H1N1 is a serious strain of the flu that to date has resulted in 101 Canadian deaths and 6893 confirmed cases Canadian wide (Public Health Agency of Canada). Now, being that this particular flu is so bad it makes sense that Canada and the provinces would work to deliver flu shots to the public as quickly as possible. However, in Ontario's rush to get the flu shot put to the public, they may have created a very tense situation for themselves. On Saturday October 31 2009 it became known that 3000 of the doses were given to a private Toronto based office. This may not seem like a large ordeal, but the province is in a shortage for the flu shot and giving the shot to a private clinic raises the question of two-tier health care. The office in question , Medcan, is only giving the shot to high risk people as long as they have a referral. In reality, these referrals are not easy to achieve and the result has seen Medcan offering its services by appointment to members. There is no line, no wait, easy access and even valet parking.
In my mind this type of delivery of a flu shot is completely wrong. The shot should be administered by public health care facilities only. It is unfair that a child who waited in line for hours be turned away because the clinic is out of supply while the other child is allowed easy access to the drug because she can afford the $2000+ fee charged by Medcan. What makes that child any more important than any other child. The simple answer is nothing, the reality is that the child whos parents make the most gets the treatment. A severe oversight by the Ontario government. They have created a two tier health system through simple oversight and now it will be up to the Liberal government and more specifically Health Minister Matthews to look into this practice as promised. Until then everyone can either wait in line, pony up the cash or hope that they don't get sick....here's to hoping.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ontario Youngsters Go Full-time
In an unprecedented move, Dalton McGuinty's liberal government is making Ontario a test subject for education. Of course, I am referring to his recent promise to make school full day for all 4 and 5 year olds within the province. This will make Ontario the only government in North America to move towards this model. The plan also calls for all classes be to a maximum of 26 students and be supervised by both a kindergarten teacher and an early childcare educator (ECE). McGuinty's justification is that a well educated labour force must start with the very youth of this country. This is all being done to "ensure that we build a powerful workforce that can compete and win against the best". To do this McGuinty understands that costs will be higher and that cutbacks may have to be made to other programs. Furthermore, this program will offer an extended hours option to parents at a fee. This should allow for parents to travel to work and still be able to pick their child up at the end of the day.
So there is the facts, now for some opinion. Personally, I have no problem with attempting to institute a full class day. My problem arises from the current standpoint on education. This idea that people must begin working and studying hard as children to achieve success as adults. What ever happened to the days when children came home from school and went to play tag or baseball. They have been replaced by parents who linger over their 7 year old to make sure they did their 3 hours of homework. As a university student I agree that education is important but so is being a kid and enjoying your childhood. This education craze that has enveloped Canadian society is going too far. Therefore, my problem with this policy is not the full day of school but rather the implication that we need to force our children into an intellectual society above all else. After all, I didn't do 3 hours of homework a night until coming to university and here I am, still working and achieving. It amazes me how willing we are to take away the very thing from our children that made us who we are today.
So there is the facts, now for some opinion. Personally, I have no problem with attempting to institute a full class day. My problem arises from the current standpoint on education. This idea that people must begin working and studying hard as children to achieve success as adults. What ever happened to the days when children came home from school and went to play tag or baseball. They have been replaced by parents who linger over their 7 year old to make sure they did their 3 hours of homework. As a university student I agree that education is important but so is being a kid and enjoying your childhood. This education craze that has enveloped Canadian society is going too far. Therefore, my problem with this policy is not the full day of school but rather the implication that we need to force our children into an intellectual society above all else. After all, I didn't do 3 hours of homework a night until coming to university and here I am, still working and achieving. It amazes me how willing we are to take away the very thing from our children that made us who we are today.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Caplan takes the fall
So after an Auditor General's report on e-health uncovers the inappropriate spending of $1 billion in government money towards consulting contracts, Health minister David caplan resigned from his post. On the surface it would appear that the convention of Ministerial responsibility has worked as it should. The department made a major error and the minister resigned from his post taking the blame. In reality this is not the case. Although Caplan was the minister at the time the report was released most of the spending was done when he was not the minister. This raises the obvious question; If not Caplan, who is to blame?
