Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 6 (Abuse of Prorogation)

Harper's Abuse of Prorogation 

Sixth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although prorogation normally allows governments to bring in fresh bills, usually mid-way through a prime minister's mandate, Harper has used prorogation four times, shutting down parliament for a total of 181 days.

In December 2008, Harper enraged constitutional experts by proroguing Parliament. Many accused him of simply trying to avoid a confidence vote over a fiscal update, which his minority government appeared certain to lose. 

Apart from the doomed attempts of Charles I to prorogue the British parliament in the 17th century, there has not been precedent in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world where a democratic parliament was shut down to hide from a vote of confidence. 

• Prorogation redux: Harper in contempt of Parliament 

In 2010, Harper prorogued parliament again in the midst of a controversy over Canada's treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.

In August 2013, Harper prorogued during a scandal involving the expenses of Conservative senators.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair accused Harper of shutting down Parliament to evade accountability and to avoid questions on the Senate. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
What is prorogation of Parliament? 

The main effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end all government business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.

Note who wrote 'Harper in contempt of Parliament' above:

• Errol B. Mendes
• The person calling our PM in contempt isn't a political shill for opposition parties, or a leftie media hack, he is a constitutional lawyer of the highest regard internationally.

Even The Economist, not a left-wing rag by anyone's standards, chastises Harper on his abuse of proroguing:

• Harper goes prorogue: Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

To date these blogs have featured Harper's contempt for and attacks on democracy whether it be

• Control of the media
• Censuring of scientists
• Abuse of Question Period
• Obstruction of 'access to information' requests
• Abuse of omnibus bills

Today, Harper's anti-democratic mentality is evident by forcing Canadians who want to attend his campaign events to be vetted by the party and receive a bar-coded ticket bearing their name.

Honest, you couldn't make this stuff up.

As an aside, Conservatives has been embarrassed into relenting on the 'no photos' rule, naturally putting a spin on it, but stick to the vetting. To claim it's about security is nonsense since Harper's party has done it since at least 2008.

With Harper it's all about 

• Controlling the message, as practiced by authoritarian regimes worldwide;
• Even if it means abusing democracy.

Harper does not deserve our vote. It's fair to say he is a SCARY outlier among all prior Canadian Prime Ministers. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 7. Harper's Environmental Record

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 5 (Abuse of Omnibus Bills)

Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills 

Fifth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Harper was a Reform MP, he argued that a Liberal 20-page omnibus bill should be broken up so that its measures could get closer scrutiny. 

However, when Harper came to power, in 2010, he tabled an omnibus bill with 883 pages addressing a multitude of issues, served with the threat of an election if the opposition failed to support its passage. 

Since then, Harper has passed 10 more omnibus bills, each between 300 to 450 pages. Each has been an abuse of process and each has shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role.  

Major changes to policy and law that should have been examined by MPs have been pushed through with almost no debate, sometimes with disastrous results:

• Harper's Ottawa is omnibusted (Globe and Mail, 2014)
• Harper sneaks in ideology-driven policy via a 321-page “omnibus” budget bill with many unrelated measures (Toronto Star, 2013)

In 2012, one of the omnibus bills, C-38,

• Completely gutted Canada’s environmental laws;
• Cut $36-billion from health care funding;
• Weakened Canada’s food inspectors through job cuts;
• Made it harder to qualify for EI benefits. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
PM Harper consistently shows himself to be a hypocrite, preaching one policy when in opposition, and behaving exactly the opposite once in power. 

His 180^o turn on omnibus bills is especially odious. Once again Harper 

• Manipulates laws for political purposes;
• Hides them from MP scrutiny; 
• Hides them from Canadians;
• Mocks parliament with his utter contempt;
• Degrades Canada's democracy.

An omnibus bill is a single document accepted in a single vote that groups together multiple diverse measures. Because of its large size and scope, an omnibus bill limits opportunities for debate and scrutiny. As such, omnibus bills allow governments to

•  Subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation.

And they've become a Conservative government brand. The PM's 'flipping us the bird', folks. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 6. Harper's Abuse of Prorogation

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 4 (Obstruction of Access to Information Requests)

Harper's Obstruction of Access to Information Requests

Fourth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, his stand on "transparency and accountability" included a promise to reform Canada's 30-year-old Access to Information Act, in particular to give the information commissioner the ability to order release of information, to read cabinet records and to adjudicate complaints. Subsequently, few substantive changes have been made to the Act.

Instead, the government has gained a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to any attempts to shed more light on government's inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.   

Ironic, because when Mr. Harper was opposition leader, he said: 

Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.

Incredibly, one access to information request actually resulted in the Harper government retroactively changing a law to cover criminal activity. 

