wealth

Wednesday January 6, 2020

January 6, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 6, 2020

Don’t lump all politicians in with scofflaws

Reading Spectator journalist Katrina Clarke’s report surveying local politicians about their activities over Christmas, you may have been struck first by the fact that one Hamilton-area politician did indeed travel.

Veteran Conservative Flamborough-Glanbrook MP David Sweet acknowledged to his leader’s office that he travelled to the U.S., first on business to deal with a “property issue,” and then later “for leisure.” But Erin O’Toole’s office didn’t know about the “leisure” part. Sweet “resigned” from chairing — of all things — the House of Commons Ethics Committee, the leader’s office reported Monday. And he has said he will not run again in the next federal election. Sweet remains in the U.S. at this point. 

O’Toole had requested, explicitly, that caucus members not take part in international travel over the Christmas holidays, so it’s little wonder Sweet’s career as a Conservative MP was quickly declared dead in the water. It’s an ignominious way to end a 15-year-career in politics. Twitter lit up with reaction, much of it lauding Sweet for his work but even more of it bitterly critical, such as John P. Soleas, who Tweeted: “Why are you still out of the country? You should’ve been flying back yesterday! Your constituents are staying home and abiding by public health guidance. If you can’t stay in the country when it counts why not resign today and relieve yourself of this heavy burden?”

Sweet and other politicians caught up in this angry storm are learning the hard way: This is no minor bit of bad behaviour. Travelling while the rest of Canada is locked down and suffering has tapped a vein of outrage and hurt. Read the letters from Spec readers and others across the country. Read about broken-hearted families who wanted desperately to see each other but couldn’t due to the travel guidelines. Parents of adult children who always see their kids and grandkids at Christmas, but couldn’t this year. People who lost loved ones before or during the pandemic and could not be with relatives for comfort and consolation. People who are used to gathering with families who had to settle for the Zoom equivalent this holiday season.

The collective reaction is not annoyance at the display, yet again, of a double standard between “them” and the rest of us. It’s more like the reaction of people who feel they have been attacked and wounded. Is it entirely reasonable? You can argue either way, but it is what it is. Public reaction on this issue is like a force of nature, and it won’t be dismissed or managed, as so many Canadian politicians have learned.

But here is something else worth considering. For the story mentioned earlier Clarke got responses from something like 20 area politicians, local, provincial and federal. (Several others have yet to respond.) But if they’re all being honest — and they would be very foolish at this point to be anything but forthright — the rest of them spent their holidays season the same way the majority of us did.

They spent Christmas and New Year’s alone, or Zoomed with friends and family. They hosted small outdoor gatherings, masked and distanced. Some had “garage gatherings” which in our view is questionable, but for the most part these elected officials are living with the same public health guidelines we all are.

As we survive this latest pandemic outrage, it is important that we make it entirely clear we expect those elected to represent and serve us to abide by the same rules they levy upon us. And to use common sense. But we should also be careful not to lump all politicians together with those who have abused the public trust. Most are playing by the rules, and the few who are not are paying the price. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Thursday November 19, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 19, 2020

The province is dodging the truth on COVID-19 in long-term care

On Monday, Ontario’s long-term-care minister, Merrilee Fullerton, assured Ontarians that in spite of COVID-19 spreading through long-term-care homes, they’re actually doing better than they did in the first wave of this pandemic.

June 17, 2020

Speaking at Queen’s Park, the minister summed up: “There’s no doubt that lessons have been learned from the first wave and the data shows our homes are doing much, much better.”

Really? On Tuesday, 26 of 32 new COVID-19 deaths were in care homes. The province says 678 nursing home residents have the virus. And 100 of the province’s 626 care homes have outbreaks. 

Does that sound like “much, much better” to you? It doesn’t to us, either. And it doesn’t to many health experts. 

Health experts like Dr. Amit Arya of McMaster University, who described the first wave in long-term care as “a horror movie” and who says now: “We really have not done anything close to what we should have done to prepare for the second wave.”

Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, agrees. She has said in media reports: “It’s devastating … The numbers right now are just exploding.” She also says “we’re shaping up to have a worse second wave.”

Indeed, according to Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario: “The number of residents with COVID is increasing, the number of staff with COVID is increasing and the number of residents who die is increasing. How can anyone sleep well at night with that?”

May 27, 2020

It’s a good question. Notwithstanding Minister Fullerton’s claims to the contrary, it doesn’t seem as if Ontario’s retirement home care system is in a better place than it was during the first wave. It’s clear that the Ford government is concerned and has been trying to put improvements and protections in place, but the reality is that it started too late, and it had repeated warnings during and after the first wave.

The Registered Nurses’ Association, for example, asked the government to make investments in staffing with registered nurses, nurse practitioners, registered practical nurses and personal support workers in homes across Ontario. The government didn’t act. And so when the second wave hit, staffing levels were already at or below operative minimum, and that was before staff began to get sick and be absent. 

The government’s own LTC commission, in its interim report on fixing the system, released a series of recommendations urgently calling for action on things like staffing levels and compensation. Fullerton said her department was “carefully reviewing” the recommendations. 

