OTTAWA — A top government official defended his department’s procurement practices on Wednesday, following allegations that Ottawa has continued to award hundreds of millions in contracts to a single network technology provider, effectively shutting out competing bidders.
Paul Glover, president of Shared Services Canada, appeared before the House of Commons operations committee after members decided to launch an investigation into what critics call a decades-long over dependence by Ottawa on Cisco Technologies, a California-based IT giant.
, a division within Shared Services Canada called Networks, Security, Digital Services (NSDS) awarded $210 million over the last two years exclusively to Cisco, many on a sole-sourced basis.
“I wanted to know if there was really a problem [with Cisco contracts],” said Julie Vignola, a Bloc MP who put forward the motion to study NSDS contracts. “I wanted to know that Canadians’ money is being well spent.”
The operations committee is also calling on the government to provide the original version of an internal report by SSC that scrutinized its own procurement practices, but which was provided to the committee with redactions.
Opposition members on Wednesday suggested SSC’s redactions of its internal reports might point to a deeper unwillingness by the federal government to hold themselves accountable. The report was conducted by Gartner, an industry consultancy firm.
“What I see here is a pattern of secrecy, a pattern of cover-up, and a pattern of avoidance,” Conservative committee member Rachael Harder said in an interview. “And I think that speaks volumes in terms of the way that this government functions.”
“We did not disclose certain information that would frankly be a playbook for those people who would wish to attack our networks,” he said. Opposition members dismissed those claims, saying the department appeared to exclude apparently innocuous information, including contact information for some department officials.
Glover also defended SSC’s procurement practices more generally, saying it has taken on a new procurement strategy that “fosters accountability and transparency.”
Shared Services Canada is the main vehicle for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plans to make “generational investments in updating outdated IT systems,” allowing government departments to provide digital services to Canadians while also better protecting against cyber attacks.
The Liberal government has funnelled sizeable funds into their digitization efforts, and already spends roughly $6.8 billion on digitization efforts across all departments.
Department officials have long acknowledged SSC’s over dependence on Cisco technology, particularly within its networks division. In the area of “wide-area network” (WAN) routing, for example, Cisco technologies make up 98 per cent of the systems installed across the federal government, according to an internal survey obtained by the National Post.
Officials, including Digital Government Minister Joyce Murray, who oversees SSC, claim the heavy dependence on Cisco networks is largely due to the issue of “interoperablility,” in which installations of new technology need to match older generations in order to ensure interconnectivity.
But opposition MPs, and some competing IT firms, suggest that interoperability only describes part of the issue.
Many fear a more worrisome favouritism that could be persisting in NSDS, or in digital procurements more generally, for example in the area of cloud technologies.
Manufacturers who compete against Cisco for government contracts have raised concerns with the government in recent years. Representatives of competing firms say a reflexive decision to award internal contracts to Cisco would amount to an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, as government could potentially overpay for bids that are not open for competition.
A report in May 2018, which was also carried out by Gartner, described “widespread price increases” in SSC-procured Cisco technologies over the previous year.
Liberal MP Francis Drouin, who also sits on the committee, said complaints about NSDS’s procurement practices and Cisco have been piling up as competing firms level complaints against the process.
“When you hear from a single company about a procurement issue you might think, ‘Ok, you’re just mad you didn’t win,’” he said. “But when you start hearing from multiple vendors with regards to contracts and what’s been going on, alarm bells start to ring.”
He said complaints about procurement practices for network systems or other technologies, if left unchecked, could hamper Canada’s ability to secure leading technologies at low cost.
“My biggest worry is that eventually the head offices of those vendors are going to say: ‘What’s the point of doing business in Canada?’” he said. “That is a danger and that can impede innovation within our system.”
When city hall pushes back against an attempt to turn an old parkade into hundreds of rental apartments, is that a red-tape-choked bureaucracy exacerbating a housing crisis?
Or is that a case of conscientious, diligent urban planners holding the line against private interests to serve the public good?
The answer isn’t easy, but this is the kind of debate some people — including the mayor — want to see playing out in public more frequently.
Discussions have been unfolding privately for several months about the future of the corner of Thurlow and Melville streets in Downtown Vancouver. Local developer Reliance Properties wants to replace a two-storey parkade with a 46-storey apartment tower, preserving more than 100 of the 476 rental units as affordable homes for households earning $39,200 to $78,500 a year, seeking to address Vancouver’s shortage of workforce housing identified by all levels of government.
Developers often refrain from openly discussing about such proposals before they become public, but, in a recent interview, Reliance CEO Jon Stovell expressed his frustration at the Thurlow project’s lack of progress, after almost a year “mired” in the planning department.
“We think the public needs to understand that these kind of opportunities for workforce housing are being put on the table,” Stovell said. “There’s a strong signal coming from the mayor and others on council … They want to get some of those projects actually moving, instead of just studying what’s wrong with the process.”
But city planners have their own concerns about Reliance’s Thurlow proposal, including preserving office space in the downtown core.
While Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart makes his case for re-election next year, he seems to be focusing on a central piece of his 2018 campaign: build, build and build more rental housing.
Since Stewart’s election, the number of rental units approved has still fallen far short of the city’s own targets. But that’s not because council is rejecting rental projects: this council has approved almost every residential rezoning application that has come before them so far this term.
So Stewart recently took the unusual step of introducing
in council formally and publicly asking city staff to report back with a spreadsheet listing all housing proposals — including rental, condo and social housing — in the pre-application stage.
After reviewing that inventory, Stewart recently told Postmedia News that there is no shortage of private sector interest in building rental housing in Vancouver.