After the government got rid of the long gun-registry in 2012, the RCMP was ordered by the Government to destroy its records. By then, however, an access to information request for this data had been made. The RCMP destroyed the information anyway, which, according to Suzanne Legault, Canada's information commissioner, is a criminal offence if an access request is being processed. Legault recommended charges be laid against the responsible RCMP members. 

However, in an omnibus bill, the Harper government simply retroactively rewrote the access laws to erase the RCMP's mishandling of gun registry records, to protect these officers from facing criminal charges. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

On Access to Information, Harper behaves exactly the opposite to what he advocated when in opposition, which makes our PM a hypocrite. Many politicos change tunes once in power but Harper's behaviour makes him unique in the annals of Canada's political hypocrisy. He's done 180^o turn on so many issues. Our PM's brand includes secrecy and manipulating laws for political purposes.  

Retroactively changing laws sets a dangerous precedent. As a Canadian citizen it scares the hell out of me.

• Tories set ‘perilous precedent’ by retroactively changing law to absolve RCMP, information commissioner says

The Harper government not only rewrote a law and backdated the changes, it buried it in an omnibus bill. That should scare every Canadian.

Harper degrades Canada's democracy to an extent never before seen in any of our past governments. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 5. Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 3 (Abuse of Question Period)

Harper Government's Abuse of Question Period 

Third in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question Period is supposed to be the heart of Canadian democracy, where the government is held to account by the opposition and forced to explain and justify its policies.

However, rather than provide clarity and transparency, Harper Government responses to questions during Question Period more often result in evasion, reading of prepared talking-points, denigration of the questioner, and/or aggrandisement of the government.

Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, best exemplifies the nature of these responses. For example, when asked to provide more information about the scope of Canada's foray into the Middle East

• Calandra launched into a totally irrelevant accusation that an NDP fundraiser had accused Israel of genocide and that New Democrats do not support Israel. 

Similarly, when Calandra was asked how many lawyers from the PMO were involved in setting up the secret deal with Mike Duffy, he responded with an irrelevant non-answer, laughably lauding Harper's government:

Thank goodness Canadians elected a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government, led by the best prime minister in the world, flanked by a minister of finance who has won awards, with the strongest cabinet in Canadian history and Conservative members of Parliament working all over the country to hope for hope, jobs and economic prosperity.

In keeping with his failure to be accountable and transparent, Harper attended only 35% of the daily Question Periods in 2015. To further avoid answering questions, Harper signalled he would not participate in 2015 election leaders' debates organized by a consortium of broadcasters.

This is the same Prime Minister who has

• Refused to meet Canada's provincial and territorial premiers as a group;
• Skipped the Council of the Federation meetings of Canada's provincial and territorial premiers for years;and
• Did not attend the January 2015 meeting although it met just a few blocks from his office. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As stated in Canada's Model Parliament for students, daily Question Period in a parliamentary democracy is an opportunity for MPs to obtain information for their constituents and all Canadians, a chance for MPs to hold government accountable for its actions.
The right to seek information and hold the government accountable are two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. 
That Harper has Paul Calandra as a Parliamentary Secretary says volumes about our PM: 

• One of Calandra's many disgraceful performances in QP, as instructed by PM Harper (After 75 seconds of CBC ads, but it's well worth it)

Harper systematically degrades our Parliament's QP and by extension Canada's democracy. Our PM prevents Canadians from 

• Getting answers to important questions;
• Being aware of key information that affects us all;
• Holding our government accountable for its actions;
• Even those involving sending our sons and daughters into life and death situations.

Harper does not deserve our vote.

As always, comment are not welcome.

Part 4: Harper's Abuse of Access to Information Requests

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 2 (Censuring of scientists)

Harper Government's Censuring of Scientists 

Second in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stephen Harper's information policies muzzle scientists in dealings with the media:

• Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists (Nature 2010;467:501)

For example, climate change researchers from Environment Canada have been prevented from

• Sharing their work at conferences;
• Giving interviews to journalists;
• Even talking about research that has already been published. 

Similarly, scientists in departments that deal with natural resources, health, fisheries and oceans have also felt the pinch of the muzzle. Nine out of 10 federal scientists feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their research. 

• Why Canada needs a Parliamentary science office

In 2013, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), representing 20,000 federal scientists, found that

• Hundreds of their members reported being asked to exclude or alter technical information in government documents for non-scientific (political) reasons;
• Thousands reported being prevented from responding to the media or the public.

As a result, PIPSC abandoned its tradition of neutrality in elections to actively campaign against PM Harper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
Harper's policy of preventing scientists from talking to the media, even about their published papers, is difficult to understand.

• Harper shackles science done by Canadians working in federal departments when it doesn’t serve his political interest;
• He prevents research from being published, even research done in collaboration with international scientists.

Such policies make a joke of Canada. We're a democracy yet Harper's actions resemble those of the authoritarian regimes of the former USSR. 