Well I'll give you two names; Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman. The Auditor General's report indicates that most of the spending took place while Geoprge Smitherman was the minister of health. Dalton McGuinty also appears to have hand selected Alan Hudson to expediate the e-health process. If this is the case than all of the efforts to bypass due dilligence on Hudson's part can be contributed to McGuinty's appointment and the leeway he was given. In either sense it doesn't matter. McGuinty is "accepting responsibility for the mess" and Smitherman believes that there are "lessons to be learned". This is all fine and dandy to say but where is the convention of ministerial responsibility for these two. Smitherman remains deputy premier and minister of Energy and Infrastructure and McGuinty remains premier. Seems to me like Caplan was thrown to the wolves to appease the masses. Another person gets scapegoated while the real problem people carry on as if it never happened.
Well I'll give you two names; Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman. The Auditor General's report indicates that most of the spending took place while Geoprge Smitherman was the minister of health. Dalton McGuinty also appears to have hand selected Alan Hudson to expediate the e-health process. If this is the case than all of the efforts to bypass due dilligence on Hudson's part can be contributed to McGuinty's appointment and the leeway he was given. In either sense it doesn't matter. McGuinty is "accepting responsibility for the mess" and Smitherman believes that there are "lessons to be learned". This is all fine and dandy to say but where is the convention of ministerial responsibility for these two. Smitherman remains deputy premier and minister of Energy and Infrastructure and McGuinty remains premier. Seems to me like Caplan was thrown to the wolves to appease the masses. Another person gets scapegoated while the real problem people carry on as if it never happened.
Ontario Wines get Government Edge
The Ontario government has made a move to protect domestic wine in Ontario. In an attempt to promote %100 Ontario wine the province is clearing up signage on wine to ensure consumers know what they are buying. Under the current system wine consisting of grapes from Ontario, US, Chile and Argentina are considered Ontario vintages as long as the Ontario grape content is %30. Under the new system, these wines would be labelled "cellared in Ontario" and have a mandatory Ontario grape content of at least %40. Furthermore, the Ontario government has ensured that %100 Ontario wines, produced by VQA members, will receive additional investment by allocating increased levies on blends towards the VQA distilleries. This move is to be accompanied with VQA shelving preferance in all LCBOs province wide.
Call it what you will but this seems to be an act of protectionism to me. Ontario is acting in a way to better business for Ontario wineries and Ontario grape farmers. Despite the obvious benefits for Ontario, one must consider the potential backlash that may come from this. For instance, does this new policy go against free trade? Well there is a definite increase and preferential treatment being given towards Ontario grape production and this will inevitably take away from US production. I like the idea of Ontario promotion but the last thing I want to see is a large scale US court filing that would see Ontario pay lost revenue damages to the US. Hopefully Minister McMeekin has done his legal homework or else this could get interesting.
Call it what you will but this seems to be an act of protectionism to me. Ontario is acting in a way to better business for Ontario wineries and Ontario grape farmers. Despite the obvious benefits for Ontario, one must consider the potential backlash that may come from this. For instance, does this new policy go against free trade? Well there is a definite increase and preferential treatment being given towards Ontario grape production and this will inevitably take away from US production. I like the idea of Ontario promotion but the last thing I want to see is a large scale US court filing that would see Ontario pay lost revenue damages to the US. Hopefully Minister McMeekin has done his legal homework or else this could get interesting.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Ontario v. Tobacco Set to Battle
The Ontario government has now joined Britich Columbia and New Brunswick, becoming the third province to sue the major tobacco industries. The $50 billion lawsuit was launched in an effort to recoup expenditures on health care related to smoking dating as far back as 1955. Both sides have legitimate claims and it will be interesting to watch this case unfold in the next few years.