Privacy considerations prevent the release of the full inventory, Stewart said, but the list adds up to “thousands” of homes developers want to build in Vancouver, which haven’t reached the development permit stage.
“We’re talking billions-of-dollars of capital, potentially, that’s sitting there when it could be invested in housing, and I’m not interested in the icing on the cake, the high-end condos. I’m interested in secure market rental, and below-market rental,” Stewart said.
“The objective is to understand the backlog, and then do everything we can to clear it,” he said.
That’s not to say that every one of these thousands of proposed homes in the pipeline would — or should — be approved, Stewart said. “Some of the things developers propose are more fantastical.”
But Stewart wants to see the system reconfigured so certain projects, such as those with a significant social housing component, can be prioritized, and more housing proposals can get to council for approval — or rejection.
“Many projects don’t make it in front of council, and many take a very long time to get to the yes. What I would prefer is that sometimes we get some nos,” Stewart said. “Sometimes staff might not be keen on a project for various reasons, but it gets to council anyway. And then staff makes their case, the developers make their case and then council makes the decision as a democratic body should.”
Stewart declined to comment on the merits of any specific projects, including Reliance’s Thurlow proposal. He did say, however, he thinks it would be appropriate for council to make some of those decisions.
“Staff might say they don’t recommend this, because we’re trying to maintain office space. Then they present that to council still though, and council would make a decision,” he said. “It still should have its hearing, it still should have a decision by council, it shouldn’t get lost in the weeds.”
to direct the city manager to strike an “internal development application and permitting modernization task force,” which will make recommendations on how to improve the process, report to council with data and, “where legally feasible, make these data publicly available.” Stewart also said he believes Vancouver’s newly appointed director of planning,
, is the right person for the job, having previously spearheaded a modernization of Dallas’s planning department.
But while city hall wants more housing built — particularly non-market rentals — city planners say there are valid reasons not to just allow developers to build it wherever they want.
Yardley McNeill, Vancouver’s assistant director of rezoning, said in an emailed statement that while rental housing creation is a priority for the city, Reliance’s Thurlow site is located in the Central Business District, “where residential use is not permitted because this relatively small percentage of city land is dedicated to generating employment.”
“City staff have raised concerns with Reliance about the existing zoning, the need to deliver a recognized public benefit, and adding a large tower in such close proximity to the 27-storey MacMillan Bloedel Building,” a Class A heritage building designed by Arthur Erickson, McNeill said.
Andy Yan, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program, said many factors must be considered when contemplating rezoning commercial property into residential, such as inflation of land values, and whether an area has sufficient amenities such as schools, parks and child care.
“You want a level of stability and predictability of where housing would or should go,” Yan said. “There is a need for a defined, updated process based on need and capacity, but an ad hoc approach on putting housing where a developer can pitch creates a city that becomes a roulette wheel with the livability and sustainability of living in a casino.”
OTTAWA — Conservative MPs are calling for an appeal of an Ontario Superior Court decision that declared parts of the federal prostitution law unconstitutional, including a provision that bars any third-party advertising of sex work.
However, while the MPs wrote to Justice Minister David Lametti to ask him to appeal, a spokesperson for Lametti said the federal Justice Department is not a party to the case and it’s the Ontario attorney general’s office that will make the decision. If an appeal happens, the federal attorney general could then choose to become an intervenor.
An Ontario attorney general spokesperson declined comment on Wednesday when asked about an appeal.
“We are concerned that in the ruling, the Justice struck down a number of sections that are critical to protecting individuals in the sex trade and which target those who would prey upon and manipulate them,” said the letter from Conservative MPs Rob Moore, Jag Sahota and Pierre Paul-Hus. “We call upon your government to defend the law while ensuring continued supports are available for women to exit the sex trade.”
The legislation at issue, Bill C-36, was passed by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper in 2014 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Bedford, which had found Canada’s sex work laws unconstitutional. Those laws had made it illegal to operate brothels, live on the avails of prostitution, or communicate in public for the purpose of prostitution.
The Harper legislation was aimed at criminalizing the purchasing of sex as opposed to the selling of it. However, it also criminalized advertising sexual services or receiving any material benefit from someone purchasing sex work, while making an exception for those directly selling their own sexual services. Critics have argued C-36 still forces sex workers into a dangerous black market and prevents them from sharing costs and collectively protecting each other.
Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau voted against C-36 as an MP and made vague promises to reform it, the Liberals didn’t include repealing C-36 in their election platforms and haven’t taken any legislative steps on it since forming government.
Instead, it may be the courts that force changes to the law, depending what happens with other cases and any appeals.
In reasons released April 21, Ontario Justice Phillip Sutherland declared three sections of C-36 to be unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect. He also declined to temporarily suspend his ruling to allow Parliament the option of writing new laws in the meantime. A publication ban covers all other details of the case besides the constitutional issue.
Sutherland struck down sections 286.2, 286.3(1) and 286.4 of the Criminal Code, finding them in violation of the Charter’s section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. These sections prohibited advertising sexual services, receiving a material benefit from purchasing sexual service, and taking part in procuring someone for the purpose of providing sexual services.
In his ruling, Sutherland said that in general these sections prevent sex workers from taking steps to protect their health and safety. “This form of prohibition is similar to what was the constitutional invalidity in Bedford,” Sutherland concluded.
Last year, an Ontario provincial court judge had also found parts of C-36 unconstitutional. But the Sutherland ruling, coming from a higher court, has more sweeping implications and could end prosecutions of the impacted sections in Ontario unless it’s overturned.
Lametti’s office declined to comment on whether it supports an appeal.