Of note, when PIPSC goes to the bargaining table this year, it will seek a clause guaranteeing scientists the “right to speak.” They say Canada is the first country in the world where scientists have sought that kind of clause in a contract.

You know it's bad when the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) sends a letter to Harper urging him to knock it off: Prime Minister urged to end clampdown on scientists.

Scientists are quitting their jobs and will increasingly leave a stifling environment. Harper's policy routinely suppresses not only big science but even minor scientific news. Why? Because he has to control everything? That's what control freaks do.

Shackling scientists has consequences: it weakens Canada's ability to deal with ongoing and future environmental issues that affect us all. 

• Harper controlling the science message

Harper also puts politics above scientific evidence as when he tried to shut down Vancouver's Insite safe injection site, but was overruled by Canada's Supreme Court, which stated

• The evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety.

In response Harper created Bill C-2 designed to make it difficult for new sites to open. The bill is opposed by the Canadian Nurses Association and others.

Similar to his controlling the media, Harper seeks to control scientists, undermine scientific evidence, and weaken democracy. That's how he consistently behaves, folks. It's our Prime Minister's brand. He does Canadians a disservice and does not deserve our vote.

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 3: Harper's Abuse of Question Period

Why I will NOT vote for a “Harper Government”: Part 1 (Control of the media)

Harper Government’s Control of the Media

This is the first of a series of mini-blogs on 

Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 

My brief comments follow each blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While campaigning to replace the Martin Liberals, Stephen Harper promised more openness and accountability, however, throughout his term as Prime Minister, he has drawn

• Criticism for his near-total inaccessibility to journalists who cover politics. 

The Harper government has established more roadblocks to access to information than any previous government. For example:

• Press  releases announcing events at which the PM would be speaking, often stipulate that photographers and videographers can attend, but no journalists will be allowed. 
• As a result, broadcasts of the event show the PM speaking from a script without responses to any politically relevant questions. 

The role of the press in government matters is to monitor the different levels of government and report to the public. However, the Harper government's media policy is to prevent media access and subsequent reporting to Canadians. Journalists regularly report that 

• Their calls are not returned;
• They are given copies of speeches only when they are days old;
• Cabinet meetings are held in secret allowing ministers to avoid the press who wish to meet with them after the meetings and ask questions about their portfolios. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments 

DaBa has it right and it follows that Stephen Harper's Conservative government actively sets out to stifle democracy in the pursuit of self-interest. This alone is sufficient reason for Canadians not to vote Conservative.

Excerpt from 'The Role of the Press' by Dmitry Fadeyev (Feb. 2014) 

Members of the public cannot sit still and be passive participants of their state, but must, for the state to be a democracy, take an active role in asserting their will.

For a democracy to be a true democracy, the people must be active participants in political discourse, and for this to happen, the press itself must be an active agent that brings this about.

Harper's policy of limiting media access lessens our democracy. He and his Conservative government do not deserve the votes of Canadians.

As always, comments are most welcome. 
Part 2: Harper's Censuring of Scientists

Chelsea will be 2015 champions (Musings on We-They mentality)

Updated: 26 March 2015

ALL HAIL THE CHAMPIONS
It's all but certain that Chelsea FC will win the 2015 Premier League title. 
As of 26 March, the arithmetic is as follows:

• CFC has 67 points, its closest rival Manchester City has 61. With 8 games left , if Man City win all, their maximum total is 85. Let's assume Man City wins all its remaining games. 
• With this scenario, to win outright, Chelsea needs 86 points or 19 more than now. Because Chelsea has a game in hand, 9 remaining games gives it a possible 27 more points, a maximum 94 points. 
• Many combinations and permutations, but in its next 9 games, Chelsea would need to lose 10 points along the way to finish with 84, 1 less than Man City. 
• That's scenarios like 3 losses and 1 draw (-11pts), 2 losses and 2 draws (-10), etc.
• Highly unlikely. And Chelsea can do even worse and still win if opponents do not win all remaining games.

So given Chelsea is the all-but-certain Premier League champion, you would think we fans would be cautious but joyous over the winning season the club has had. Perhaps we'd even be generous to the 'usual suspects' that typically cause much aggro or at least ignore their nonsense. Focus on bragging and BIRGing (Basking In Reflected Glory) over our skilled players, genius manager.

But you'd be wrong. Instead, what we often focus on these days is moaning about the usual suspects, namely the media and PL referees who apparently conspire against Chelsea and always have. And it's not just one or two plotters, no - it's the mother-of-all conspiracies. 

WE-THEY
Fact is, many Chelsea fans (not all) are focused on We-They aspects of Premier League football. Their mindset is closely linked to tribalism. In brief, sports fans are tribal when they

• Hate all clubs but theirs, including other clubs' players and fans, and take every opportunity to abuse them all verbally, including on Twitter. The abuse goes well beyond what could be defended as good-natured banter. Some of it is pretty vile.
• Love the club to the point where their manager and players can do no wrong. 
• Identify with the club as much or more than with their family, friends, country.