July 17, 2020

This is all happening at the same time as a Toronto Star investigation revealsprivate LTC operation is such a lucrative business opportunity, private equity funds are being set up to cash in on the potential. That’s not surprising given the shortage of beds that continues to exist and our aging population. 

But keep in mind this is specifically about private, for-profit LTC operations. In Ontario, for-profit homes account for a little more than half of the province’s long-term-care beds. But they also accounted for 70 per cent of COVID deaths in the first wave of the pandemic. According to a Star analysis, so far in the second wave for-profit homes have just under 80 per cent of the deaths.

So if you’re a wealthy investor, there’s money to be made in for-profit long-term care. What is less clear is whether the for-profit model, where the bottom line is always going to competing for the top priority, even over resident care, has a place in the long-term-care system. That the government isn’t even considering that is troubling. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Tuesday October 20, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 20, 2020

Declaration calling for end to lockdowns is about politics, not public health

It’s name — Great Barrington Declaration — seems an attempt to make it sound important, even authoritative. It is neither. Rather, “it’s callous, dangerous nonsense” in the words of American microbiologist and immunologist John Moore.

June 5, 2020

Moore was one of thousands of medical and public health experts reacting to last week’s carefully scripted release of the so-called declaration, which essentially calls for and end to lockdowns and allowing people to be infected by COVID-19, so eventually herd immunity would be realized. The idea is that people most at risk of dying and serious illness would be locked down, and the rest of society would return to “normal,” with people less likely to die being exposed to the virus. 

Herd immunity happens when a significant portion of the population is exposed to a virus, so that it stops spreading because a critical mass of people have become immune to it. 

There are two ways to achieve herd immunity. The first is to administer an effective vaccine. The second, proposed by the three academics behind the declaration, is to basically let the virus run free until enough people become infected.

The first option is what the world’s medical and scientific community is working feverishly at accomplishing. The second is discredited by virtually all credible experts, other than those driven by libertarian ideology, as appears to be the case here. 

August 7, 2020

Consider: Since anyone over 65 is automatically at higher risk of serious outcomes, all those people would need to be locked down. In Canada, that would be about 20 per cent of the population. Try to picture what it would look like if 20 per cent of the population was basically locked away while the virus raged unrestrained in the rest of the population.

Experts say that to achieve herd immunity, 70 per cent of the population would need to be infected. That’s 70 per cent of Canada’s approximately 37.6 million people. That means something like 26 million Canadians would need to be infected in order to achieve herd immunity. To Oct. 15, just under 176,000 Canadians had contracted COVID-19. Even given that many cases have gone unreported, that is an unthinkable rate of disease spread. 

Try to imagine the implications on our health-care system of that many people being infected. It’s true that younger, healthy people generally don’t get as sick as higher risk people, but if only a fraction of those millions became seriously ill, hospitals would be overwhelmed. And imagine how many people would suffer long-term health effects? And how many locked-down at risk people would become sick based on the sheer volume of infected people?

September 24, 2020

All of this is magnified many times in the United States, where the pandemic has been so badly managed and continues to spread disastrously. So perhaps it’s not surprising that this horribly inhumane, destructive approach is popular at the Trump White House. (Britain’s Boris Johnson is also a fan of herd immunity by massive death toll.)

In truth, this declaration has little to do with public health. It’s all about a political viewpoint. It’s a crank, dressed up as in credible clothes. While the authors may be credentialed experts, the work itself is funded by far right conservative interests. The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), where the declaration was signed, is a libertarian think tank committed to “pure freedom” and wishes to see the “role of government … sharply confined.” So, if this is a crock, why waste time writing about it? Because, it’s a crock carefully disguised to look and feel credible. The world’s science and medical community quickly exposed this attempt, but it won’t be the last, which is why we need to remain on guard. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday July 24, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday July 24, 2020

Is the WE Charity affair Justin Trudeau’s sponsorship scandal?

With each new revelation in the rapidly snowballing scandal surrounding Ottawa’s aborted plan to contract out a multimillion-dollar student volunteer program to WE Charity, it gets harder to know whether to be more outraged, disgusted or flabbergasted – or some measure of all three.

July 9, 2020

Outraged that, in the middle of a pandemic that has left millions of Canadians out of work and Ottawa digging a deficit hole for the ages, our federal government somehow thought it urgent and appropriate to spend nearly $1-billion on a program that appeared to serve no one’s interest more than its own and those of the organization chosen to run it.

Disgusted that, as average Canadians struggle to set aside a few dollars every month to donate to their local church or food bank, the federal government would reward a charity that defiles the notion of do-gooding by offering “complimentary” trips across the globe to their rich donor friends in high places, absorbing funds that might otherwise have gone to actually doing good rather than just generating good PR.

December 14, 2016

Flabbergasted that, after already twice being entangled in ethics investigations due to his own disregard for the basic rules of conduct, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds himself at the centre of yet another such inquiry owing to what can only be described as his own hubris and gall for having the nerve to think that no one would notice.