“We are aware of the court’s decision,” a spokesperson said. “It will be up to the parties involved to determine whether or not to seek an appeal. As this case remains in the appeal period, it would not be appropriate for the Attorney General of Canada to comment further.”
Other court challenges are also underway to C-36, including one from the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform filed in the Ontario Superior Court that challenges other sections of the law. In a news release last month, the organization said C-36 forces “sex workers to work in a criminalized context where sex workers are isolated from supports, made vulnerable to exploitation, eviction, and subpar working conditions, and targeted for violence.”
In their letter, the Conservatives argue C-36 targets individuals “who exploit vulnerable sex workers by reducing the demand for prostitution and providing funding for those who want to exit the sex trade.”
“This law has contributed to the safeguarding of our communities from the harms of sexual exploitation and abuse,” the letter says.
Thank you for the wonderfully comprehensive coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic ("Year one: An unprecedented report on Canada's mishandling of the crisis of the century," Cover, April 2021). This edition of your magazine should be required reading for all Canadians. —Rick DesBrisay, Moncton, N.B.
Your cover for this issue was enough to make me immediately send the magazine to recycling. However, I leafed through it and found several positive articles among the negative ones. It's a little late now, but your cover title should have eliminated the three-letter "mis" and emphasized how Canada handled the crisis. —Antony Merry, Sidney, B.C.
The only way to make amends for the abominable treatment of people in many long-term care homes is to make the changes that have been recommended so often in the past. If we must, we should take the homes into provincial ownership and provide good air and good care. But let's have medical personnel in charge and not bureaucrats. Soon baby boomers will be overcrowding those same homes. Let the elders' deaths not be in vain. —Ruth MacBean, Burlington, Ont.
I have to thank Maclean's for putting together "Year One." The more I read, the angrier I got with the politicking and half-measures and the complete incompetence from all our federal agencies. And let's not forget the ineptitude of Justin Trudeau and of our own incompetent Jason Kenney here in Alberta. But my anger really roiled when I read about the total failure perpetrated on our seniors living in long-term care facilities, and the lack of any morals of the operators of those facilities. The only care they gave was to their shareholders and lobbyists. —Wayne Cornish, Calgary
I am appalled at the incompetence of the Trudeau government on vaccine procurement. While other countries got their acts together last year, either by negotiating strong and early contracts with manufacturers (e.g., the U.S. or Israel) or by setting up domestic manufacturing capability (Australia), the Trudeau government wasted precious months chasing a UN Security Council seat and, astonishingly, pursuing a Chinese vaccine. We are months behind the U.S. The health, social and economic costs of that gap are incalculable. Our federal government has badly failed us. —D.R. Thomson, Howe Island, Ont.
I am still reading the amazing COVID-19 issue of Maclean's—excellent reporting, and the photos moved me beyond words. The only thing missing is the story about how the pandemic has highlighted some important issues in our public education system. Teachers are frontline workers who, for some reason, are not given the same consideration as "experts in their field" that doctors and nurses receive in health care. The voice of teachers has had limited press this past year. We have missed out on the incredible stories of teachers finding creative ways to engage and teach our children within ever-changing restrictions and guidelines. —Lana Durst, Toronto
In memoriam
Every issue of Maclean’s features tributes to those who have died of COVID-19 in Canada. Read them online here.
I recently subscribed to your magazine and was moved by your efforts to publish the obituaries of those who were victims of the pandemic ("They were loved," Coronavirus, March 2021). I felt this was a thoughtful and respectful endeavour. Kudos to Maclean's for handling a deeply sensitive and personal matter. Memorializing them, I hope, will provide some solace to the bereaved. It was moving to read some of the profiles. No one could have envisioned this calamity, which only manifests how vulnerable we all are. When there are so many other threats to our health as we age, who could ever have anticipated this outcome. It seems so unfair. —Andy Birch, Stettler, Alta.
With neither country willing to budge from their entrenched prisoner-based hissy fits, it seems that Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are stuck in China for a long time yet ("A promise to Michael," Diplomacy, February 2021). Why then are Canadians not yet considering a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games? Are we really going to send our best athletes to help bolster China's self-image when they've effectively kidnapped two of our citizens? With the lack of outrage here in Canada among regular people, I hope that one or more of the athletes decides the risk, and the implied acceptance of Chinese tactics, is unacceptable, and that a unified pushback starts from there. —Chris Winters, Kitchener, Ont.
Science to the rescue
In March, Christina Frangou explored the backstory of mRNA, the biotechnology that made COVID-19 vaccines possible, and the dogged scientists who defied the odds.
I would like to congratulate Christina Frangou on a great article about mRNA and COVID-19 vaccines ("Shooting the messenger," Science, March 2021). She has done a fantastic job describing the mRNA vaccines, capturing all the pieces that came together to make a new style of vaccine, and along the way giving a gripping account of the challenges faced by scientists around the world to support and advance their work, and the science behind so many complex biological systems. —Penny Moody-Corbett, Ottawa
Social stresses
In March, Andray Domise took a look at the connection between capitalism and society’s current ills in a column.
Andray Domise's column about social conditions under capitalism resonated within me ("The death of better things," Sociology, March 2021). As a member of Generation Z, I am acutely aware of my future in unaffordable housing and working unfulfilling jobs for a corporation that couldn't care less about its employees. Youth represent the future of Canada, but our hopes for this future are dimmed by the bleak reality of capitalism. I currently attend a high school specializing in the arts, but hardly any of my peers are actually considering a pursuit of their dreams involving the arts. What's the point? Under capitalism, profound artistic expression has been distorted into meaningless, commodified products manufactured to appeal to as many consumers as possible. Additionally, an independent artist lacks the financial means to sustain themself in a society where human rights must be purchased. This need for money has barred us from doing anything fulfilling with our lives, and instead forces us to be cogs in the capitalist machine. The status quo must change. We must imagine and manifest a better alternative in order to put an end to this perpetuating cycle of exploitation and oppression. —Isabelle Li, Markham, Ont.