Indeed, to Chelsea fans, our manager José Mourinho, the self-described Special One, is more infallible than Pope Francis, who has all but renounced papal infallibility. José is an incredibly talented and successful manager, but infallible, not so much.

You can likely guess that I'm not tribal, wasn't brought up that way. As a footie fan, this makes me an outlier. This blog is a quickie, written to get something off my chest:

• Get over it, Chelsea fans. We-they mentality is not healthy, not productive, not something you want to promote to your children.

Moreover, if your kids say they're being unfairly trashed by others (THEY), the best response is to ask who THEY are, then dissect their arguments for the crap it invariably is. You cannot control how others think. You can control your response.

CFC's talented and successful manager José Mourinho specializes at fostering We-They. Not one of his better traits. Suspect it's a tactic to distract from club weaknesses, take pressure off players, and yes, off José too.

As a Chelsea fan, I cannot but help notice how so many fans are consumed by how hard done by Chelsea FC is. Sample tweet:

• Top of League from day one, no losses in the CL, yet they dig out things to come down on us for, it's like an agenda against us.

Apparently, the entire football world is against Chelsea, certainly the FA, referees, and UK media. That's a whole lot of dudes and an occasional dudette.

BIG MEDIA
Who they are is the UK sports media, many of whom are ex-Liverpool and ex-Man United players. Examples:

• Jamie Carragher (Sky Sports) played for Liverpool for 17 yrs
• Gary Neville (Sky Sports) played for Man United for 19 yrs
• Graeme Souness, 7 successful seasons at Liverpool

MINNOW MEDIA
As well as many other football reporters seem hard on Chelsea versus other clubs. Their qualifications are suspect (meaning they have none), but nonetheless they have big megaphones.

CARRA on GERRARD
One thing that seems to give credence to Chelsea fans' claims of different treatment is how media pundits characterized CFC's Diego Costa stamps as if he were evil incarnate, yet give a pass to Liverpool's Steven Gerrard and Martin Skrtel. Gerrard apologized, so he gets off scott free?

Indeed, Stevie is universally lauded for the apology. Good that he took responsibility. But if you examine Gerrard's 'apology', he's sorry for letting club and fans down but does not come clean.

I've let down my teammates and the supporters. I take full responsibility. I need to accept it, the decision was right.

I've been in the game long enough when you do something like that. I don't know what caused it, probably just a reaction to the initial tackle. 

I shouldn't say more about it really, I've just come out here to apologise to the dressing-room and supporters.

What Gerrard could have said, more honestly:

'I was upset at not starting, keyed up, aggressive, and disappointed in our performance. After a normal tackle, my temper flashed and I struck out, stamped on him deliberately. Sorry, no excuse. Such nasty violence, which could have seriously injured him, is unforgivable.'

Ex-LFC player Jamie Carragher's take:

Steven is an emotional player. He has taken teams into unbelievable moments and when he plays from the heart, he does special things. 

But that can also affect him negatively. He has picked up four red cards in matches against Everton and Manchester United. And there is no doubt the emotion and frustration coming into the game has contributed.  

There is no doubt it was a red card. You cannot do that on a football pitch.

Not said was that Gerrard's stamp was clearly deliberate, unlike others that could be seen as accidental. But keep in mind that Carragher was a teammate of Gerrard's  for about 15 years. They likely remain friends.

CARRA on COSTA
From my CFC fan timeline I thought Carra totally trashed Costa. But did he? Liverpool legend Jamie Carragher reminds fans Luis Suarez used to stamp like Chelsea's Diego Costa

Jamie Carragher did his bit to calm Liverpool fans irate at Diego Costa's stamps on their players by pointing at that their former hero Luis Suarez was a master of the accidentally-on-purpose stamp on an opponent.

Chelsea striker Costa brought his foot down on the leg of Reds midfielder Emre Can in the first-half, then did the same thing with Martin Skrtel's foot in the second half.

But former Anfield stalwart Carragher had a long enough memory to not be too offended by the former Atletico Madrid man's shenanigans. He pointed fellow Liverpool supporters in the direction of his former team-mate Suarez. 

Carragher felt Costa's stamps were deliberate, but said they were no worse than similar tactics that Suarez used to get away with for the Reds. 

Writing on Twitter during last night's Capital One Cup semi-final clash between the sides, Carragher said: "Naughty from Costa but reds be honest Suarez used to do that!"

TRIBAL MENTALITY
Chelsea fans fret over what commentators like Carra say. They tend to hear selectively, emphasizing anti-Chelsea bits and ignoring more balanced comments. This type of headline fuels the rage:

• Skrtel: Finally charged but nowhere near the same reaction as Diego Costa!

