CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Remius]

I’m ok with his performance during this event.  Same with Doug Ford.  But haters gonna hate.
[/quote]
What about Dr Tam?

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Turning a blind eye to ethics and cheating?

Sounds familiar.

Speaking as an individual who lives with someone who’s actually doing the job and received the memo in its entirety...the article is misleading and out of context.

All cases of fraudulent claims/inaccurate information will be managed and dealt with accordingly at a later date. The priority is getting monies to those who are in legitimate need of it, not holding up processing due to investigations into those who are playing the system—Those will occur later.

No one wins in making people wait weeks for their payments, making an already bad situation worse. I believe any government would’ve instituted such measures to ensure the greater good, for the time being.

Files are still being flagged for review. The people attempting to defraud the program are being noted.

Edit to add: Pers have been pulled from other depts to manage the case load of CERB, as well as CEWS. (Canadian Emerg Wage Subsidy)

 

[Jarnhamar]

Speaking as an individual who lives with someone who’s actually doing the job and received the memo in its entirety...the article is misleading and out of context.

Thanks for clarity and info. You say the article is misleading. It sounds like Tom Blackwell is outright lying and the National Post is posting false information.

If employees detect possible abuse they should still process the payment and should not refer the file to the department’s integrity branch, says a memo issued last month by Employment and Social Development Canada.

But the memo seems to take that approach a step further, encouraging civil servants to turn a blind eye to abuse.

It’s one thing to push the payments out rapidly with few questions asked, another to brush aside actual evidence of abuse, said Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Taxpayers Federation of Canada.

“Effective immediately, while processing a claim, if an agent uncovers information that suggests potential abuse of the EI system by a client, an employer or a third party, they do not impose a stop pay and do not refer the file to integrity unless it is considered an urgent investigation,” the note says.

“This is a result of the integrity service branch suspending all non-critical investigations. In addition to suspension of Claimant Information Sessions (CIS), in-person interviews and on-site visits, they have suspended all Integrity Operations activities for compliance and enforcement of the EI program.”

And applicants across Canada are applying for CERB or EI while at the same time being paid by employers under the table, said the source.

The person said they doubted the 200,000 red-flagged cases will ever be investigated, as each one would take days, an enormous drain on resources. It’s more likely fraudulent claims will simply be written off, the source said. Hossack did not confirm or deny the 200,000 figure in her statement.

Conflicting info for sure. Everything in that article seems to point to fraud abuses being overlooked for the greater good.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I’m not going to comment directly on any explanations for what’s in print in order to protect the integrity of Mike/this site. But I know what actions are and are not being taken from employees on the inside, and their directives.

I think it’s safe to say that all sources of media have a bit of a reputation for getting the public riled up now and then...

 

[Remius]

What about Dr Tam?

What about her?  She’s providing public health advice.  Politicians act on it.

She’s not a politician.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What about her?  She’s providing public health advice.  Politicians act on it.

She’s not a politician.

You figure the position of Chief Public Health Officer of Canada is completely apolitical?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If a government is committed to following evidence/data/science, then there are no choices: the best course and advice must always be followed.  A government is accountable if it fails to follow the best advice; advisors are accountable for the advice they give.

 

[Remius]

You figure the position of Chief Public Health Officer of Canada is completely apolitical?

What does that have to do with what we were talking about? I’m not sure where you are going with this based on what we were talking about.  Is there a talking point you want to bring up about Dr. Tam?

We were talking about Trudeau’s twitter account and the partisan comments on it.  And bias regardless of what a politician does or does not do.  I mentioned Trudeau and Ford.  Both politicians.  Not sure how she fits into that context. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

What does that have to do with what we were talking about? I’m not sure where you are going with this based on what we were talking about.  Is there a talking point you want to bring up about Dr. Tam?

We were talking about Trudeau’s twitter account and the partisan comments on it.  And bias regardless of what a politician does or does not do.  I mentioned Trudeau and Ford.  Both politicians.  Not sure how she fits into that context.

Well, he might have a reason to be suspicious about the political motives in play if you take a look at the way this information is laid out. I have no idea if this is 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking', but she was apparently with the WHO Committee that announced, in January, COVID 19 wasn't such a big deal:


On January 7, 2020, when it appeared that there was a health crisis emerging in Wuhan, Dr. Tam was quoted advising Canadians: “There has been no evidence to date that this illness, whatever it’s caused by, is spread easily from person to person; no health care workers caring for the patients have become ill; a positive sign.”[10]

By the end of January 2020, Tam went on to tell Canadians there was "no reason to be overly concerned" about COVID-19. On 23 January, Tam was a member of the WHO committee that broadcast that it was too early to declare a public health emergency of international concern. On 26 January, Tam stated "There is no clear evidence that this virus is spread easily from person to person. The risk to Canadians remains low."[11] On January 27, Canada confirmed its first case. On 29 January, she told Canadians that "It's going to be rare, but we are expecting cases."