Domise has written the most miserable piece I have ever read! My parents went through two world wars and the Depression, none of which was any fault of their own. But they didn't give up; they made the best of what they had. The saddest thing about today is that people have lost control of their lives. They've been so manipulated by this techno age they have lost their individuality, and in the herd society they have become pawns of politicians, social media and the economy. They don't realize that it's the ordinary Joe who makes the world go round, and none of these other entities could survive without them, their labour and their paycheques. I may be 83 years old but I can still see the wonders of this great country we live in and I am forever thankful to be here. —Marcheta Leoppky, Dawson Creek, B.C.
The Jordan Peterson controversy
In March, Brian Bethune wrote about the clash between publishers and their employees in wake of controversial academic Jordan Peterson’s latest book release.
In Brian Bethune's article, certain among your fearsome readers are courted while book purchasers by the millions are worthy of no respect ("12 rules for publishing Jordan Peterson," Society, March 2021). Bethune's understanding and portrayal of Peterson—in parallel with the vacuous objections of some Penguin Random House Canada employees—is informed by his chattering circle, and is insulting. I am likely representative of the majority of Peterson's readers/listeners. My education includes seven years of university, three degrees and a professional career among academics. I am well-read, discerning and able to defend my thoughts. Using his cartoon-journalism training to label us "fans" and diminish serious research, deep understanding and sincere debate among many thousands of students, Bethune presents a condescending and superficial rendition of an astute, respected and heroic thinker. —Steve Swenson, White Rock, B.C.
I have to question what "diversity" and "inclusion" mean if people are protesting the publishing of Peterson's book. I thought diversity meant divergent political ideas? Or does it mean strictly racial diversity? And to what end? Are we to assume that Peterson, as a white male, does not qualify as a diverse opinion? And why not? If we want to be a nation of diversity and inclusion, we ought to put our money where our mouth is and actually encourage opposing opinions. Not to mention our Charter rights under Section 2(b) that protect freedom of expression, thought and belief. —Allison Grande, Toronto
Canada's Guantánamo
In March, Terry Glavin wrote about how the rescue of the orphan 'Amira' has raised pressure on Ottawa to take back other children of Canadians who fought in Syria for ISIS.
I was shocked, disappointed, but not really surprised when I read Terry Glavin's article about ISIS-affiliated Canadians citizens in Kurdish custody, which some are calling "Canada's Guantánamo" ("Bring them home," Analysis, March 2021). I was shocked at Trudeau's casual abandonment of these people and particularly the children, and disappointed because he is officially speaking for all Canadians and showing a disturbing lack of compassion. Again, I am not surprised because for 150 years most of our churches, our justice system and our politicians have followed a similar policy dealing with First Nations by means of residential schools. I agree with Erin O'Toole that we should bring the children and their surviving parents home and prosecute the appropriate parents under Canada's terrorism laws. After all, they are innocent until proven guilty. —Mike Kroecher, Charlie Lake, B.C.
Inedible humans
In March, Michael Fraiman told the tale of giant paw-prints found in Northwest Territories and the debate that ensued.
In your story on the giant paw print left by a wolf in the Northwest Territories, you quote wolf expert Dean Cluff as saying, in effect, that if wolves knew how weak we are, they would attack us more often ("My, what big paws you have," Northwest Territories, March 2021). I for one am convinced that half the reason the human species has survived for so long is because we're probably not very good eating in the first place. —Mark Nielsen, Prince George, B.C.
Letters for Stan (Photograph by Erik Putz)
Last spring, reader Stan Smurthwaite wrote a letter to the editor, responding to a Maclean's column about mail. His point: the loneliness of an empty mailbox.
Readers wrote to him in droves; he wrote them back. Maclean's associate editor Marie-Danielle Smith wrote a story about the deluge: more readers, more letters. Here's an image from our mailroom, taken before the most recent avalanche of Stan-bound mail. It will surprise no one to learn that Mr. Smurthwaite, gracious as ever, has written to thank us for the story.
/* Don't show the Vue app until content has been loaded */
.vue {
opacity: 0;
}
/* `updated` class is added using a lifecycle function (see app code and https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/instance.html#Instance-Lifecycle-Hooks) */
.vue.updated {
opacity: 1;
}
We want to hear from you. Please send your letters to letters@macleans.ca, including your full name and where you’re from. Need to contact us for some other reason? Check here.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years since the two Michaels were jailed in China, the Liberal government has dished out nearly $6 million worth of business contracts to Chinese companies.
“The Liberal government’s business-as-usual approach to the People’s Republic of China should come to an end, particularly with Canadians held hostage,” said John Williamson, a New Brunswick Conservative MP who sought the information.
The figures, contained in the reports from an inquiry made by Williamson in March and first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa online news outlet, show that federal departments and agencies issued $5.8 million in contracts between 2019 and 2020 for companies that were either based in China or owned by companies based there.
The disclosure comes on the heels of the trials of two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who have been detained in China since December 2018. The trial for Kovrig, a former diplomat, and Spavor, a businessman, wrapped up in Beijing in late March.
The trials were held behind closed doors. While no verdicts have been released, the sentences are expected to be announced at a future date. The two men are widely seen to have been seized by China in retribution for Canada’s detention of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom giant Huawei, who’s facing extradition to the United States.
There are, additionally, more than 100 Canadian citizens in Chinese jails, four of them on death row.
