Canada

Saturday July 18, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday July 18, 2020

Why has there been no public information campaign about face masks?

May 6, 2020

On 24 July it becomes compulsory to wear face masks in shops and supermarkets in England. What determines how we can expect such measures to play out? Largely, three things: how confident we can be in the available evidence, the size of the estimated effect among a compliant population, and the degree of compliance.

While a lot of attention has focused – rightly – on the first two of these, the third is equally important. Compliance not only encompasses questions of whether there is adherence to the guidance, but also the quality of the adherence. It is instructive, then, to compare the case of face masks with that of another very recent public health intervention: the recommendation of handwashing to stop the spread of Covid-19.

Handwashing is simple for most people. It is relatively cheap, and the means required to comply with the request – soap, running water – were largely already available in March, when advice on doing so began. While prior knowledge on handwashing existed, public health campaigns emphasised how best to do so, with simple messaging – “sing Happy Birthday twice” – combined with regular social media and TV campaigns providing more detailed advice.

April 9, 2020

Wearing a face mask is a more complex and costly act, and less familiar. People will face various difficulties in complying. Assuming that any positive effect of making masks mandatory exists, it is vital that these benefits are maximised and any potential downsides mitigated. This raises many additional questions. What sort of masks should be worn? How should they be worn? How often can they be worn? How often do they need to be cleaned? Is it more important to emphasise mask-wearing for certain groups? Might it be sensible to not recommend mask-wearing for others?

Life in a Pandemic

All this means at least two things: first, we need a public information campaign that helps widespread, effective compliance. This must not say simply “wear a mask”, or bury the answers to these questions on a government website; it should make the guidance highly visible and clear to understand. The World Health Organization has produced infographics and films that provide a good template.

Second, compliance needs to be possible for everyone. This crisis, and actions taken to mitigate it, has already had a devastating financial impact on many people. The price in a supermarket for a disposable face mask is about 70p: that cost has to be multiplied by the number of daily trips on public transport where masks are already mandatory – and, in one week’s time, will be multiplied by the number of visits to a shop or supermarket. While fabric masks are available, they need to be washed regularly – the WHO says at least once a day – adding more costs. Face masks are already being given away for free at some Network Rail-operated train stations: this could be rolled out more broadly, to other public transport hubs and at supermarkets. (The Guardian) 



 

Wednesday July 22, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 22, 2020

Ethical questions abound in politics

July 16, 2020

For the third time since he became prime minister in 2015, the behaviour of Justin Trudeau is being investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The investigation involves a proposed non-tendered contract worth $19 million to the WE Charity, which was supposed to operate a new student-volunteer program. Trudeau had participated in the cabinet meeting that approved the contract.

Because both the prime minister and his wife had a close relationship with the charity, the opposition complained to the ethics commissioner that Trudeau was guilty of violating the conflict of interest law. Days later it was revealed that Trudeau’s mother and brother had been paid nearly $300,000 for multiple speaking engagements at WE Charity events. This seems to be a classic case of confusing or intermingling private interests with the public interest, which is the essential nature of a conflict of interest.

The case caused me to reflect on why politicians appear to have such difficulty reasoning and acting ethically. Here are some random thoughts:

July 11, 2020

There is illegal and unethical behaviour in all occupations, but politics seems to involve greater temptations and risks that legal rules and ethical standards will be violated.

Politics involves contention over competing ideas and interests, together with competition to gain power, and these fundamental facts can override respect for ethical norms. Politicians and their advisers take the pragmatic view that if they do not break or bend the rules, they will lose ground to their opponents. They tell themselves that after they win, they will behave in an exemplary ethical manner, but then re-election becomes a strong motivation.

Most politicians enter public life for altruistic reasons of public service. A minority, however, become corrupted by the political process. They develop the view that politics is a game and to the winner go the spoils. Individuals from a famous political family, or long-serving politicians, may develop the view that they are, as a former Liberal cabinet minister declared, “entitled to their entitlements.” Rewarding family and “political friends” is seen as a perk of the job. (Winnipeg Free Press) 

 

Thursday July 16, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 16, 2020

UK should face ‘public and painful’ retaliation over Huawei decision, Chinese state media urges

February 12, 2020

Britain should face retaliation over its decision to ban Huawei from its 5G networks, Chinese state-backed media urged, dubbing the move “ill-founded.”

On Tuesday, the U.K. said the country’s mobile network operators will not be allowed to buy new Huawei 5G gear after Dec. 31. And the carriers must also strip out existing Huawei 5G gear by the end of 2027. 

The decision marked a U-turn by London after initially allowing Huawei to play a limited role in the U.K.’s next-generation mobile networks. 

January 30, 2020

New U.S. sanctions in May, aimed at cutting off Huawei from chip supplies made using American software and equipment, prompted an emergency review by Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). The organization said that “Huawei’s long term ability to build products using state-of-the-art technology has been severely affected.” 

“The U.K. can no longer be confident it will be able to guarantee the security of future Huawei 5G equipment,” the country’s digital minister, Oliver Dowden, said on Tuesday.

December 12, 2018

Huawei urged the government to reconsider the move, adding it was “confident” the new U.S. restrictions “would not have affected the resilience or security of the products we supply.” 

And while U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.K.‘s decision “advances Transatlantic security in the #5G era while protecting citizens’ privacy, national security, and free-world values,” Chinese state media urged retaliation. 