We knew before this scandal erupted that Mr. Trudeau and WE Charity had for years formed a sort of mutual-admiration society. No other major political leader has appeared at more WE Day events or been greeted with more ebullient praise by the organization’s co-founders, Craig and Marc Kielburger. It had become hard to distinguish between WE Charity’s stated goal of “inspiring a generation of leaders and change-makers” and the blatant politics and campaign-style atmosphere that such forums provided Mr. Trudeau.

July 11, 2020

We learned a bit more about the incestuousness of this relationship when Mr. Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after participating in a WE Day event in London alongside Formula One superstar Lewis Hamilton and actor Idris Elba. A picture posted on her Instagram account shows the trio with their arms around each other, along with Ms. Grégoire Trudeau’s mother-in-law, Margaret Trudeau, and sister-in-law Alicia Kemper. WE Days had become a family affair for the Trudeau clan.

September 22, 2017

We have since learned that Margaret Trudeau was paid more than $300,000 to speak at several WE Day events, which, no matter how much you admire her, should strike you as unsettling. Ms. Trudeau may be her own person, but nothing she does now can be considered separate from her son’s political career. That can be a double-edged sword for Mr. Trudeau, but not in the context of a WE Day event.

Now it appears that much of the apparatus of government jumped through hoops between April and June to drum up a program, the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG), that – go figure – not a single federal department or agency or private-sector organization had the wherewithal to administer. None, that is, except for WE Charity, which just happens to have been facing financial disaster as the pandemic dragged on.

April 8, 2004

The closer you look, the more this situation resembles the sponsorship scandal of the late 1990s that tarnished the Liberal brand for more than a decade until Mr. Trudeau revived it.

The sponsorship program, concocted by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien’s government, involved doling out bogus contracts to Liberal-friendly advertising companies under the auspices of promoting federalism after the 1995 Quebec referendum. Then-auditor-general Sheila Fraser concluded that Ottawa “broke just about every rule in the book” in awarding such contracts, which lined the pockets of Liberal donors.

February 9, 2005

That scandal, which eventually spawned a public inquiry, led to criminal charges. And though there is no evidence of criminal activity in the awarding of the CSSG contract to WE Charity, there is a certain similarity in the absence of checks and balances in the procedures followed in outsourcing the grant program. The proposal appeared to sail through cabinet. If any ministers raised red flags about the appearance of conflicts of interest or lack of due diligence regarding WE Charity, we have yet to hear about it.

The sponsorship scandal started off small. The entire program did not involve large sums of money, given the overall size of the government. The program was peripheral to Ottawa’s primary missions, which made it seem kind of innocuous at first.

The WE Charity scandal is starting to look eerily similar. It’s an afterthought in the context of the current crisis Canada faces – yet it’s too rotten-smelling to ignore. (Konrad Yakabuski – The Globe & Mail)



 

Thursday June 18, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 18, 2020

Grocery chains play the Grinch in springtime

What was going through the minds of Canada’s big grocery chains when they decided, pretty much simultaneously, to end premium pandemic pay for front-line staff?

May 22, 2019

One thing for sure, it wasn’t positive PR or corporate image messaging. Loblaw, Empire Co. Ltd. (Sobeys) and Metro are all getting hammered for the decision. And they deserve the pounding. 

The three grocery giants had been paying their employees a premium for continuing to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, keeping shelves stocked and people fed despite the personal risk. The so-called “hero pay” plans differed somewhat company to company, but they were all intended to convey the message to the public and staff that front-line grocery workers were heroes of the pandemic and deserved recognition.

Coronavirus cartoons

So what happened? Did the pandemic quietly end? Is the elevated risk gone?

Here is what Loblaw hair Galen Weston said about ending the $2 two dollars per hour premium: “As the economy slowly reopens and Canadians begin to return to work, we believe it is the right time to end the temporary pay premium we introduced at the beginning of the pandemic. Things have now stabilized in our supermarkets and drug stores. After extending the premium multiple times, we are confident our colleagues are operating safely and effectively in a new normal.”

Genevieve Gregoire, Metro’s communication manager, said: “We are no longer working under the crisis conditions that prevailed from March through May as grocers were amongst the only retailers open to the public. Demand is stabilizing as other business are reopening.”

Sobeys CEO Michael Medline put it this way: “As provinces execute their reopening plans and customer behaviour shifts, we felt that this was a natural time to end our Hero Pay program.”

Here’s the thing though. Ontario, for example, is still seeing new cases every day. Yes, the numbers are down, but we still saw 184 new cases between Tuesday and Wednesday morning. There are still new outbreaks at LTC facilities. The public and store staff are still advised or required to wear masks. 

Grocery execs and analysts will be quick to point out that most staff are second-income earners, or young people working part-time, as if that somehow means they shouldn’t be paid a living wage. They should and not just during a pandemic. 

We are not through this yet. Nearly everyone expects a second wave, which could bring consequences not unlike the first wave. Will grocery chains again decide their staff are heroes and pay them a premium? Will they again take out expensive TV ads thanking those heroes?

And what about the provincial government? It has been full of praise for front-line workers of all stripes. Wouldn’t you think it would reconsider its decision to kill a minimum-wage increase? Or is all Premier Doug Ford’s rhetoric, like that of the grocery store chains, really just a gimmick? (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)