Interesting Candidate the NDP Has in Parry Sound-Muskoka

Dr Wendy Wilson remarks Tony Clement's campaign van "needs crosshairs"

No one who follows politics could remember those horrible days in January when US Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot.

Feelings of horror were not quite universal. Many among the far-left scrambled to find evidence that Giffords' assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, was a conservative. Ignoring remarks from a childhood friend of Loughner that indicated he was "very liberal", the far-left seized upon fascinations with issues such as debt-backed currency to paint him as an extreme conservative.

(In doing this they overlooked the fact that debt-backed currency is also a fascination of the discipline of globalization studies, which is far from a right-wing field of study.)

It's against this particular backdrop, and demands to restore civility to politics, that one would expect the left to take some recent remarks by the NDP's candidate in Parry-Sound Muskoka very seriously.

At an all-candidates forum, Dr Wendy Wilson, carrying the banner for the NDP, suggested Tony Clement's campaign van should have crosshairs for those who wanted to shoot Clement.

As the media has been remarkably slow to pick up the story, Clement's account will have to do for now:

"Local NDP cand suggested tonite that my campaign van needed crosshairs for those wishing to shoot me. Audible gasps from audience."

For a party like the NDP, who claim to stand for civility and human decency in Canadian politics, these are very remarkable and disturbing comments indeed.

But if one takes Dr Wilson's Rate My MDs profile as evidence of anything -- and one should take these testimonials with an extreme grain of salt -- Dr Wilson may have the kind of personality that lends itself to these kinds of outbursts.

One thing that could be concluded is that Dr Wilson has a divisive personality. People either really like her or really dislike her. The number of extremely high ratings (seven) and number of extremely low ratings (also seven) seem to speak to polarized opinions on both her and her skills as a physician.

One commenter writes:

"Her personality runs hot and cold. one visit she'll be super friendly, the next she'll be rude and condescending. Sometimes it switches mid-visit! When she's in rude mode, she won't hardly listen to you, you'll barely be able to say a word. Her diagnosis ability goes up and down accordingly. On a friendly visit she diagnosed and fixed a complex problem I had. But later on a rude visit she failed to diagnose a really simple problem I had with one body part. I was sure there was something not right, so I went back a second time, and she was very rude and exasperated that I would not accept her conclusion that it was nothing! A week later that part developed into a full-grown infection that I treated myself with OTC products. I didn't bother going back to shove it in her face."

This individual's comments seem to be corroborated by one other individual.

"I agree with the person said about her running hot and cold. But mostly she is just cold. For 2 years I was asking about a problem that I was having after a surgery. She kept dismissing this other recurring problem. I finally inisited that she refer me to a specialist and she literally lost it. She got down right rude and actually left me sitting in the office, without returning, but she did do the referall, and to this day am still seeing the specialist for results to my problem. We both agree there is something wrong, but have not been able to diagnose. After my first visit with the specialist, I went back to her for my results, and she was so nice. That really upset me, as she was acting like she did nothing wrong, and to this day has never apologized, not that i expect it from her. She needs to come down off of her high horse. She is so prejudiced with people who are overweight, and tends to blame everything on that. I put in to switch doctors, but am still waiting to see what happens."

Dr Wilson's negative ratings often refer to her as rude. Meanwhile, her numerous positive ratings -- five of which are straight fives -- describe her as passionate and dedicated to her work.

All this aside, it's also very important to consider the fact that websites like Rate My MDs lack any sort of controls to ensure the people who are rating doctors have actually been patients of the doctor. This point relates as much to the negative reviews of Dr Wilson as to the positive reviews.

In considering this very real possibility, it's important to note that two comments have been made either since the current election was called, or since it became clear that an election would be called. Almost as if to justify the doubt of the veracity of these comments, one is a spectacularly high rating (fives across the board), while the other one was a fairly low rating.

