At public meetings launching the Cullen commission into money laundering, some denounced former provincial solicitor-general Rich Coleman as if he were a Great Satan — an avatar of all the Liberal failures.
After two years of investigation, Coleman on Wednesday left the commission’s online witness window having proven why he was re-elected often and a senior minister for so long. His critics must have been deflated.
Forget about no smoking gun, Coleman sounded confident, forthright and in command of the issues he confronted as a cabinet minister for nearly two decades — especially about dirty money.
The former deputy premier from 2013 to 2017 said it was ridiculous that anyone believed his party was willfully blind to criminal activity in casinos, or that the government was more concerned about revenue.
“There was never a discussion that we need to do this for the money,” Coleman insisted. “The need for revenue was never a driver on anything we did on this one.”
Former Premier Gordon Campbell appointed Coleman solicitor-general after the 2001 Liberal victory and gave him responsibility for gaming, liquor, consumer protection, prisons and policing.
Coleman said he didn’t ask for gaming, didn’t know much about it, and didn’t know why he got it.
A former RCMP officer, Coleman spent 16 years in real estate consulting and development before running successfully in 1996 for the Fort Langley-Aldergrove seat.
He remained a top minister from the party’s 2001 victory until the NDP returned to power in 2017. Coleman did not run in 2020.
He was responsible for gaming off and on between 2001 and 2012, but not when the tide of suspicious cash truly flooded casinos in 2013 and 2014, hitting a high-water mark in 2015.
When he took over in 2001, Coleman said policing and gaming were both dysfunctional. There hadn’t been an increase in the policing budget for nine years, and the RCMP was operating with a provincial complement short more than 100 officers, he said.
Coleman took credit for getting more funding, the number of officers back up to where it should be, and other significant changes.
Gaming was more problematic.
The Liberals were elected with a no-expansion-of-gaming plank in their platform, he explained, but the previous NDP government had initiated a transformation of existing primarily charity-run gaming operations — “smoke-filled, low-ceiling rooms with little activity and no slots” — into a modern business.
A casino scandal and its fallout complicated that and Coleman became midwife to the new industry.
A Gaming Control Act had to be written, the B.C. Lottery Corp. had to transition from selling tickets into a gaming company contracting with casino service providers, regulations adopted…
In the early years, money laundering was a concern, of course, but Coleman said he wasn’t alerted to large suspicious cash arriving in bags.
Police told him they were dealing with small-time loansharks and thieves in parking lots.
“Hindsight is always 20:20,” Coleman agreed, but he “didn’t have better information,” so government worked on the best information received from the professional public service and experts.
Coleman believed it was near impossible to launder money through the casinos because cash used to buy chips could not become legitimate via a cheque or other financial instruments.
He said he played no role in killing the Integrated Illicit Gaming Enforcement Team in 2009, and denied earlier accusations by the former RCMP officer in charge, Fred Pinnock, who claimed Coleman tried to intimidate him by trying to crush his hand while shaking it, and was rude to Naomi Yamamoto, then a Liberal MLA, now Pinnock’s wife.
Still, in 2010, the issue of suspicious currency coming into casinos had Coleman’s attention, and he said one of his first questions was why it wasn’t being seized under the civil forfeiture law. He was told that wasn’t possible because police didn’t know whether cash was legitimate or illicit, a necessary element for confiscation.
Coleman asked the province’s then-civil forfeiture director Robert Kroeker to investigate, but was not responsible for gaming when his report finally arrived in 2011. Nine of Kroeker’s recommendations were adopted quickly, but the last — the creation of a dedicated police force — was delayed until the effect of the other measures was evaluated.
In 2010, the RCMP also launched their only probe of cash in casinos, but shut it down in 2012 without determining the origin of the money.
In a January 2011 media report, RCMP officer Barry Baxter complained that common sense suggested it was illicit, but no one was doing anything.
Coleman ignored the comments.
“I was never involved in investigations,” he asserted, before challenging those who said police lacked resources or funding. “At no time did I have the police in B.C. tell me to my face they were under-resourced. I can tell you the funding for police in B.C. has been very good for two decades.”
After the 2013 election, Finance Minister Mike de Jong took over gaming.
At the urging and lobbying of the B.C. Lottery Corp., the Mounties finally agreed in 2014 to establish another investigation that became Project E-Pirate.
In mid-2015, the Mounties told BCLC, the regulatory Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, and the government that they finally had evidence the cash gamblers picked up from a money service business was proceeds of crime.
That conclusion has not been tested in court as there was no prosecution.
Nevertheless, by the end of 2015, because of police action and more aggressive anti-money laundering measures, suspicious cash was on a steep decline.
De Jong told the commission the revelations of that summer were so alarming he quickly found funding to create a dedicated police unit — the Joint Illegal Gaming Investigation Team.
Commissioner Austin Cullen should consider that team the implementation of Kroeker’s final 2011 recommendation, Coleman said.
VICTORIA — After passing up earlier opportunities to criticize the federal government over inadequate vaccine supplies and lax border controls, Premier John Horgan waded into the Ottawa blame game on paid sick leave this week.
Horgan said B.C. had been lobbying the Justin Trudeau Liberal government for months for “a genuine national plan” to fix the gaps in its “unwieldy” sick leave plan introduced last year. The province was caught off-guard when no fix was included in the April 19 federal budget.
“We identified those gaps as did others,” the premier told reporters Tuesday. “We had hopes that their budget, the day before our budget, would have done something to address those issues. We were disappointed to see no progress.”
Ottawa’s failure to act prompted the province to resume work on a made-in-B.C. plan for paid sick leave, which was already in the drafting stage last summer.
