News   Apr 23, 2024
 346     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 356     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 595     0 

Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (nCoV-2019)


I view this as simply another example of our continuing inability, or lack of will, to maintain strategic industrial capacity, infrastructure or stockpiles in matters of national importance or security. Be it vaccines, masks, ship-building capacity, energy security or whatever. Critics are saying how "the government" allowed it to happen. While linguistically they may try to couch this is non-partisan terms, clearly many are pointing their finger at 'this' government, which is unfair. There is always a pet project or regional turf to be protected and 'tax' has been a four letter word for years.

Short of nationalizing key industries, I'm not enough of an economist to know how critical sectors can be nurtured and protected. We have a history of innovation in this country, sometimes in spite of government support for pure and applied research rather than because of it, but we seem chronically unable capitalize on it before it heads off to warmer climes.
 
^It’s systemic which is my point. Much of the commentary here is focusing on the Ford government in Ontario which rightfully should be skewered for their incompetent managing of the pandemic; however, that is also a largely partisan filter. Governments all over the political spectrum are failing in decentralized federations. Ontario is for all it’s failings and miss-steps kind of middle-of-the-road in terms of outcomes.

Furthermore, low or high taxation is fairly irrelevant. Jurisdictions at both the high end of taxation as a percent of gdp and at the low end are both represented in successful examples battling covid-19.

You don’t need a left-or right-wing government or a high or low tax jurisdiction to battle covid-19. These are spurious debates. The real world examples disprove these hypotheses. What you need is effective leadership, an effective system, and proactivity management.
 
Short of nationalizing key industries, I'm not enough of an economist to know how critical sectors can be nurtured and protected. We have a history of innovation in this country, sometimes in spite of government support for pure and applied research rather than because of it, but we seem chronically unable capitalize on it before it heads off to warmer climes.

Outright nationalization is certainly one policy option; but there are many others.

First, there is the matter of something like Connaught Labs in Toronto, which wasn't nationalized, but instead privatized before disappearing outright.

It was a creation of; and spin-off from, the University of Toronto.

So there is always the option to simply create in the public sphere w/o displacing the private one.

If one follows that route, then there is the matter of nurturing and sustaining that success.

But there are other tools as well; for years, many governments around the world have had key equity voting states and/or legal vetos on takeovers of strategic businesses.

Strategic because of science national security reasons; but also because of their importance to the economy.

Canada, in fact, already has such legislative tools, but to say we use them sparingly is to understate things by an order of magnitude.

We can also use public procurement to preserve or grow key industries.

If we choose to have a stockpile of vaccine or PPE or anything else, we can purchase those from a domestic producer; and rather than buying once and forgetting about it, have a long-term policy of use and replenishment.

The U.S. uses procurement, most overtly through its military, but by other means as well to secure the capacities it wishes to retain or develop.

Tax policy can also be used.

I'll give a cumbersome example, but there are far simpler ones; we could choose to set a lower corporate tax rate for manufacturers, on the portion of their goods made in this country. We could likewise, reward companies that are headquartered here.

This doesn't need to mean a vast tax give away. It can be done by raising rates on those businesses that aren't headquartered here, and don't manufacture here.

We could impose corporate income tax on revenue earned in Canada rather than profit; and then credit that if you have expenses in Canada.

There are so many ways to address these issues as they relate to public health, national security and economic development.

But as @TrickyRicky points out, leadership is key.

As is vision.

Where do we want the country to be in 40 years, what steps are necessary to make that happen, GO!

We have had too few leaders, political and bureaucratic w/that mentality in recent decades.
 
Last edited:
1606490080511.png


The record number of cases is a concern; but not as bad as it looks at first blush, given the record number of tests which is good to see.
 
When the Avro Arrow project was cancelled by the then Diefenbaker (Progressive) Conservative government in 1959, an estimated 25,000 area contract workers also become unemployed. Many ended up in the USA working on the NASA project to the moon.

😠 Canada was told by the US, that jet fighters was obsolete, and missiles were the future. Today, Canada is still buying jet fighters from the US.

With vaccines, we were told that having vaccines made outside of Canada was cost efficient. R-i-g-h-t. Maybe cost efficient, but is would be costing us in lives.

See link.
 
With vaccines, we were told that having vaccines made outside of Canada was cost efficient. R-i-g-h-t. Maybe cost efficient, but is would be costing us in lives.

Not defending the decision, but keep in mind the US behaved like an ally in those days. Things change though, and the US hasn't behaved like an ally to many countries recently. While the Biden government may be more amenable, the past few years have shown that you can't rely on long-term relationships as the US can change directions based on the presidents whims. Next president after Biden (left or right) could easily dismantle everything and materially harm Canada. Canada should bite the bullet on cost efficiency and re-establish internal capabilities based on the delicate situation with Canada's allies.
 
Last edited:
Not defending the decision, but keep in mind the US behaved like an ally in those days. Things change though, and the US hasn't behaved like an ally to many countries recently. While the Biden government may be more amenable, the past few years have shown that you can't rely on long-term relationships as the US can change directions based on the presidents whims. Next president after Biden (left or right) could easily dismantle everything and materially harm Canada. Canada should bite the bullet on cost efficiency and re-establish internal capabilities based on the delicate situation with Canada's allies.