“Public attitudes toward Communist China are certainly hardening,” Williamson said. “Canadians understand Beijing views other nations as vassal states. The Canadian public has figured this out while our federal leadership, both political and bureaucratic, continues to ignore the problem or is convinced it didn’t matter.”
The details in Williamson’s inquiry show that a handful of government departments, Crown corporations or agencies were responsible for the vast majority of money spent on Chinese contracts. A number of them are quite small. National Defence had contracts worth $305.65, which were for cable and chemical supplies, according to government documents. The Canadian Mint, meanwhile, had contracts worth nearly $1.9 million between October 2019 and March 2021.
About $753,000 worth of contracts were also given out by Global Affairs Canada. “The funding available to satisfy the department’s operational requirements at missions located around the globe, including China, requires that contracts with foreign vendors be issued to acquire goods and services,” says the department’s response to the inquiry.
The Public Health Agency of Canada also contracted China Sinopharm International for $228,614.40, to provide “disposable nitrile gloves.”
The National Research Council spent $330,000 on Chinese contracts. “The nature of the items produced is largely to provide consumables for use in research operations or special purpose equipment for such activities,” the department said.
Destination Canada, a “national tourism marketing agency,” which promotes trips to Canada abroad, spent $256,000 on contracts with Chinese suppliers. One such contract was for nearly $54,000 to a map publisher.
Export Development Canada spent $53,000 on contracts with Chinese companies. Canadian Commercial Corporation, a Crown corporation that works abroad for Canadian industry, spent around $2.1 million on contracts, among which was a $1.3 million contract to China International Intellectech Group Co., Ltd., a human resources firm based in Beijing.
The data may not be complete, some government departments caution, because the request included businesses “owned by entities based in China,” a detail not all departments readily catalogue. Some information was also refused for national security reasons, from departments such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Canada Post refused to offer information on the amount of its contracts with Air China and Orient Overseas Container Line Canada Limited because it’s “commercially sensitive.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Export Development Canada had spent $2.2 million on contracts with Chinese companies. In fact, it spent $53,000 on contracts with Chinese companies.
As the pandemic gripped Canada last year, the Yukon government introduced a simple sick leave policy for workers in the territory that offered a maximum of 10 days wages per employee or 14-days to cover an isolation period.
No doctor’s note was required and local businesses were reimbursed to cover the cost of wages. The program had a sunset clause that was later extended to September 30 this year.
Simple. Yet, a year later, federal and provincial governments are still squabbling over sick leave, leading to the inescapable conclusion that many of our elected leaders couldn’t run a two-house paper route.
Everyone agrees that limiting outbreaks in workplaces is key to controlling the virus. The federal government’s own epidemiology report says that there have been 606 outbreaks in industrial settings, infecting 13,037 people and resulting in 24 deaths. (That seems an underestimate – Ontario alone has linked 46 deaths to workplace exposure.)
Ottawa’s response last summer, at the behest of the NDP, was the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit, which pays workers $450 after tax, if they are eligible (workers who qualify have to vouch they were unable to work at least half the work week and had earned $5,000 in the previous year.)
The uptake of a policy that requires workers to apply has been underwhelming. Critics say the sick pay is not enough and that the uncertainty and time-lag before receiving payment are disincentives. The Trudeau government initially estimated the program would provide $5 billion in benefits over two years but revised that number downward to $738 million in the recent budget. To date, 485,120 workers have been approved, at a cost of $435 million.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, having scrapped two paid personal days for workers as part of his labour reforms when he came to power, has latterly become a convert.
His government criticized Ottawa for its failure to expand the sickness benefit in the April 19 budget and this week proposed it be doubled, with the province paying for the top up.
The Trudeau government turned down the suggestion, apparently unwilling to tailor a national program for one province. It has said it would help if Ontario mandated permanent sick leave in provincially regulated workplaces, effectively forcing Ford to reverse himself.
That persuaded Ontario to go it alone late on Wednesday, when labour minister Monte McNaughton and finance minister Peter Bethlenfalvy announced the province would double the federal sickness benefit to $1,000 a week. In addition, it will reimburse employers up to $200 a day for up to three days for workers who have COVID symptoms.
“It’s a game-changer that will save lives,” said McNaughton.
But it appears Ottawa has not yet signed off on any deal. “I’m confident that Prime Minister Trudeau and (finance minister) Chrystia Freeland will do the right thing,” said Bethlenfalvy. That remains to be seen. The three days of paid sick leave are COVID-related, not permanent, as the feds were demanding.
Other provinces may follow. In British Columbia, Premier John Horgan has said his government will “fill in the gaps” left by the federal program, even though his April 20 budget contained no mention of paid sick leave.
But we are 411 days into a gruelling pandemic and the finish line is in sight.
Why wasn’t the game changed and lives saved much sooner?
Do you ever get that throbbing feeling in your temples, combined with the urge to throttle a politician?
This should not be so hard. A worker who wakes up with symptoms should not have do the mental math about how much money he or she will lose by taking the day off, or whether they have worked half the week already. Businesses that cover the wages of sick workers should know they will be reimbursed. As the Yukon has shown, this is a pandemic specific program that expires in five months, so the costs are finite.
Provinces should backstop the scheme but, ideally, be supported by the federal government. Each province should amend its employment legislation to allow workers to stay home and continue to receive wages for up to 10 days, for the duration of the pandemic.
That would likely have the added benefit of reducing hospital bills. The Canadian Institute for Health Information said that COVID-related stays were longer – on average two weeks – and more expensive – $23,000 a stay – than in pre-pandemic times.