In February, cases in Canada grew from 4 to 20. During this time, Tam authorized the release of Canadians who had been quarantined for 14 days after their repatriation from Wuhan and several cruise ships. [12]

March saw an explosion of cases in Korea, Europe, and then the US and Canada. The WHO declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic. On 23 March 2020, Tam began appearing in public service announcements urging personal hygiene, social distancing, and against unnecessary travel. The announcements will last until at least the end of April 2020.[13]

On 23 April, Tam was appointed by Justin Trudeau to a new advisory body, the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, whose mandate he declared to be the coordination of serological surveys across the country.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_Tam

 

[Remius]

Well, he might have a reason to be suspicious about the political motives in play if you take a look at the way this information is laid out. I have no idea if this is 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking', but she was apparently with the WHO Committee that announced, in January, COVID 19 wasn't such a big deal:


On January 7, 2020, when it appeared that there was a health crisis emerging in Wuhan, Dr. Tam was quoted advising Canadians: “There has been no evidence to date that this illness, whatever it’s caused by, is spread easily from person to person; no health care workers caring for the patients have become ill; a positive sign.”[10]

By the end of January 2020, Tam went on to tell Canadians there was "no reason to be overly concerned" about COVID-19. On 23 January, Tam was a member of the WHO committee that broadcast that it was too early to declare a public health emergency of international concern. On 26 January, Tam stated "There is no clear evidence that this virus is spread easily from person to person. The risk to Canadians remains low."[11] On January 27, Canada confirmed its first case. On 29 January, she told Canadians that "It's going to be rare, but we are expecting cases."

In February, cases in Canada grew from 4 to 20. During this time, Tam authorized the release of Canadians who had been quarantined for 14 days after their repatriation from Wuhan and several cruise ships. [12]

March saw an explosion of cases in Korea, Europe, and then the US and Canada. The WHO declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic. On 23 March 2020, Tam began appearing in public service announcements urging personal hygiene, social distancing, and against unnecessary travel. The announcements will last until at least the end of April 2020.[13]

On 23 April, Tam was appointed by Justin Trudeau to a new advisory body, the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, whose mandate he declared to be the coordination of serological surveys across the country.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_Tam

Sure.  But what does it have to do with what we were discussing? Trudeau's’ tweet, follower comments and it being PR?  Trying to follow but it just seemed random and unrelated to what we were discussing.

If it meant to segue to a broader discussion, sorry, I missed it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What does that have to do with what we were talking about? I’m not sure where you are going with this based on what we were talking about.  Is there a talking point you want to bring up about Dr. Tam?

We were talking about Trudeau’s twitter account and the partisan comments on it.

I wasn't sure why you brought up Ford so I figured we were bringing up random names. Sorry 

Do you think Dr Tam is in an apolitical position?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Rational decisions mean making the best decisions you can with what you know at the time, but being willing to reevalute them if you get new info, and changing your decision if appropriate.

Is anyone wholely apolitical?  I don't think so.  But from my personal experience, generally people like physicians who spend a lifetime keeping people healthy and work for government agencies are coming from a place of duty/responsibility to do what's best for people's health, not playing politics. They also aren't stupid, and wouldn't want to panic people without reason, or make accusations without some actual data to back it up.

She's admitted herself she made some mistakes, so think she's doing the best she can, and not really running any kind of agenda. Hindsight is 20/20, so if she made what look like bad calls now back in January, don't really have any reason to believe that it was anything other than she made a decision based on what she knew at the time, and given that pretty much every other Western gov was publically saying the same thing, not really sure why you would attribute it to politics.

 

[Remius]

I wasn't sure why you brought up Ford so I figured we were bringing up random names. Sorry 

Do you think Dr Tam is in an apolitical position?

I brought Ford in the context of bias towards politicians.  And their actual performances.

She isn’t a politician.  The CPHO, is a governor in council position.  So like all other they are supposed to be nominated on merit with specific criteria. In her case a medical professional. 

So yes the position is not a political appointment. 

She answers to the minister of health.  Just like other positions answer to parliament or respective ministers.  Like the CDS, Privacy. Commissioner etc.

The position is supposed to be apolitical.

