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

If you won’t get vaccinated to save your own life or your granny’s, or even for a chance to win $1 million or a vacation, is $100 gift card enough to get you to fulfill your civic duty?

For a more and more entrenched segment of Alberta’s populace the answer is probably not. Resisting immunization has become a misguided commitment to some libertarian ideal for a surprising number of people.

But Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is still willing to give a $100 incentive a try as Covid cases, hospitalizations and deaths mount in the province with the lowest vaccination rate in the country.

The unvaccinated can score the gift card for getting first or second shots. Close to 30 per cent of the population has yet to get both needles despite all the imprecations from politicians, doctors and public servants.

Kenney has been increasingly panicked in his pleas. On his return last week from an extended vacation, during which he probably wished the pandemic would just evaporate, he sincerely asked his fellow Albertans to “for the love of God” get the shot.

The $100 bribe has ticked off responsible adults who have had the jab and left even the most moderate Albertans wondering how the government has gone so far off the rails.

To be fair, the government hasn’t put all its eggs in the gift card basket. A province wide indoor mask mandate and curfew was announced at the same time as the incentive.

But even that wasn’t without controversy.

The political flack that rained down over the past year prompted the government to exempt churches and gyms from the indoor mask rules. And you can’t mess with rodeos in Alberta, so rodeos are exempted from a 10 p.m. liquor serving curfew.

The frenzied effort to pander to the right wing base must present quite a challenge to UCP policy writers and comms professionals.

The UCP’s ineffectual efforts have gone too far for some of its members. Peter Guthrie, the MLA for Airdrie Cochrane, tweeted out a letter expressing concern that the government’s tone during its recent press conference was too accusatory in discussing those who haven’t been vaccinated.

If the need to push up vaccination numbers is the key, why hasn’t Alberta created a vaccine passport and the support for commercial, entertainment and institutional venues to require it?

Kenney vowed to not impose a passport from the beginning. A passport won’t fly with the right wing of his party so it’s a no-go zone.

And so the carrot approach of gift cards and million dollar lotteries trumps the stick of requiring two jabs to participate in a normal life.

The government’s playbook for these “incentives” comes from the U.S. Certainly Alberta has often been described as the most American of provinces, so it’s no surprise that Kenney looks south of the border.

The million lottery for the vaccinated announced at the beginning of the summer came from Ohio.

First doses ticked up after the lottery announcement in Alberta but then plateaued.

“There really was not any kind of indication that the lottery made a huge difference,” Dr. Stephanie Smith, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Alberta Hospital, told a CBC reporter.

The gift card idea came from Colorado, where a jab is worth a gift card to Walmart or Chipotle or a discount on entry to a state park.

So how is Colorado doing? On Sept. 8th the Denver Post reported Covid cases are at their highest level since mid January.

The UCP’s ineffective response to Covid, driven by its mania to appease the right wing, is allowing the NDP opposition to score points in the centre. A recent Leger poll shows more than 75 per cent of Albertans favour a vaccine passport system for venues like bars, restaurants, festivals and gyms.

The gift card bribe just angered the 70 per cent of the population who have heeded the call to get the shot.

Keeping the committed anti-vaxxers happy is eroding whatever moderate support the UCP  still retains.

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro had a deer in the headlights moment during a press conference this week.

He admitted that there had been no technical briefing for reporters on the 200-page detailed report on continuing care, leaving the journalists with no time to leaf through the document before having to ask questions about it.

It was an inadvertent oversight, said the minister.

A senior member of the press gallery called him on that, saying he “didn’t buy” that the experienced health department communication staff has made the “inadvertent” mistake.

Shandro called a hapless assistant deputy minister to the podium to explain. The explanation was almost as dense as the report.

If just holding the press conference was that hard, how tough is implementing the report going to be? Probably just about impossible.

Covid-19 highlighted the major issues governments have to grapple with in continuing care. Those issues led to heartbreaking death tolls and spotlighted a system right across the country with far too many fracture points.

To its credit, the Alberta government contracted consultants MNP to do the continuing care review leading to this report in February, 2020, a month before Covid raised its nasty head.

They were able to pivot and add the lessons learned over the past 14 months.

The review is thorough and sweeping. As the various stakeholders plow through the contents it will also raise some controversies.

Alberta has a mashup of public, not-for-profit and private care facilities. The report doesn’t call for a change to that mix, which won’t go over well with critics of for-profit private healthcare.

The report recommends that accommodation fees charged to the residents of facilities be increased annually and the the government “provide flexibility to increase fees beyond the core inflation rate for Alberta if required.”

There will likely be hard-pressed families willing to protest that suggestion.

But some recommendations line up with what we’ve been hearing for months about these institutions. The report found problems with staffing levels, the number of part-time and casual staff, and the dire need for mental health staff and support.

“Another issue with FBCC (continuing care) workplaces is a shortage of full-time employment with related benefits such as sick time, vacation, and other fringe and pension benefits. … Some employers prefer to provide part-time employment as it lowers the facilities’ operating costs by reducing fringe and pension benefits,” says the report.

Shandro was happy to announce some immediate needed, but relatively easy, fixes to the system at the newser.

Ward rooms with more than two residents will be eliminated by July 1, he said. Plus inspections and audits of facilities will be made publicly available.

And the province will work to ensure couples in care don’t get split up.

But the answers got pretty vague when he was asked about staffing changes, sick leave, new construction and just about anything that would cost substantial dollars. Shandro kicked the big ticket and regulatory items into the fall, when the government will come up with an “action plan”.