“It’s necessary for China to retaliate against UK, otherwise wouldn’t we be too easy to bully? Such retaliation should be public and painful for the UK,” the Global Times wrote. 

“But it’s unnecessary to turn it into a China-UK confrontation. The UK is not the US, nor Australia, nor Canada. It is a relative ‘weak link’ in the Five Eyes. In the long run, the UK has no reason to turn against China, with the Hong Kong issue fading out.”

The state-backed publication was referencing Britain’s criticisms of the new Hong Kong national security law that has stoked tensions between London and Beijing. (CNBC) 

 

Wednesday July 15, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 15, 2020

Oh, for a viable alternative to the Liberals

Merely by the celebrity of the Trudeau family, potential conflicts of interest are going to arise, as one did last week when the federal ethics commissioner opened yet another investigation over Justin Trudeau’s role in awarding a $19.5 million sole-source contract to the WE charity to administer the $912 million Canada Student Service Grant program.

July 11, 2020

The WE organization hires all kinds of speakers, performers and leaders for events intended to inspire youth to take local action for global change. Two of those speakers over the past four years were Trudeau’s mother Margaret and brother Alexandre (Sacha) who were paid $250,000 and $32,500 respectively.

His wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is an ambassador for the organization.

On top of that, finance minister Bill Morneau is also drawing criticism because one of his daughters works with WE.

I’m not convinced anything overtly nefarious happened here. There is a big difference between corruption and conflict of interest. The public service has said it was their recommendation to award the contract.

June 23, 2020

But good gracious, the cabinet still had to rubber-stamp it and at the very least two seasoned public figures should know, at the very least, to recuse themselves, especially after being sanctioned twice by the ethics commissioner.

What happened to transparency and doing politics differently?

I find it extremely discouraging that we can’t get beyond these kinds of simple ethics issues. We’ve had 153 years of political scandals from both of the seesawing governing parties. Can we ever expect something different? Is human nature really that intractable?

October 23, 2015

I have lots of friends who despise Trudeau. They believe he is only prime minister because of his celebrity. There’s some truth to that. There were better candidates in the Liberal leadership race, but it’s doubtful any of them could have won the election in 2015, or at least a majority government.

My Trudeau-despising friends think he is entitled, narcissistic, incompetent and insincere.

It’s getting pretty hard to argue with that, not that I have ever whole-heartedly defended him, my only real defence being that the Liberals as a whole are the lesser of evils.

Of course, all the opposition calls for criminal investigations and for Trudeau to resign are political posturing. Ultimately, he will get his knuckles rapped for a third time and his fate will be in the hands of public opinion when the next federal election rolls around.

Unfortunately, at this point, I still don’t see a viable alternative emerging. (The Interior News) 

 

Tuesday July 14, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday July 14, 2020

When will it be safe to reopen the U.S. border?

How much longer can this go on? How much longer can the world’s longest undefended border remain largely sealed? 

April 18 2020

It’s an increasingly urgent question facing Canadian governments. Even with the U.S. border open for commercial business, and exceptions being made to allow families to reunite, our joint border is mostly closed. And the impact is huge.

This discussion is relevant this week for a couple of reasons. First, the current emergency border-crossing restriction package is set to expire July 21. Second, the government is facing mounting pressure from commercial interests.

The Canadian Travel & Tourism Roundtable, a coalition of 120-odd travel and tourism companies including Canada’s major airlines, last month sent an open letter to the government calling for the loosening of travel restrictions. 

A second open letter was sent by Canada’s airlines and many of Canada’s biggest companies including banks and telecoms.

On one hand it is hard to blame the tourism sector, which has been among the hardest hit by the pandemic, for putting its economic interests first. But it is also more than a little troubling that airlines were quick to do away with social distancing minimums when we know they are crucial in slowing the spread of COVID-19. 

May 24, 2020

Fortunately, it’s not up to the tourism/travel sector to make public policy. That’s up to the government, and based on what top officials such as Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland are saying, protecting public health is still the top priority. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: “We are going to be very, very careful about when and how we start reopening international borders.”

Something most people do not recognize is that cross-border traffic is already increasing thanks to loosening of some restrictions. The volume of traffic crossing land borders has increased from about 115,000 a week from late April to early May to 175,000 a week in late June. Officials say those figures include commercial and non-commercial traffic. The number of non-commercial highway travellers entering Canada has nearly doubled over that period, going from about 3,300 a week to about 6,500.

June 2, 2017

At the same time as Canada is allowing more cross-border traffic, the situation in the U.S. is deteriorating. As recently as the weekend states like Florida were announcing record new infections and deaths. Florida alone reported more than 15,000 new cases. American leadership is polarized, with the Trump administration basically in denial. Some states are rolling back reopening, others seem unwilling to do so despite exploding infection rates.

Worst of all, America has no apparent unified strategy to regain control. Even if Trump loses the November election, it’s predicted to take months to change direction and get COVID under control. 

Under these circumstances, how on earth could Canada even consider significantly loosening border controls? Doing so would literally put at risk everything this country has done right to flatten the pandemic curve. All the work and sacrifice Canadians have endured would be at risk. 

It is said that governing in these times is an ongoing struggle to balance safety with renewed prosperity. Fair enough. But on some fronts there can be no overall compromise. The U.S. is not a safe place to be, and Canada should not face further exposure until things change. That could easily keep the border closed until the end of this year, at least, say infectious disease experts.

It’s a sad reality with a great cost to Canadians and our economy. But we have no choice. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)