“Obviously we weren’t able to amend our budget documents which came the next day,” the premier continued. “But we’ve gone back to the shelf and taken the programs that we were working on here in B.C. and we’re trying to get those up-to-speed to fill in the gaps at the federal level.”
Not an easy task to do at the provincial level, according to Horgan.
“There are a lot of challenges here,” Horgan continued. “I believe those could have been addressed through the unemployment insurance program, where the federal government has access to all of the names of the people who pay taxes in Canada. We (meaning the province) do not. We can use our tax information for tax purposes, not for creating other programs.”
Hence the anger and frustration with Ottawa, which came pouring out in the premier’s media conference Tuesday.
“They’ve done a lot of great things over the past 14 months but this is not one of them,” said Horgan. “We had commitments and growing support through industry, labour and communities that this (national fix) was the way to go. Everybody gets that, but we didn’t get the program we needed at the time we needed it from the federal government … We’re going to have to fill those gaps.
“I don’t want to sound overly whiny about this,” he said, by way of framing his comments.
Actually he did sound a bit whiny, given what he knew or ought to have known about the circumstances that prompted Ottawa to hold back on a universal paid sick leave program.
Ottawa implemented paid sick leave for national transportation companies and others in federally regulated economic sectors the year before the pandemic hit.
Then last year’s national stopgap program — emphasis on “gap” — provided cash payments to cover sick leave in all sectors. But to collect, workers who booked off sick had to apply and wait, no small burden for those at the lower end of the wage scale, living from paycheque-to-paycheque. A permanent change for provincially regulated employers would have to be implemented through provincial employment standards law.
Last year’s Safe Restart agreement indicated a role for provinces in providing sick leave: “To encourage workers to stay at home and seek public health advice if they are showing symptoms, the Government of Canada will fund a temporary support program at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion. The new program will support workers who do not already have access to other paid sick leave. Where not already available, provinces and territories will establish a job-protected sick leave, through legislation that allows workers to take up to 10 days of leave related to COVID-19.”
At that point B.C. had already established unpaid sick leave. But it didn’t act on paid sick leave, perhaps because it was already deep into preparations for the snap election. In any event, the province kept lobbying for improvements in the federal plan.
One key improvement was forthcoming on Feb. 19 of this year. The Trudeau government extended coverage for another two weeks for workers who have to isolate but have no access to paid sick leave. The move prompted the Canadian Labour Congress to praise the federal government and remind the provinces of their obligations to workers as well.
“It is good to see the federal government fulfil its promise to take care of workers (by) extending the duration of the federal sickness benefit for those who aren’t covered through their workplace,” said CLC president Hassan Yussuff. “The provinces must step up and offer workers universal paid sick leave. Experts have repeatedly said such access would help slow the transmission of COVID-19 and keep workers safe. It is long overdue.”
Despite the prompting from organized labour that provinces should step up with their own plans for paid sick leave, Horgan still did nothing. The premier stalled until the federal budget, then expressed surprise and indignation that it didn’t contain a federal plan to cover the bases that the province itself should have been covering.
“Now we are stepping up,” Horgan said this week. “I believe we will get there as quickly as we can.”
In the legislature Wednesday, the premier suggested the enabling legislation could be ready as early as May 10, when the House resumes following next week’s break. But the bill could have been on the order paper weeks ago, had Horgan heeded the signs that there was a role for the province to play in providing paid sick leave for B.C. workers.
OTTAWA – The Conservatives want former PMO and Finance senior staffer Elder Marques to testify in front of the ethics committee on the WE Charity scandal.
The Tories hope to summon Marques — who left his job as chief of staff to former Finance Minister Bill Morneau soon after the latter’s resignation last summer — “to testify to his knowledge of conflicts of interest and lobbying,” according to a copy of the motion obtained by National Post.
There is no date set for his summon, but if it collects enough support from committee members as written, the motion says that Marques should testify within one week of its adoption.
According to the Conservatives, the idea is to give Marques a chance to explain his perspective of the WE Charity scandal as former top staffer to Morneau.
Morneau resigned from government late last summer amid growing tensions between himself and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over COVID-19 economic policies as well as his involvement with WE Charity.
The Conservative motion comes only days after Marques created shockwaves in front of the federal defence committee by revealing that he’d told Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, about allegations against former Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance.
The Conservatives also want to grill Marques on reports by Vice and National Post last summer that Telford’s husband Rob Silver had repeatedly pushed the Trudeau government to make changes to the federal wage subsidy in a failed bid to make his employer eligible for the multi-billion dollar aid program.
At the time, sources said that Silver contacted Marques and another staffer at Morneau’s office multiple times in April to express his frustration about his employer’s — private mortgage company MCAP — ineligibility for the aid program.
MCAP has denied any wrongdoing in the affair.
“Given Mr. Marques’s previous role as Chief of Staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, and his recent testimony that revealed new details about the role the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff played in the cover-up of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Marques may also have details about the accuracy of Ms. Telford’s public comments regarding the WE scandal and the lobbying activities of Rob Silver,” Conservative MP and ethics critic Michael Barrett said in a statement.
Last fall, the ethics committee launched a study that has largely focused on the Liberal government’s — and both Justin Trudeau’s and Bill Morneau’s family’s — close ties to WE Charity, to which Ottawa sole-sourced a $912-million student volunteer grant program last summer before the charity organization pulled out of the deal.
The study has recently hit a standstill though, as Liberal members have been filibustering opposition member’s attempts to call senior government staff to testify. Instead, the government have sent unrelated ministers to speak on their behalf, citing “ministerial responsibility”.
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.
loonie politics
premium content
Browse all of the news stories on our home page...
But our Premium Content is exclusive to Loonie Politics subscribers.