Ottawa, which has all the money, albeit borrowed, should not begrudge such a crucial investment in public health, especially since the existing sickness benefit is under budget.
Rob Gillezeau, an associate professor of economics at the University of Victoria, said that Ottawa and the provinces have been squabbling about jurisdictional issues for a year but that a clear solution is “entirely reachable.”
“Yukon did this a year ago and is a policy leader,” he said, pointing to its sunset clause as a means of addressing employer concerns about sick leave programs being permanent. “I am enormously frustrated. This is in the top five items of no-brainer policy measures.”
Cynicism with politicians is borne from their tendency to promise to turn horses into unicorns and their subsequent inability to provide basic services.
Elementary protection for frontline workers who are providing goods and services that we all rely on should have been resolved a year ago, long before dozens of workers died.
The federal Liberals should probably tone down the smug when it comes to their pandemic response.
This week, when Public Safety Minister Bill Blair tweet-gloated that less than two percent of COVID cases are due to travel, it was more than a bit much.
The quarantine measures the government enacted at the border have had massive holes from the beginning. People will happily walk out of the airport and — maybe — pay a fine for skipping out on quarantine hotel. Or they'll just come across the land border and not have to quarantine at all.
It is, how do you say it, really not great.
This is a federal government that has done better than its (non-Atlantic) provincial counterparts, yes. But it is not a government that has done anything particularly well. The initial response of Health Minister Patty Hajdu was that "The risk is low to Canadians," which may be news to 24,000 dead people.
While the disastrous explosion of variant cases of COVID-19 is largely the fault of the provinces, it was the federal government's patchwork of half-assed border measures that allowed those variants in.
While the provincial failures have been enormous — Ontario Premier Doug Ford should be run out on a rail at the absolute minimum — they do not absolve the federal government of its various and assorted inadequacies.
This is a government, remember, that was happy to let corporations take money for wage subsidies, while still paying out bonuses to CEOs and dividends to shareholders. At the very same time, it was threatening the self-employed to pay back tens of thousands of dollars because those people had been misled by Revenue Canada.
It is a government that waited until this year to even put in place mandatory quarantine protocols, that we've seen have been inadequate.
Only last week did it impose travel bans from India and Pakistan — which accounted for some 20 percent of incoming international flights — and where, in India at least, COVID is rampaging out of control.
Waffling and indecision have marked the federal response for much of the pandemic.
It is a government far too high on its own supply of hot air, far too willing to buy into its own vocal BS about believing in science, that it is incapable of seeing — never mind fixing — what it has done badly. The Liberals have succeeded only by comparison to the provinces, which is no measure for success. It is only a gradient of failure.
Now, granted, the provinces have made things worse. By not containing what the feds have let in, the virus has been able to explode in provinces across the country. You can see the difference that provincial leadership makes in Nova Scotia, which imposed a sharp series of lockdown measures this week after increasing cases were seen in the province, many of them COVID variants.
Ninety-six cases was all it took for this circuit-breaker lockdown to come into play. This is the sort of things other provincial governments have been unwilling to do, and shows the ability of a province to cover for federal screw ups.
That variants are quickly becoming the dominant strains of COVID in the country is ultimately an indictment of the whole country. It is the fault of the federal government for letting it in our borders, and it is the fault of the provinces for letting it run out of control.
In a system such as ours where responsibility is divided along hard lines between the federal and provincial level, it's not enough for one side to do pretty well and put the blame on the other.
This is why the Liberal smugness at their performance is so maddening. Sure, they've done well with vaccines — at nearly a third of the population with at least once dose, things are looking up — but vaccines are only a part of what's going to get us out of the pandemic.
Poorly designed financial supports — the federal sick benefit instead of shovelling billions out the door, is only costing a fraction of that because it's too slow and too stingy — have real consequences in the real world. And by so often putting money into the pockets of business, rather than the people working there, the government makes clear who it supports.
None of these are hallmarks of a government that should be celebrated. At best, this a government outperforming the worst performing leaders within our borders.
In that way, it is the story of how we look at Canadian health care more broadly. A broken system constantly on the precipice of collapse, but not the nightmare hellscape of the United States.
We only ever compare ourselves to our closest neighbours, never somewhere where things might actually be better. This is how we allow our society to stagnate and crumble.
In that sense, you can see why a guy like Blair would seem so congratulatory of his half-hearted efforts. He's not there to do a good job, he's just there to do a good-enough job.
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.
As the COVID-19 third wave was creeping up and the vaccination roll-out was having hiccups, our elected officials wanted to make sure that people would show up to get their jab. The confusion surrounding AstraZeneca abounded as different experts provided contradicting advice, around the world and here in Canada.
Deaths of people who had received the vaccine in Austria, Norway and Denmark, possibly linked to blood clots, led many countries to put a stop to the AZ distribution. Italy, Germany, France and Spain notably suspended the use of the vaccine on March 15th as a precaution, following several other countries in the previous weeks.
No one had yet established a direct link between the administration of AZ and these deaths, but fear was spreading, even in Canada. In Quebec vaccination centres, some people were refusing it on the spot. It was time to calm people down.
On March 15th, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Montreal for a joint economic announcement with Quebec Premier François Legault. But the journalists were more concerned about the vaccination and the potential risks of taking AstraZeneca.
Trudeau spouted nonsense about a specific batch of AstraZeneca causing all the trouble in Europe. "We can reassure all Canadians that there is no dose of AstraZeneca that came from the same batches that are of concern in Europe", he said. It sounded dubious. Regardless, Justin Trudeau was urging all Canadians to receive this vaccine if it was available to them: "The best vaccine for you is the first one available to you. This is the one you should take." More convincing.