LEARNING POINTS
1. If footie media pundits unfairly trash Chelsea and give other club's players a pass, why should we care? We cannot control such nonsense, only what we think about it. Which is more or less, 'Idiots will be idiots'. Pity them.

2. Cultivating a We-They mentality is not something to foster in young Chelsea fans. Fact is, we are all in it together, fans of the beautiful game. Better strategy is 'Never complain, never explain.'

3. Siege mentality is, at its core, unhealthy. Instead of saying,

•  Look, THEY are all against us.

I prefer,

• Assess what THEY say, pro and con. Who are THEY? What are their biases? Do their argument have merit? Do they treat us the same as others? Why care what idiots say? 

Think about it. 
Should we teach children (young Chelsea fans) to think We-They? To worry about what others say, others whose thoughts and agendas we have no control over? To complain and whine about what others say and do? To believe all are against us? It's almost like Chelsea needs to create conspiracies.

Do we really want to promote a Chelsea tribe grounded in paranoia of others out to get us, and whining as a first response to every slight, real or perceived? 

Because that's what young Chelsea fans are learning. And that seems to be Jose's pathetic strategy, but I don't buy it for a minute. Granted, it may be his way of focusing the news on all those big bad boys out to get Chelsea, instead of discussing our player AND José's failures and shortcomings. Still no excuse. 

Such antics have outlived their usefulness, have become same old, same old, boring. You know you've gone to the well too many times when even neutral Canadian commentators ridicule the tactic. Sort of how some fans groan that ex-Chelsea defender David Luiz (still a favorite player of mine - passionate guy) sticking out his tongue has outlived cuteness. 

As Walt Kelly said many years ago, via his Pogo comic strip:

Time to grow up and present an admirable version of what being a fan, citizen, and human is. It's not We-They. Never was.

As always, comments are welcome. 

FOR FUN

• We are the champions (Queen)
• Chelsea will be PL 2015 champs, believe it!

FURTHER READING

• Defunct tribalism of English football
• Chelsea Fan: Tribalism Is Ugly But I Can't Help Abusing People On Twitter

Celebrating Jennifer McPhee, Med Lab Science, UAlberta (1972-2015)

Updated: 27 May 2018 (minor tweaks)

Recently, I experienced the equivalent of a kick in the gut. Jennifer McPhee, who was in Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) at the University of Alberta when I first came to MLS in November, 1977 (~38 yrs ago), announced her well deserved retirement. I knew Jennifer was to retire in 2015, but seeing it in print made it real. Jennifer will hate me for this blog but it has to be done.

Jennifer has always been associated with MLS in one way or another, whether as a student, graduate (1972), research technologist, instructor, or MLS coordinator, a post she held since 1988 (more than 25 years). 

I encourage you to use the Comments section below to relate anecdotes about Jennifer, anything that strikes your fancy. You can do so as 'Anonymous' and add your name and graduation year (if relevant) at the end of your post, or not. 

Below is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to support Jennifer's nomination for a University of Alberta award, tailored for the award. 

Otherwise, my comments would be more personal, such as how the heck Jennifer, someone who runs every day and is in great shape, could ever tolerate my smoking in my early MLS years. Or how when I came to MLS, only the second non-MLS graduate on staff, she kindly showed me where everything was, from the toilets to the cafeteria, and gave the scoop on who the big-wigs were. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm delighted to write a letter to support the nomination of Jennifer McPhee for an Academic Staff Recognition Award. I have known Jennifer as a colleague in Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (LMP), where I taught for many years. 

 Jennifer played a key role in the careers of so many staff and students and continues to do so. As LMP's APO, Jennifer has been the glue that holds the Department together. During her tenure Jennifer has seen many Department Chairs come and go, all with different personalities and agendas. Throughout she presented a steady presence that staff and students have come to rely upon. Of particular note, Jennifer piloted MLS through the era of government cutbacks in the 1990s when Alberta cut payments to medical laboratories by 40%. 

Throughout her entire career, Jennifer consistently fostered a positive culture among academic and non-academic staff and encouraged us to be creative in dealing with new realities. During the darkest days of the 1990s, I never saw Jennifer anything but upbeat. She was a beacon to students and staff alike. For example: 

1. When as a blood bank instructor, I considered applying on MLS’s behalf to conduct a 5-day continuing education conference in Saudi Arabia for the health care system of Saudi Aramco, but felt insecure about it, Jennifer encouraged me to 'go for it'. As a result of her encouragement, MLS and LMP won the Saudi contract.

Indeed Jennifer encourages all staff to 'go for it' and consistently holds up a mirror that shows us in our best light.  