Are you saying her position is a political position?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem is that what the Chinese government and WHO were doing looks political - saving Chinese government face.  So everyone on that bus is liable to looking political.  And the WHO is an agency, in which apparently not everyone is wholly driven by duty/responsibility.  People who gravitate to high positions of responsibility are not necessarily thoroughly selfless.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I brought Ford in the context of bias towards politicians.  And their actual performances.

She isn’t a politician.  The CPHO, is a governor in council position.  So like all other they are supposed to be nominated on merit with specific criteria. In her case a medical professional. 

So yes the position is not a political appointment. 

She answers to the minister of health.  Just like other positions answer to parliament or respective ministers.  Like the CDS, Privacy. Commissioner etc.

The position is supposed to be apolitical.

Are you saying her position is a political position?

The reality of the Public Service is that the higher you go, the more political the appointments. Like this guy... remember him? An appalling example of a public sector partisan appointment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wernick

So, for example, Deputy Ministers are usually there because the politicians know that they align with their political agenda. Those who don't, don't last long.

At the Assistant Deputy Level the political affiliations tend to be less strong, and so on...

That's why, when governments change, you'll often see a wholesale turnover in the upper ranks of the public service.

Therefore, it's probably reasonable to assume that Tam is a Liberal Party supporter.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's a political appointment - by Governor in Council, so by politicians.  But it's not a political position.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's a political appointment - by Governor in Council, so by politicians.  But it's not a political position.

Yes, nice explanation, thanks!  :nod:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think, much like our CDS, she isn't in a "political position" but it's disingenuous to say those positions aren't heavily involved in politics.

Politicians put Dr Tam in the position she is in and politicians put their faith in Dr Tam's word and reacted according to her advice. The fallout effected all of Canada. While she's not a politician I think she's definitely a political figurehead and thus within the arcs of a political discussion. I think her track record, like Ford and Trudeau, are absolutely open to public criticism.

I think some serious questions need to be asked about why she came to the conclusions she did. "Because the WHO said so" is pretty crumby, both for Dr Tam and for Prime Minister Trudeau.


*cross posted with Brad.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we (Canada) didn't know enough, it made sense to look to others.  But anything emanating from the UN or a derivative requires skeptical filtering for politics.

The early position should have been "We don't know" accompanied by "apply customary precautions, and be prepared to escalate mitigation quickly".

 

[Remius]

The reality of the Public Service is that the higher you go, the more political the appointments. Like this guy... remember him? An appalling example of a public sector partisan appointment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wernick

So, for example, Deputy Ministers are usually there because the politicians know that they align with their political agenda. Those who don't, don't last long.

At the Assistant Deputy Level the political affiliations tend to be less strong, and so on...

That's why, when governments change, you'll often see a wholesale turnover in the upper ranks of the public service.

Therefore, it's probably reasonable to assume that Tam is a Liberal Party supporter.

It's a political appointment - by Governor in Council, so by politicians.  But it's not a political position.

The reality of the Public Service is that the higher you go, the more political the appointments. Like this guy... remember him? An appalling example of a public sector partisan appointment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wernick

So, for example, Deputy Ministers are usually there because the politicians know that they align with their political agenda. Those who don't, don't last long.

The reality of the Public Service is that the higher you go, the more political the appointments. Like this guy... remember him? An appalling example of a public sector partisan appointment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wernick

So, for example, Deputy Ministers are usually there because the politicians know that they align with their political agenda. Those who don't, don't last long.

At the Assistant Deputy Level the political affiliations tend to be less strong, and so on...

That's why, when governments change, you'll often see a wholesale turnover in the upper ranks of the public service.

Therefore, it's probably reasonable to assume that Tam is a Liberal Party supporter.

Would you say the CDS is a Liberal supporter?

Is the current privacy commissioner a liberal supporter? He was appointed by Harper and is still there. So a conservative?

No doubt they all have their own political beliefs but did any of that play into their selection or retention?

Or is their ability to head their respective organisations in line with a government agenda as it applies to them?

I have no doubt that some positions are political patronage for loyalty to the party.  But some require expertise and experience.  Dr. Tam and General Vance’s meet those benchmarks.  In Dr. tam’s case she also meets the Liberal’s diversity qualifications as part of that.

Was Dr. Tam a part of the liberal party at any point? She was a senior bureaucrat for years at PHA and was an ADM.

She wrote a report on SARS, led the response to H1N1, Ebola etc.  So she isn’t qualified?

That’s the insinuation.  That she’s a political shill.  Not sure how anyone can make that assumption unless it’s to fit a narrative.

I haven’t seen anything that she has said that would lead me to think she is playing politics.  All I see is her advice being given. 

Edit.  Getting a weird quoting result...