It is reasonable to speculate that this Ontario's logic in this scenario was if the United States can do it so can we. In 1998 the tobacco industry agreed to pay the United States $246 billion over 25 years in order to help with the health care costs associated with smoking. B.C. was the first province to file a suit in Canada and was joined later by New Brunswick. The governments main argument is that since 1955 Ontario can attribute $50 billion in health care costs to smoking and that tobacco related health care currently costs the government $1.6 billion annually. The consensus is that other provinces will follow the example put forth by B.C., New Brunswick and Ontario and that it will result in a class action suit. Micheal Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, has said that all the resources of the country will be needed if there is to be any success as the tobacco industry will inevitably fight this with all their resources.
The tobacco industry has clearly said that they won't take this lying down. They are calling this lawsuit by the government a "hypocrisy" because the Ontario government is a "senior partner" in the industry. This claim is based off the fact that the government already makes revenue on taxes placed on the tobacco industry. In fact, in the fiscal year 2009 the Ontario government is set to receive 41 billion in tax revenue off cigarettes. Furthermore, the industry widened its claim by saying that the lawsuit was an attempt to appear to be acting on health care issues to its constituents. The tobacco industry wants the government to take action on the "real issue" of contraband cigarettes in Ontario. The contraband industry in Ontario is among the world's highest and amounts for %50 of all cigarette sales within the province.
So the facts are in and the issue will be left to the courts to decide. In all reality, the tobacco industry set a dangerous precedant when it agreed to pay the $246 billion in the United States. That number could be even higher in Canada when you consider the Canadian health care system is much more involved than that of the United States. The tobacco industry will have to rely on its claim that governemnt is a "senior partner" through taxation if they plan to avoid further health care related payments. If the provinces band together and succeed, the industry may face pressure from alot more countries in similar positions and if they fail, then Canadians can watch more of their tax money spent towards another losing cause.
It is reasonable to speculate that this Ontario's logic in this scenario was if the United States can do it so can we. In 1998 the tobacco industry agreed to pay the United States $246 billion over 25 years in order to help with the health care costs associated with smoking. B.C. was the first province to file a suit in Canada and was joined later by New Brunswick. The governments main argument is that since 1955 Ontario can attribute $50 billion in health care costs to smoking and that tobacco related health care currently costs the government $1.6 billion annually. The consensus is that other provinces will follow the example put forth by B.C., New Brunswick and Ontario and that it will result in a class action suit. Micheal Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, has said that all the resources of the country will be needed if there is to be any success as the tobacco industry will inevitably fight this with all their resources.
The tobacco industry has clearly said that they won't take this lying down. They are calling this lawsuit by the government a "hypocrisy" because the Ontario government is a "senior partner" in the industry. This claim is based off the fact that the government already makes revenue on taxes placed on the tobacco industry. In fact, in the fiscal year 2009 the Ontario government is set to receive 41 billion in tax revenue off cigarettes. Furthermore, the industry widened its claim by saying that the lawsuit was an attempt to appear to be acting on health care issues to its constituents. The tobacco industry wants the government to take action on the "real issue" of contraband cigarettes in Ontario. The contraband industry in Ontario is among the world's highest and amounts for %50 of all cigarette sales within the province.
So the facts are in and the issue will be left to the courts to decide. In all reality, the tobacco industry set a dangerous precedant when it agreed to pay the $246 billion in the United States. That number could be even higher in Canada when you consider the Canadian health care system is much more involved than that of the United States. The tobacco industry will have to rely on its claim that governemnt is a "senior partner" through taxation if they plan to avoid further health care related payments. If the provinces band together and succeed, the industry may face pressure from alot more countries in similar positions and if they fail, then Canadians can watch more of their tax money spent towards another losing cause.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
A Green Ontario Awaits Details of Green Energy Act
It would seem that George Smitherson's Green Energy Act has most green energy companies waiting anxiously on the sideline. Many investors are excited and ready to invest in what could be one of the cleanest North American energy sectors yet, but much of their decision will be influenced by the restrictions imposed within the act itself. The issues of farmland use and wind setbacks could be deciding factors for the industry and their investment in this province.