2. In 1996, when MLS instructional staff had to create ways to accommodate more than double the number of clinical students due to restructuring of Alberta’s medical laboratory system, Jennifer encouraged us to do whatever fit our individual situations. Most importantly, by example, she kept us enthused with her can-do approach to seeing ‘problems’ as challenges to be met.  In retrospect, the year we had to transmogrify our clinical training is one of MLS and LMP’s finest hours, due in no small part to Jennifer's leadership.

3. Jennifer is an astounding ambassador for the University of Alberta's MLS program and laboratory medicine in general. She promotes University of Alberta programs on many levels, including recruitment in local high schools and via university open houses. 

4. She also serves as an assessor for the Conjoint Committee forAccreditation of Educational Programs in Medical Laboratory Technology for the Canadian Medical Association (Note: CMA accreditation of allied health programs ceased 1 Feb. 2018) ). By volunteering as a member of the CMA's accreditation team, Jennifer has given the University of Alberta's MLS program and its clinical sites a high profile across Canada. In assessing other programs, she’s a natural at promoting the ideals of what an excellent program should aspire to be, yet she respects the challenges faced by all. 

 In summary, when staff and graduates think of MLS, they cannot help but think of Jennifer McPhee with affection and gratitude. I admire her greatly. She is a most worthy recipient of an Academic Staff Recognition Award.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please comment as suggested above: Do so as 'Anonymous' and add your name and graduation year (if relevant) at the end of your post, or not. Or contact me and I can add your comments.

Many thanks. 
Cheers, Pat

Sweet Dreams (Musings on funding of Esbriet for IPF)

Updated: 18 Feb. 2015

This blog is a follow-up to Good vibrations (Musings on new research on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) - initially posted 1 Sept. 2014  and updated 27 Dec. 2014 - in which I discussed how physicians vary in their approaches to patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and the drug pirfenidone (Esbriet^TM).

• To access the 4 earlier blogs on IPF: 'While my guitar gently weeps' (Musings on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis)

The blog's title derives from one of the Eurythmics' biggest hits, often sung by Annie Lennox on her solo tours.

To our surprise in early Dec. 2014 we were notified by a representative of the company that makes Esbriet (Intermune/Roche) that Peter had been funded by Alberta's Short Term Exceptional Drug Therapy (STEDT) program to receive Esbriet.

NOTE: We were not notified by a physician but by the manufacturer's rep, an RN. She told us the drug would be available at 3 locations, one of which was the UAH Rexall pharmacy, about 2 blocks from us. She gave us their phone number so that we could confirm when the  Esbriet could be picked up. Maybe it was because the physician that got the funding is no longer Peter's respirologist, since he moved to a nearby city and we got a new doc.

BACKGROUND
Much earlier our first respirologist had applied to STEDT on Peter's behalf. But Alberta's then Minister of Health, Fred Horne, indicated to forget STEDT unless CDEC OR Canada's provinces negotiated what they deemed a reasonable cost for Esbriet. That made us cynical of ever getting Esbriet. But it turns out there was hope.

QUANDARY
So now we are delighted to have STEDT funding for Esbriet for about 8 months with these provisos:

1. DOC #1: The physician with Esbriet experience is no longer Peter's respirologist. 
2. DOC #2: The new respirologist has no experience with it  - few physicians do, given its cost - and will be on leave beginning in the next few months. 
3. SIDE EFFECTS: So far, there are none that warrant stopping the drug. Nausea, dizziness, and extreme fatigue occur but Peter's okay with them so far. 
4. LAB TESTS: The Esbriet RN also told us to get baseline laboratory results for ALT, AST, and bilirubin monthly for 6 months, then quarterly, since Esbriet may affect the liver. Our family doctor kindly wrote a standing lab request. 

DOCTOR vs MANUFACTURER'S REP

About Esbriet's significant side effects, in the absence of physician involvement, the manufacturer's representative helped. Suspect this is because the manufacturer doesn't want patients to discontinue the drug because of adverse side effects. She gave advice on how to minimize a key side effect, gastrointestinal issues. For example:

• Take pills ~5 hrs apart since Esbriet's half-life is 2 1/2 hrs. 
• Increase dosage slowly and cut back if side effects are onerous.
• She said she'd check with us later about adverse effects. And we can always call the toll free number for help at any time.

BOTTOM LINES

I admit we're an outlier, having changed physicians. But even if we still had the initial respirologist who applied for Esbriet funding under STEDT, would the situation be similar? Who knows?

It makes sense that manufacturer's representatives want to ensure Esbriet helps patients and is not discontinued due to side effects.

Alberta's healthcare system is wonderful in many ways and staffed with dedicated health professionals. But I also know from helping many seniors that to claim AHS is patient-centred is not a reality. 