Premier Legault went even further in his defense of AstraZeneca:
"Quebec public health is monitoring, I would say hourly, and telling us that there is no risk with the AstraZeneca vaccine, that it is safe. We trust specialists, experts, and they assure us that there is no risk with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Public health tells us that there is no risk, that it is safe. Now it becomes a question of organization. It is easier to give some vaccines at home. This is how we are organizing. But I repeat and it is important that all Quebecers understand that all the vaccines that are offered are safe."
No risk? Not so. At the time, I found these statements by François Legault quite problematic. With a vaccine, there is no such thing as zero risk. Something was bound to happen that would prove Legault wrong. Fast forward 6 weeks, and sadly, it happened. A Quebecer died of cerebral thrombosis after receiving a dose of AstraZeneca vaccine, an otherwise healthy 54-year old woman. There is a risk.
Simply put, Premier Legault was lying to people in his enthusiasm to get people vaccinated. In doing so, in not being straight with Quebecers, he directly undermined the entire operation and undermined the trust people will have in what he will now say.
Because zero risk is not a thing. At this stage of the pandemic, our elected leaders need to be truthful and straightforward. Much to their chagrin, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization has updated its analysis and currently recommends that AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should not be used in adults under 55 years. Yet the vaccine is being pushed by British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario to people over 40, (45 in Quebec). Uptake is slower than they hoped and may slow down even more.
Statistically, AstraZeneca remains very safe. 1 case of complications for each 100 000 jabs. You have more chance of developing blood clots by taking hormonal birth control. By hopping on a plane. By smoking. Or by catching COVID-19. But fear is often irrational, easily fed by confusing messages, and is now higher than it was.
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.
OTTAWA – As the country battles a crushing third wave of COVID-19 that has filled hospitals and led to deaths and crippling economic lockdowns, provinces have declined to use several supports already available from the federal government, including a new drug treatment, rapid tests and help making contact tracing calls.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced military doctors and nurses would be sent to Ontario and the government is also considering requests for more help in other parts of the country. But as this new help arrives, some of the previous supports the government has sent have gone unused.
According to the federal government’s numbers, it has shipped more than 41 million rapid tests to the provinces, about a quarter of which have been pushed on to long-term care centres, workplaces and other settings, but just 1.7 million tests have actually been used to see if someone has COVID-19.
The full price of the multiple contracts the government signed for rapid tests has not been released, but a document obtained under an access to information request showed that for just one company’s rapid tests, the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 antigen test, the government paid a total cost of $173 million. The government bought nearly 23 million units of the test and shipped them to provinces.
Those tests provide results in 15 minutes and have received the most use of any of the four the government purchased, but still only 1.5 million of the nearly 23 million have been actually used.
Trudeau said Tuesday his government’s role is to ensure the supports are there, but he respects provinces’ decisions on how to use what the government provides.
“Our job as a federal government is to be there with supports that are needed and we’ve continued to do that. We respect provincial jurisdiction, provincial decision making, but every step of the way, we will work to fulfil the promises we have made to Canadians.”
Trudeau said he would rather have supplies that aren’t used than not have them when Canadians need them.
Alexandra Hilkene, press secretary to Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott, said the province has pushed the tests out to workplaces and continue to work to put them in the right hands.
“The government is in contact with dozens more interested companies to introduce testing at their work sites, and we continue to make steady progress in the distribution of rapid tests,” she said.
Tom McMillan, a spokesperson for Alberta Health, said the initial Health Canada approval of rapid tests was narrow and provinces were restricted in how they could use them.
“The rollout of rapid testing was delayed originally due to provinces adhering to the approved use of the tests licensed by Health Canada,” he said.
McMillan said the province can now use the test more widely and will be rolling more out to workplaces. On Monday, the Alberta government eased restrictions for the test further, by allowing them to be used by people who are not medical professionals.
The federal government is also continuing to offer Statistics Canada operators to make contact tracing calls during the pandemic, helping to track people who may have been exposed to the virus to encourage them to isolate and get tested.
Several provinces have signed agreements with Statistics Canada to use the service, but even with cases at record highs the call centre has not been used to anywhere near its full capacity. The most recent data the agency has for the project shows it could have made nearly 120,000 contact tracing calls a week, but between April 11 and April 17, it made less than half of that at just over 50,000 calls.
In November, after it received authorization from Health Canada, the government purchased 26,000 doses of bamlanivimab, at a cost of just over $40 million. The drug is a monoclonal antibody treatment administered intravenously that has shown positive results treating mild cases of COVID-19, preventing them from becoming more serious cases.
The drug was developed by Vancouver company AbCellera and manufactured with drug giant Eli Lilly. Carl Hansen, AbCellera’s president and CEO, said there have been a few trial uses in B.C., but broadly provinces have failed to even consider using the drug.
“There’s been a complete lack of initiative and leadership in getting therapy to patients,” he said.
Hansen is clear the drug is limited to people in the early stages of COVID-19 and won’t help those already in ICUs. He also said it is not as effective against all new variants, particularly the P1 variant first identified in Brazil.
In the U.S., the FDA has revoked its emergency authorization for the drug as a stand-alone treatment due to those variants, but is still approving the drug to be used in combination with another similar drug and there have been no reports of serious adverse events.
Hansen said the drug has shown strong results against original strains of COVID and the U.K. variant that is widely circulating in Ontario.
“In Ontario, if tomorrow you started doing infusions, every 50 infusions you did would save someone’s life, every eight to 10 infusions would save a hospital visit. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
Kerry Williamson, a spokesperson for Alberta Health Services, said the province has looked at the drug and is prepared to use it in a limited trial fashion, but a review of the current evidence left them unconvinced.