Prior to these two comments, suspicious in the view of this author, the most recent comments were made in 2010. It could be suspected that most of those comments were actually made by patients.

Then again, it would be risky to draw any conclusions from a website like Rate My MDs. The ratings may be accurate. They may not be. Readers should be careful either way.

Dr Wilson's comments about Tony Clement, however, are much fairer game for speculation. On that note alone it's an interesting candidate the NDP has in Dr Wendy Wilson.

People expect better out of political candidates in Canada, and hopefully the NDP expects better from their candidates, and do something about Dr Wilson's comments.


Update: According to Tony Clement's Twitter account, Dr Wilson has apologized for her comments.

In the heat of a candidates' forum, people can say things they don't really mean. Dr Wilson should be commended for doing the right thing and apologizing.

Let Canadians Put Their Money Where the Opposition's Mouth Is

Liberals, NDP demand "emergency debate" on long form census

With all the fervour surrounding the Conservative Party's decision to transform Canada's mandatory long-form census into a voluntary long-form census, the opposition has decided that the matter is quite the emergency.

In fact, they're calling for an emergency debate in the House of Commons.

NDP leader Jack Layton accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of an ideological opposition to the kind of government action information from the long form census has supported.

"Mr Harper doesn't believe in government action so he would prefer not to see the facts about what's going on in Canada," Layton insisted. "I think that's the more sinister dimension of this pigheaded approach they're taking."

Liberal deputy leader Bob Rae echoed Layton's sentiments.

“When the fish rots, it rots from the head,” Rae remarked. “It’s very, very clear that this is a problem with Mr Harper. This is a problem with the way Mr Harper’s government conducts itself, it’s the way its staff conduct themselves. And it’s the way they talk to the Canadian people.”

Layton's solution to the issue seems to hinge on eliminating any jail time for anyone who declines to fill out the mandatory long-form census -- he considers this a compromise, one that the opposition is prepared to pass quickly.

Industry Minister Tony Clement has rejected this as a reasonable compromise. He doesn't believe that any sanction should be applied to those who decline to fill out the long-form census.

In the end, that is half of what this issue will ultimately be about.

The other half is about what Canadians think the role of the government should be, and how much information they think the government needs in order to fulfill that role.

In other words, this is about Canadians putting their money where the opposition's mouth is.

If Canadians agree that the government needs the information contained in the long-form census, they will fill out the forms. If Canadians don't think the government needs such information, they won't.

It really is that simple.

This particularly applies to efforts such as that by the Federation de Communautes Francophones et Acadiennes, a group suing the federal government over its decision to change the long-form census, as well as for the other minority groups declaring that information contained in the long-form census is especially important to them.

Perhaps the idea that giving Canadians this power to shape the size and role of government seems a little too democratic to the opposition. The FCFA have evidently decided that such democracy is equally inconvenient for them.

Of course, the elimination of government means to coerce Canadians into providing information they may think the government doesn't need may be seen as an emergency by the would-be social engineers in the Liberal Party and the NDP.

Other Canadians likely will not agree.

CAW May Let GM, Chrysler Die

Autoworkers Union unwilling to save workers' jobs

Without receiving bailout dollars, General Motors and Chrysler may both be in bankruptcy within the next 60 days.

If this happens, both companies would likely halt their operations while they are liquidated.

CAW, the Canadian Autoworkers' Union, could help prevent this by making key wage concessions that would allow Fiat to forge ahead with a merger with Chrysler that could save that company.

At $19 per hour, the concession being asked of CAW seems steep. But not when one considers that, between wages and benefits, the average CAW worker receives $76 in total compensation per hour, for a total of $156,000 per year. Under the proposed restructured labour deal, this average total renumeration would be reduced to $57 per hour, for a total of $112,000 per year.

Without these concessions, according to the judgement of nearly any economist, government bail outs of automakers would accomplish nothing in the end -- the companies would continue to be perpetually unprofitable, as they continue to undercut any potential profits by paying for overpriced labour.