Care is more cost-centred because it has to be, given the Alberta government's choice of priorities and taxation policies, e.g., tax breaks to oil companies, a flat tax that favours the wealthy, and no sales tax like other Canadian provinces. All more acute now that oil prices have tanked.

Sometimes doctor visits are similar to a factory assembly line. After 'x' minutes, you're given a clue to exit. Some docs specify you can discuss only 'x" issues. While I understand where they're coming from, and dig they need to earn a living and pay for their office's overhead, it's hardly patient-centred care. 

I look forward to learning how Peter's new respirologist manages his care using Esbriet on what will be his final journey. To be continued...

FOR FUN
Love this song and in some ways it resonates with this blog's theme.

• Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) by Annie Lennox, Live 8, Hyde Park, London, 2005 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Searching for a heart of gold (Musings on Alberta's health system)

Also see Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis blogs 
Updated: 1 Oct. 2014

I decided to write a short blog, one in a series, on Alberta's healthcare system. Canada's health system is one of best in world yet has many problems. I treasure it but don't want to ignore reality.

The blog's title comes from a song by Canada's Neil Young.

Trying to count up all times I've visited Edmonton Emergency Rooms (ERs) in past two years. At least 8 times, driving seniors in their 90s (because they want to go to UAH in Edmonton, across the street, not a far-way hospital that requires $40+ taxi fares), or accompanying them in ambulances.

I've also visited seniors who were admitted to hospitals, or had to attend clinics, dozens of times in past two years. Plus saw doctors for myself or family dozens of times.

Random Impressions

1. Alberta's health professionals are exemplary. Most cope with awful working conditions, are overworked, yet still care, treat patients with understanding and kindness. Truly heroes worth of admiration.

2. A few RNs let it get to them and are overtly surly to patients who have the audacity to ring nursing station buzzers and are hostile to patients and visitors who dare ask questions. I call these RNs angry pitbulls who probably should leave the profession. No doubt they are overworked but it does not excuse bad behaviour.

3. A few health workers seem to have little or no sympathy for the elderly ('bed blockers') and others who belong to any underclass. Is it because physicians and RNs earn good wages, live the good life, have not experienced hard times, and had a privileged childhood with little experience with the down-and-out and human frailty?

4. EMS staff have told me that some colleagues burn out and leave the profession because they cannot relate to the elderly or the homeless.

5. I've overheard young ER nurses and doctors joke negatively about elderly patients. A coping mechanism or they're callous youth? 

6. Physicians seldom listen to patients. They're immediately on office computers accessing results and what patients say is so much background noise.

In the past, doctors used to at least read a patient's chart, stuck in a slot on the outside of the cubicle, before entering. Nowadays, they enter,ask how you are (ignore whatever you say - it's usually not 'Fine' or why the heck are you there?), immediately log-in to computer, scan test results and recent history, while patients sit quietly waiting to be acknowledged as existing.

For routine followup visits, I've had physicians ask me,'How are you? What can I do for you today?' I wanted to reply: 'Your booked this appointment. You tell me.' But instead I generously say, 'I'm here for a routine follow-up for ...', which lets them off the hook.

7. Sometimes as a patient, when doctors begin a canned spiel about what they think is your issue, you feel like shouting, "Shut the f*ck up and listen" but you never do.

I've never heard a physician ask any of , "Am I going too fast? Do you understand what I'm saying?" From my life as a teacher of adults, it's standard practice to ask learners what there background is and if they know much about "x" so as to determine how much to explain. Because doctors never do the equivalent, patients with a health care background, e.g., medical laboratory technologist, may have to suffer through a hilarious description of a laboratory test.

8. Many patients visit their physicians unprepared, without a list of key questions that need answering or concerns that need to be assuaged. This puts doctors at a disadvantage as too many random concerns dilute a patient's true needs.

9. Some physicians talk too fast, use too many medical terms, and are oblivious to patients as real people struggling to understand. They don't seem to comprehend that lay people will often be focussed on what the doctor said several sentences ago and new information is not being heard, let alone processed.

Communication is not simple. Between SENDER---> (encodes MESSAGE) and RECEIVER (decodes message to obtain meaning) much background NOISE can interfere, not the least of which are the sender's language and speed of talking and the receiver's apprehension and fear.

10. What's taught in medical schools about patient-centred care is so much bullsh*t. Once physicians set up practice, it's all about processing patients on an assembly line for 'fee for service'.

Patients can't even get long-standing prescriptions for lifelong conditions renewed without visiting doctors. Pharmacies try their best to help patients but it's strictly ka-ching, ka-ching for doctors to make their practice viable (salary, overhead costs of maintaining an office and staff, etc.)

11. I've observed senior doctors humiliate student physicians (interns, residents). It's a widespread problem, one of medicine's dirty little secrets.

12. Onus is on patients to come with list of key concerns and press physicians for answers. Few can do this, especially the elderly. Often old folks meander all over the place instead of clearly stating their serious health issues.

