the money spent to combat this pandemic have been spent better?  Remember that speed and capacity are very real factors money needed to get to people as soon as possible once the lockdowns started, and incomes started to evaporate.  The EI system was too broken to effectively help Canadians in a timely manner, and there were physical limitations as to how fast they could kludge together mechanisms with the existing CRA system to get that money out to people.  It's hard to fathom how any other party or government could have operated any better in these circumstances.  The federal government also doled out eighty to ninety percent of all pandemic spending because of inability or unwillingness from the provinces, and this is certainly reflected in the more recent suite of pandemic benefits where it's the federal government giving bigger payouts to those areas affected by provincially-mandated lockdowns.

The fact that O'Toole has been getting cute about these statistics and others (the false comparisons around unemployment figures has also been of particular concern) is problematic enough, because lying with statistics is still lying.  But the fact that he has not moved away from his positioning for a bro-covery, and the fact that he continues to deride the government's approach to inclusive growth as being "an experiment" as opposed to tried-and-true conservative theories like trickle-down economics, is an indication that he's not actually paying attention to the very figures that he wants you to think he's quoting from.  He may preach about not wanting to leave people behind, but he's pushing policies that will actively harm the very people he says he's looking out for, which should be concerning for the voters he's trying to reach out to in order to win the next election.

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.