While CAW has agreed to negotiate reductions beyond what has already been agreed to, it's unlikely that they will agree to give up the $19 per hour that Fiat is demanding. This makes it all the more likely that the company will be lost within the next month.

Unless GM receives a similar deal, it will likely be in bankruptcy one month after that.

All the jobs of those working on auto assembly lines for these two companies would be lost -- and all because CAW refuses to admit to the economic realities facing these two countries.

The government cannot afford to continually bail out perpetually unprofitable firms.

Only 13% of CAW's 225,000 members work for automakers.

Thus, the government stepping in with a bailout without CAW making the kind of concessions necessary to allow these companies to operate profitably could only really be for the benefit for those working for these companies -- approximately 29,250.

Canadian tax dollars should be spent for the benefit of all Canadians -- all 30 million of them -- whenever possible. Spending billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds to ensure that 29,250 people can continue to earn more than $150,000 a year is nothing more than spending superfluous amounts of government funds to ensure the extravagant material benefit of a tiny portion of Canadian society. Moreover, the government would be doing this only to have to inevitably have to do it again.

Only to CAW, an organization so chronically self-indulgent that only CUPE really compares, would something like this make sense.

Tony Clement's refusal to ride to the rescue in the absence of any realistica attempt by CAW to restructure its labour agreement so GM and Chrysler can afford to continue operating may not be popular with members of that union or their families, or even those who sympathize with organized labour.

But it is the right decision. To continually bail out less than 30,000 people to the expense of 30 million people is simply not an option for any responsible government.

It isn't Tony Clement, the Conservative party, or the Canadian government that are prepared to allow Chrysler or General Motors to slip into bankruptcy. It's the Canadian Auto Workers union that are allowed to let these companies -- and all the jobs they provide -- simply die.

Insite Making Partisan Mountains Out of Political Molehills

Safe injection site poses dilemmas for addiction treatment, federal government

If one were to believe some of the rhetoric being forwarded by supporters of Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injection Site and (predictably) opposition MPs, one would think that the site is under immediate threat of being shut down by federal Health Minister Tony Clement.

"This is going to be catastrophic for people who have substance abuse problems, for society, for taxpayers, for crime," said Liberal MP Dr Keith Martin. Martin was, at the time, referring to then-forthcoming Conservative party drug policies.

Some may recall that the policies covered three different pillars: enforcement, prevention and treatment. In one of the most blatant examples of intellectual dishonesty in recent history, various left-wing ideologues refused to ackowledge the fact that $32 million -- the largest parcel of funds being doled out under the new program -- was directed toward new treatment programs, while another $10 million toward prevention programs. The very same treatment and prevention programs that most of Canada's top drug-policy experts advocate.

One sees a similar rhetorical feat being accomplished in regards to Insite. While those who support the site and those who benefit politically from portraying the government as dangerous and reactionary in regards to it have combined their efforts to perform an act of rhetorical slight-of-hand to try and apply pressure to keep the site open, it turns out that a lot of the hysteria suggesting that the site is in imminent danger of being closed is simply that: hysterics.

But to begin to demonstrate this, one really needs look no further than the most recent news-making item regarding Insite: the release of a recently-completed report about Insite's impact -- or, more notably, lack thereof -- on crime rates in its surrounding community.

"We looked at crime rates in the area surrounding Insite, and we talked to business operators, we talked to service providers, to police, to residents in the surrounding vicinity. We found, overwhelmingly, people had very positive sentiments," said Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Vancouver's Simon Frasier University. "Not only that, crime rates were quite unaffected by the implementation of Insite. ...In fact, we found some improvements in public order with respect to decreased injection debris, decreased injections around the site and those findings simply corroborated other research that had been carried out prior to our study."

Insite operates under an exemption to Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

"I don't think there's much doubt anymore," Boyd said. "We have to move to close this chapter and give Insite a long-standing exemption."