The restrictions of farmland use for solar energy harnessing capabilities could be the deciding factor to Ontario getting a $5 billion investment or watching it walk away. The main issue will be access to premium farmland. The Ontario government has said that they will "not compromise access to good farmland". However the energy companies have raised the point that it is often these premium farmlands that have access to the most sun. Furthermore, they are often flatter, allowing for easier installation, and have better access to the electric grid. The Ontario government will have to assess the needs of both the agriculutural communtity and the energy corporations if they plan to have a balanced policy that results in all sides being fairly represented.
Wind setbacks are one of the other main issues set to be laid out in this energy act. Smitherson's department added this restriction to help appease the growing mass of rural and anti-wind energy population that argue that wind turbines make people nauseous and contribute to noise pollution. The rule would impose a limit that requires wind energy to be set back 550m from roads, residences, buildings and property lines. Anti-wind proponents say that 1km is the proper distance while energy producers argue that any restriction imposes on the ability of the industry to act quickly and get renewable energy started. Again, Smitherson's act will have to balance the needs and wants of a passionate electorate and a growing industry.
Despite all of the complications that will come along with this new act, it is hard to deny the positives of a greener Ontario. Not only will it help to decrease our emission levels and help to build on a renewable energy source, but it may lead to the growth of a new manufacturing sector in Ontario. Certainly, the investment of $5 billion in solar energy and $2.3 billion in updated hydro lines (mostly for the delivery of wind energy) would help to boost a srtuggling economy. If Ontario can become a large center for the demand of renewable energy products it only makes sense that the supply will have to increase. This could be the foundations that see Ontario become a leader in the manufacturing area of renewable energy products. Either way, it would appear that the whole issue will rest on Smitherson's Green Energy Act and the restrictions it will place on the industry.
For more information please see:
http://www.greenenergyact.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1311&SiteNodeID=214&BL_ExpandID=
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/698928
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/22/ontario-solar-panels232.html
The restrictions of farmland use for solar energy harnessing capabilities could be the deciding factor to Ontario getting a $5 billion investment or watching it walk away. The main issue will be access to premium farmland. The Ontario government has said that they will "not compromise access to good farmland". However the energy companies have raised the point that it is often these premium farmlands that have access to the most sun. Furthermore, they are often flatter, allowing for easier installation, and have better access to the electric grid. The Ontario government will have to assess the needs of both the agriculutural communtity and the energy corporations if they plan to have a balanced policy that results in all sides being fairly represented.
Wind setbacks are one of the other main issues set to be laid out in this energy act. Smitherson's department added this restriction to help appease the growing mass of rural and anti-wind energy population that argue that wind turbines make people nauseous and contribute to noise pollution. The rule would impose a limit that requires wind energy to be set back 550m from roads, residences, buildings and property lines. Anti-wind proponents say that 1km is the proper distance while energy producers argue that any restriction imposes on the ability of the industry to act quickly and get renewable energy started. Again, Smitherson's act will have to balance the needs and wants of a passionate electorate and a growing industry.
Despite all of the complications that will come along with this new act, it is hard to deny the positives of a greener Ontario. Not only will it help to decrease our emission levels and help to build on a renewable energy source, but it may lead to the growth of a new manufacturing sector in Ontario. Certainly, the investment of $5 billion in solar energy and $2.3 billion in updated hydro lines (mostly for the delivery of wind energy) would help to boost a srtuggling economy. If Ontario can become a large center for the demand of renewable energy products it only makes sense that the supply will have to increase. This could be the foundations that see Ontario become a leader in the manufacturing area of renewable energy products. Either way, it would appear that the whole issue will rest on Smitherson's Green Energy Act and the restrictions it will place on the industry.
For more information please see:
http://www.greenenergyact.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1311&SiteNodeID=214&BL_ExpandID=
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/698928
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/22/ontario-solar-panels232.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