Preparedness is fundamentally at-odds with short-term view of cost efficiency so dominated government spending discourse; you simply have to accept waste and inefficiency as a necessary price. Just take PPE for example - nevermind creating domestic production capability - even stockpiling it will lead to waste since these items have expiry dates.

AoD
 
Preparedness is fundamentally at-odds with short-term view of cost efficiency so dominated government spending discourse; you simply have to accept waste and inefficiency as a necessary price. Just take PPE for example - nevermind creating domestic production capability - even stockpiling it will lead to waste since these items have expiry dates.

AoD

Yes but........you don't have to let all the PPE expire, most of it has an ongoing, practical use, just at much lower volumes outside a pandemic.

The way to handle that is FIFO distribution.

First In - First Out.

The Feds become the primary/sole buyers of PPE, they stockpile; but they then resell, oldest first, to hospitals, LTCs, contractors, Labs, etc. out of the stockpile, with continual replenishment.
 
Yes but........you don't have to let all the PPE expire, most of it has an ongoing, practical use, just at much lower volumes outside a pandemic.

The way to handle that is FIFO distribution.

First In - First Out.

The Feds become the primary/sole buyers of PPE, they stockpile; but they then resell, oldest first, to hospitals, LTCs, contractors, Labs, etc. out of the stockpile, with continual replenishment.

Even with that (which is my default assumption) - I can't imagine our healthcare system can use up that many million of N95 masks in a regular year to make FIFO truly feasible with zero waste. One just have to be willing to accept that waste is a necessary cost by the very nature of preparedness.

AoD
 
Variations of the flu virus come and go each year. This year the flu numbers are exceptionally low because of the side-effect of social distancing, masks, etc..

Wonder if we could continue to use masks, shields, etc. to fight the flu each and every year, it would be a plus on the health front.

See link.
 
Yes but........you don't have to let all the PPE expire, most of it has an ongoing, practical use, just at much lower volumes outside a pandemic.

The way to handle that is FIFO distribution.

First In - First Out.

The Feds become the primary/sole buyers of PPE, they stockpile; but they then resell, oldest first, to hospitals, LTCs, contractors, Labs, etc. out of the stockpile, with continual replenishment.
Even with that (which is my default assumption) - I can't imagine our healthcare system can use up that many million of N95 masks in a regular year to make FIFO truly feasible with zero waste. One just have to be willing to accept that waste is a necessary cost by the very nature of preparedness.

AoD

I agree with both. Something like this would be akin to what is being suggested as a component of a national pharmacare program, which is a single buyer. If it is, for want of a better term, a regular consumable, then FIFO can work (of course Quebec would take their usual position of 'give us the money and we will do what we want).

But in many cases depending on the product, having the capacity to make, or having the will to procure and stockpile, 'just in case' stuff' is inherently inefficient because it is stuff you really hope to never use, and if it is in any way perishable, then you have to accept that it will sometimes have to be tossed and replaced. If you look at the contents of a typical fire truck, there is probably all sorts of equipment they don't use from one year to the next, but it is generally accepted that they have that capability, and few seem to mind. Thankfully, most is generally durable and often only rendered replacement-worthy by advancements. But heaven forbid if some government auditor highlights a line item where 'x' millions of government property was tossed. Opposition and media howls at the inefficiency and wastefulness of the sitting government. Between that and simply poor management of strategic capacity is why governments would rather let something sit and rot, hoping a future government gets stuck with opening the cupboard and finding everything mouldy. Two years ago, what government would propose spending billions on domestic pharmaceutical or medical capacity?

Another aspect would be protecting domestic capacity under the most recent trade agreement (whatever it's called seems to be determined by what country you are in). Article 32.2 allows each country to take measures to protect its essential security interests, but rest assured we would be taken to task if we suddenly impacted the bottom line of a US sector. The US has historically taken a broad view of 'national security' and their consumption is so large than they can essentially nationalize certain sectors simply through their procurement. We are not, and for us to finally take a robust view of our own national security would be new ground and ripe for the challenge..
 
Another aspect would be protecting domestic capacity under the most recent trade agreement (whatever it's called seems to be determined by what country you are in). Article 32.2 allows each country to take measures to protect its essential security interests, but rest assured we would be taken to task if we suddenly impacted the bottom line of a US sector. The US has historically taken a broad view of 'national security' and their consumption is so large than they can essentially nationalize certain sectors simply through their procurement. We are not, and for us to finally take a robust view of our own national security would be new ground and ripe for the challenge..

Given what we had experienced with the N95 mask kerfuffle early on, I'd say use the national security card and if they don't like it, they can rip up the USMCA or whatever-the-f they call it nowadays.

Anyways, maintaining a stockpile isn't just the physical aspects of the materiel, but also having the personnel to keeping track of, and replacing it as needed. The management aspect would make for criticism under the "waste" paradigm.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Frank Hennessey, CEO of Recipe Unlimited (the former Cara, and parent of Swiss Chalet and Harveys among many others) is coming out firing for the way
Ontario and Toronto are managing Covid in respect to that industry.

He notes that they have asked for data establishing a link between the industry and Covid spread; and Ontario and Toronto have refused; while Alberta and BC have released such data and it shows
restaurants are responsible for 1% of transmission.

 

Back
Top