There is strong support for Boyd's case. But one also needs to keep in mind that it was Tony Clement, in October of last year, extended Insite's exemption, which was due to expire. This was the second extension that Clement had granted the operation while his Conservative government examined the issue.

Naturally, the extensions themselves were treated derisively by opposition MPs who benefit politically from portraying the Conservative party as being too hard on drugs.

"If Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper really believed that Insite is a useful tool in treating addictions, he would have extended the program for years, not months," said Martin, who insisted that the extension was simply a "stalling tactic" used to leave the issue open so the Conservatives could close the site if they're able to win a majority.

"I am a little cynical about these short-term extensions. It's no way to address a serious health issue," agreed Victoria NDP MP Denise Savoie, who also harped on the Conservative party's alleged "narrow ideological view" on drugs.

This, one remembers, was coming from a party whose press release counter-factually admonished the Conservative party for allegedly not supporting treatment and prevention. Talk about a narrow view.

It would also be indicative of a narrow view to suggest that a fledgling government -- as the Conservatives have been for the past two years -- shouldn't review any active policies of the previous government that may give them cause for concern. And whether the varying supporters of Insite like to admit it or not, Insite does pose a number of practical, moral and ethical dilemmas for the government -- dilemmas that require time to examine.

In particular, Insite does pose a dilemma for politicians who understand that crime often has an interrelated nature. Drug addictions, in particular, have been shown to have an impact on property crime rates. While Insite has been decisively shown to not negatively impact crime rates in its community, the study itself was still important. Property crime in regards to Insite is one dilemma we can now consider effectively solved.

A Health Canada report released last month dealt with this particular dilemma, along with numerous others.

Among those other dilemmas is whether or not Insite provides users with an incentive to seek treatment. Harm reduction strategies clearly do a lot of good. The one particular benefit that offers the greatest public advantage is probably stemming the spread of sexually-transmitted disease.

The recent Health Canada report suggests that the number of referrals from Insite to detoxification and treatment centers has increased the overall use of these facilities -- certainly yet another feather in Insite's cap.

Another dilemma is whether or not the public funding for Insite is a particularly wise investment considering that it essentially supports the use of illicit substances. Clearly, the public benefit of the site would have to exceed its costs. The Health Canada panel conducted a cost-benefit analysis of Insite and found that it accrues $4 worth of public benefit for every single dollar spent. Clearly Insite passes this test as well.

The report also concludes that Insite saves lives by preventing drug overdoses.

"Overall, the report is very positive and confirms our research that the site is doing what it's supposed to do -- provide health benefits without increasing harm," said Sam Kerr, a researcher for Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS.

But meanwhile, one also needs to consider the fact that many organizations -- including the CEHA -- were apprehensive about even this study, concerned it would be used as a pretext for closing the site. Clearly, that isn't the case.

With the federal government's investigations into whether or not Insite represents a wise expenditure of Canadian tax dollars bearing obvious fruit in terms of keeping the site open, those who support the site -- and those who seek to benefit politically from it -- have resorted to strenuous data mining on the topic, scouring Tony Clement's comments regarding drug policy in general in order to find some sort of evidence that he intends to close the site.

What has emerged are some rather ludicrous attempts at twisting some otherwise largely-benign comments. In particular, some of these individuals went out of their way to distort some comments made by Clement to the Canadian Medical Association:

"The messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting to say the least," Clement announced. "We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past."

"Harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms," Clement added. "To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction."

And, of course, they are. But the simple truth of Clements words didn't stop individuals like Stephen Hwang, a researcher at the University of Toronto's department of medicine, from trying to read intonations of ideological danger into Clement's comments.

"The health of a nation is placed in peril if our leaders ignore crucial research findings simply because they run contrary to a rigid policy agenda driven by ideology or fixed beliefs," said Hwang, in a letter co-signed by 130 like-minded doctors and scientists.