“This decision to limit bamlanivimab use to the study is based on AHS’ review of the current evidence which notes further study is required to determine whether bamlanivimab offers benefit to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19,” he said.
Williamson also said administering the drug would take away resources, because it must be done through an IV.
“Bamlanivimab requires intravenous administration, and any proposed use would require support from front-line medical staff in an outpatient care setting,” he said.
Hilkene, with the Ontario government, said the province’s science table considered it, but was similarly not sure it was ready.
“The current guideline summary from the Science Table notes that bamlanivimab is not recommended outside of clinical trials. The Science Table will continue to monitor new clinical information regarding bamlanivimab and update its recommendations accordingly,” she said.
Hansen said the new clinical trial information the company has conducted should end any doubts and he stressed it has little to no side effects. He said U.S. hospitals found a way to use the drug successfully, but provinces haven’t shown the same interest.
“It’s not as though we tried and failed. We never even tried. There hasn’t been an effort to solve any of the logistic problems,” he said.
He said while Canada waits for more vaccine the drug could still be put to good use to help prevent mild COVID cases from becoming severe.
“In vaccines we have no supply, here we’ve got supply. We bought it, it is sitting on the shelf, it works and we cannot muster the effort to actually bring it to the patient.” he said. “It is an appalling failure of our system.”
— 30 years of helping Cambodian children and adults who had been trafficked reintegrate into their families and villages.
Then, COVID hit. Founder Brian McConaghy left Cambodia ahead of borders closing there as Canada was urging its citizens to get home.
When he arrived, the Vancouver staff were already working from home and their first Zoom meeting was about retooling from celebration to possible closure.
McConaghy didn’t want to launch a fundraising drive. Instead, he and his staff began the phone equivalent of what might have been a farewell tour. They called every donor to see if they were okay and whether there was anything that Ratanak could do to support them — including offering prayers — in these uncertain times.
If donors asked about how things were going in Cambodia, they told them. But they kept the focus on what was happening in donors’ lives, listening to stories about businesses closing, fears about loved ones, isolation and loss.
It was intended to take six weeks. It took two-and-a-half months. And, then, remarkably, money came pouring in. Donations reached an all-time high at a time when needs have never been greater.
Already one of the poorest countries in Southeast Asia, Cambodia’s economy is reliant on tourism, agriculture and manufacturing, especially clothing and footwear. COVID killed tourism, disrupted supply chains, decimated export markets, and left many people jobless and hungry.
The additional money means that Ratanak has not only been able to provide its regular programs, it’s now providing emergency food aid and emergency support services as well.
But the worst may still be ahead. Strict lockdown orders kept COVID at bay until February when daily cases spiked from zero to more than 600 in mid-April when Prime Minister Hun Sen described his country as “on the brink of death”. Since then, both China and Vietnam have sent vaccines, ventilators and PPEs, with more on the way.
program, which primarily funds local school food initiatives, also hit a record high in fundraising that managed to meet record high requests. So did the
, which raised $68 million and dispersed $112 million. It’s not unusual for the foundation to give more than it receives because, while donations matter, its endowment fund earnings track the stock market and it’s been hot.
But these are anomalies.
To understand the paradox of plenty during the pandemic, Vancouver Foundation CEO Kevin McCourt explained that charities have only three revenue sources — government grants, donations, and earned revenue from things like ticket sales or interest on endowments.
reduced revenue because of cancelled events and fewer donations. Nineteen per cent expected they would have to close.
Online giving was one of the few bright spots. CanadaHelps, which provides fundraising technology for 24,000 charities, reported an 86-per-cent increase in donors last year. According to its
One explanation is that the pandemic forced older people to become more Internet savvy. They are the demographic that has always provided the most and biggest donations. And right now many are debt-free, with secure jobs or pensions, money to spend, and few places to spend it.
But many smaller, donor-dependent charities serving the most vulnerable face greater needs than ever, with no money to spare for online technology. Even if they could, many of their donors traditionally come from those same communities and have gone from donor to client.
Still, there are some such as Ratanak that found success going old school, relying on personal relationships, and retooling their work to ensure that they were also serving their donors.
is one of those. Despite COVID, it reached 90 per cent of its $6-million target. The Giving Report profiled how it enlisted well-connected individuals to contact neighbours on behalf of the foundation.
It also gave back, applying for and distributing government grant money to help at-risk people in the community. That raised local awareness that spurred donations, as did the video town halls that it organized with experts who answered questions about COVID.
But there were more losers than winners.
The Vancouver Aquarium was among them, with social distancing and travel restrictions decimating its earned-revenue base. Donors were generous in response to fundraising pleas. The federal government stepped in with an emergency grant.
But in the end, only Atlanta-based entertainment company, Herschend Enterprises, had deep enough pockets to buy
the name and buildings in the hope of better times ahead.
The pandemic has been tough. But that’s not the full story. Canadians’ generosity has been declining for the past 15 years. In 2007, one-in-four tax-filing Canadians made charitable donations. By 2019, it was down to one-in-five, and the average donation had dropped by 10 per cent.
I’m sick of people carping about “government waste” that resulted in them getting an unneeded COVID old-age pension cheque or an ICBC refund. I’m tired of the humble-bragging about how they have never before saved as much money because there’s nowhere to spend it, and First-World whines about how terrible it is not to be travelling (and, yes, I’m in that last one myself).
We’re urged to support local businesses. But charities are also a backbone of our communities, providing 86,000 jobs in B.C. alone and $6.4 billion to the provincial economy.
They provide comfort to the neediest, services to most desperate, and joy through music and art. Now they need all the help we can muster.