It’s pretty clear MNP was directed to come up with solutions which would be zero sum in terms of implementation. So the consultant includes strategies to push more clients to home-care by beefing up that cheaper alternative. In the long run that strategy would save provincial dollars.

But in the short run implementing report recommendations will cost both the province and the facility owners.

The very items that will actually improve the system are anathema to the general philosophy of the provincial government. Increasing wages, guaranteeing sick pay and benefits for healthcare staff will be a tough hurdle for a government that hangs its budget hat on reducing the ever increasing cost of healthcare in the province.

And a government staking its reputation on reducing red tape is going to balk at increasing monitoring and “benchmarking” of private nursing home facilities.

The report specifies an Oct. 31 deadline for coming up with a plan.

The question is whether the government will set aside its own campaign rhetoric and do the right thing to prevent a repeat of the horrors Alberta’s most vulnerable seniors endured in the past year.

By October reporters and all the many folks touched by the continuing care crisis will have had time to read that report and craft some pretty tough questions.

Photo Credit: Red Deer Advocate

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.


Quebec premier François Legault’s government is proposing a unilateral amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 to entrench the idea that “Quebeckers form a nation,” and that the official language of the province – and of the Quebec nation – is French. There is a lot of debate on whether the provincial legislature can in fact do so under the rules of our constitutional amending formulas – including apparent agreement from Department of Justice lawyers in spite of clear evidence to the contrary when it comes to changes to a province’s official languages – but I find myself a bit more interested in the “nation” part of the proposal, for a couple of different reasons.

One of those is that this is seems to be a culmination of the whole wrenching process of trying to enshrine Quebec as a “distinct society” as part of the Constitutional wrangling of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, which helped give rise to the Reform Party in the early 1990s. The fact that the current federal government seems to be shrugging this off seems to be curious given the history in this country, especially given the constitutional wrangling of the 1980s. (There is a whole added dimension about Justin Trudeau and his father’s battles against this particular notion, but this is not the column to delve into that).

Others will point to the motion that Stephen Harper moved in the House of Commons in 2006, which moved that the House recognize that “The Québécois form a nation within a united Canada,” hoping to both try and one-up the Bloc Québécois and divide the Liberals, which was largely uncontentious in the broader scheme (though his intergovernmental affairs minister, Michael Chong, resigned as a point of principle over it given that he was not consulted in the process). The counterpoint, however, is that this was essentially a symbolic, non-binding motion and not an addition to the constitution. As well, Harper refused to qualify just who “Québécois” described in the motion, nor did the ministers he sent out to the media to explain the motion give any indication of just who it included – Harper himself indicating that it was a personal decision as to who chose to self-identify. This makes for some uncomfortable notions around both the anglophone minority within Quebec, more recent immigrant populations, as well as the First Nations on whose land the province rests, great portions of which remain unceded. And then there is the whole notion about it sounds uncomfortably like ethnic nationalism.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t a case for considering Quebec to be a nation – they have a distinct language, culture, legal tradition and history within what we think of as Canada today, which is a federation of different nations and national identities – it’s just that constitutionalizing it becomes tricky. But where I suspect it will get even trickier will be an impetus for copycat notions from other parts of the country – most especially Alberta.

“But Alberta doesn’t have a distinct language, culture, legal tradition, or history,” you might say, and you would be correct – and yet, if you recall the Buffalo Declaration, the ridiculous farce of a manifesto put out by a number of Western MPs to lay out the Alberta and Saskatchewan’s – but mostly Alberta’s – grievances, and one of those was the insistence that “Alberta is a culturally distinct region, but this has not been recognized.” The logic around it was fairly dubious – claiming that their history contained several “distinct cultural themes.”

“A struggle against a colonial government, a desire for individual freedom, a willingness and drive to achieve personal economic liberty; a deep connection and respect for our land; and an economy unique to other areas of Canada,” the document reads, and goes into some of the immigration patterns to the province (having paid lip service to the Indigenous populations in the region without quite acknowledging how they were displaced). But much of this self-congratulatory back-patting likes to paint themselves as a bastion of tolerance in pushing back against the “redneck” stereotype, and yet, having grown up there, I can tell you that much of this tolerance is surface-level.

Sure, if you make a lot of money – and much of “Alberta culture” seems to be very much centred on how much money you make, in places where keeping up with the Joneses is a competitive sport – you can move in more social circles in the province, but there is a lot of deep-seated intolerance, racism, white supremacy, and homophobic bigotry. There are pervasive attitudes around First Nations as somehow being interlopers rather than the actual owners of the land. And then there is the religiosity that infects a lot of the politics and makes the “tolerance” harder to believe. Hell, in the mid-90s, my new-agey mother was accused of witchcraft by our rural neighbours, who began targeting us with threats up to and including killing our dog to send a message.  You’ll forgive me if these protestations of tolerance ring hollow.

Nevertheless, if Quebec goes ahead and attempts to enshrine its “nation” status unilaterally, you can bet there will be calls to open up the constitution to address issues like equalization – which have already started in Alberta – but I’m certain that we’ll start to see more calls for Alberta to demand some kind of recognition for its special cultural status, if not from the Buffalo Declaration crew, then by other opportunists who will try to use it to leverage some other kinds of concessions from the federal government. No doubt Quebec’s attempt to make these changes will be headed to the courts – likely not at the behest of any federal party as each are too craven to stand up to Legault and his apparently popularity, each of them hoping to get his magic glow upon them in the next election – and it may yet be struck down. But before that happens, I wouldn’t be surprised if proposals to unilaterally amend either the Constitution Act, 1867 or the Alberta Act, 1905 start being floated, creating even more problems for the rest of Confederation in the meantime.

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.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login