But if Clements agenda was really "driven by ideology or fixed beliefs", one might have expected that he would have avoided visiting the safe injection site, or acknowledging any information that supports it. Instead, he's done the exact opposite.

"I had a good chat with the staff there, understood some of their procedures, asked a lot of questions, got a lot of answers," Clement announced after touring Insite in January 2007. "I think I am continuing to get a deeper understanding and this is all part of being the best health minister I can be for the country."

That was a big part of the short-term rulings made by Clement, while he waited on his own research into Insite, its impact on the surrounding community, and the impact on its users. The fact that the research corroborated previous research is and remains largely immaterial. The simple fact of the matter is that facilities like Insite need to be reevaluated on an annual basis.

Even though Insite is clearly an ideal way to help tackle some of the serious issues that accompany drug use right now, there's no guarantee that the factors that make it so ideal -- a favourable cost-benefit ratio, low impact on crime rates, referral to addiction-treatment services and saved lives -- will endure indefinitely. There may very well come a time in the near future when a new approach becomes necessary, be it due to changing conditions in the surrounding community, or the introduction of newer, more dangerous designer drugs, or any number of other things that are almost certainly going to change in a dynamic society.

Until that time arrives, however, it would clearly benefit Canadian society to allow Insite to continue performing its valuable services. A longer extension to its Drug and Controlled Substances Act clearly needs to be granted, just as Neil Boyd insists.

However, that extension needs to be well short of permanent. At some point over the next two or four years, Insite should be evaluated by Health Canada again, and continually every two or four years after that.

Insite should never be allowed to attain the position of an ideological drug policy orthodoxy that may never be challenged. In fact, it needs to be challenged on an annual basis, and Canadian society needs Insite for as long as it can stand up to scrutiny.

Such reevaluations should be considered minor political maintenance for an operation that, by its very nature, will almost always be contentious.

In the meantime, Canadians should reject the rhetoric of those trying to transform these political molehills into partisan mountains.

Double Dipping: Wrong With Chips, Wrong With Doctors

Clement takes cautious--but necessary--stand on "double dipping"

Any voters swayed in past elections by an alleged "Conservative hidden agenda" on health care should probably be scratching their heads today, wondering, "what was the fuss about?"

On 30 July, the Canadian Medical Association released a policy paper suggesting that allowing physicians to work simultaneously in the private and public systems--a practice commonly referred to as "double dipping"--would help to reduce wait-times by acting as a "safety valve".

Today, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement replied, "no dice."

"Any collection of doctors are entitled to their opinion and there are many things we agree with them on, but on the issue of physicians having a dual practice or two-tier system, we're not going down that road," Clement said.

Clement admitted that "double dipping" is good for doctors financially, "It's quite lucrative for physicians to be partially in and partially out because they can in effect top up a guaranteed income with a private income as well."

According to Canadian Healthcare Coalition coordinator Michael McBane, it's not so good for public health care. "If we allowed doctors to have a dual practice, there would be no incentive for them to fix the public system."

"That's a conflict of interest," he added.

The entire matter really underscores the primary dilemma of parallel-system health care delivery: how to ensure that quality of care in the public system remains on par with that of the private system. Allowing doctors to "double dip" would allow them to devote a disproportionate amount of their time toward their private practice, while only using their public practice when the private practice is slow.

It quickly becomes clear that any attempt at building a parallel-delivered health care system would have to be heavily regulated. However, regulation essentially requires bureaucrats, and that's something Canadian health care could stand to have fewer of.

There is also an ethical bridge to be crossed for "double dipping" doctors. Less scrupulous doctors could potentially defraud the public system by billing it for work already performed and paid for through the private system. While most doctors wouldn't do this, some are bound to give in to temptation, and the last thing the Canadian health care system needs is another serious scandal.

Until a satisfactory regulatory framework can be discussed and drawn up, "double dipping" is probably best left as something looked down upon at parties.