Meanwhile MD and RN eyes glaze over and they begin to use terms like 'dearie' and 'sweetie'.

And some doctors don't really see oldsters as patients, more as inconveniences they cannot help. No one wants to feel powerless, least of all physicians with god-complexes.

More to come...
FOR FUN
Hope you enjoy this 1972 ditty by Canada's Neil Young.

• Heart of gold 

As always the views are mine alone and comments are most welcome. 

Good vibrations (Musings on new research on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis)

Updated: 27 Dec. 2014 

AND THE BEAT GOES ON
This new blog is to relate what I discovered

1. When generous friends wrote Alberta's then Health Minister, Fred Horne asking for Esbriet to be funded for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), including Minister Horne's response when I contacted him directly. 
2. Interesting tidbits from additional medical research on IPF.
3. How physicians vary in their approach to patients with IPF.

*** Plus - and it's a huge plus - a surprising update in early December (see blog's new ending). 

BACKGROUND
In 2013 my spouse was diagnosed with IPF, a deadly disease with no known cure and a median life expectancy after diagnosis of ~3 years.

Besides the diagnosis, it was a shock to learn that the one known treatment at the time (pirfenidone / Esbriet) was approved for use by Health Canada, but not funded by provincial governments.

I subsequently read many scientific papers on the issue and wrote 4 blogs that examined what it's like to get an IPF diagnosis and why Esbriet is covered by public funding in the UK but not Canada. In brief, reasons include

• The Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC), under the auspices of CADTH, decided that Canada should not fund Esbriet (18 April, 2013). 
• The clinical trial results at the time were equivocal and CDEC opted for seeing the glass half empty, no doubt partly because Esbriet is expensive ($40,000 - $50,000/yr). Provinces would prefer not to pay for a drug that slows, but does not cure IPF, a disease affecting mainly the elderly.
• To access the 4 earlier blogs on IPF: 'While my guitar gently weeps' (Musings on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis).

Although we are fortunate to have great health insurance, it did not cover a drug as expensive as Esbriet. We understand why our drug maximum is $2000/yr, otherwise the plan would be unsustainable.

HOW GOVERNMENT RESPONDS 
Many friends kindly wrote the Alberta government, usually the Health Minister, Premier, or their MLA, using a variation of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundations' provincial advocacy packages. Regardless of how personalized they made their appeals - including that they knew the UK but not Canada funded Esbriet - in return all, including me, received what amounted to a government form letter, which totally ignored the content of our letters.

In return I wrote Minister Horne and asked him to cut the crap and reply to 3 simple questions.

To his credit, Fred Horne replied to my direct questions. If I interpret Minister Horne's reply correctly:

1. Unless CDEC recommends Esbriet funding, Alberta won't fund it.
2. Alberta's expert committee (ECDET) accepts (rubber stamps) CDEC's decisions.
3. Forget about Alberta's Short Term Exceptional Drug Therapy (STEDT), unless a drug is approved for public funding by CDEC OR Canada's provinces negotiate what they deem a reasonable cost for Esbriet.

Alberta Health's replies were as expected. I just wish the government would be more transparent and upfront, instead of giving citizens the hope that maybe you can get your expensive drug, with unknown or iffy efficacy, under special funding. 

Maybe you can, but only if you are a cute child with a rare disease or if your disease is more common (e,g., cancer), thereby involving more voters. Cynicism or reality? You judge. 

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

Since I wrote the prior blogs, new research has emerged on Esbriet's value in treating IPF, notably,

• IPF now a treatable disease (CMAJ) 
• Two drugs reduce the progression of IPF
• In 2014 The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that pirfenidone (Esbriet) reduced the relative risk of death or disease progression by 43% compared with placebo.

Accordingly, CADTH is looking at another submission on pirfenidone (Esbriet) and seeks input. 

In the meantime, Esbriet's maker, Intermune was bought by Big Pharma's Roche for $8.3 billion, likely in the hope that the U.S. FDA will approve Esbriet for use in the USA. Effects of the takeover on Esbriet's public funding in Canada remain to be seen.

A TALE OF TWO PHYSICIANS 

My spouse's initial lung specialist (pulmonologist / respirologist) is a physician with much experience, who gave Peter hope that he could get funding for Esbriet, which might significantly help, although not cure, his IPF. The doc patiently spent much time explaining IPF and its possible clinical courses.

He put us in touch with Esbriet's maker to investigate if our insurance would pay. He submitted Peter's name to Alberta's Short Term Exceptional Drug Therapy program (STEDT).

But he soon moved his practice outside our city to what is often called a 'bedroom community'. Although relatively close, driving is a challenge and I could not see travelling there for continuing care. 

Unfortunately, we quickly learned that Esbriet funding was a no-go (as explained above in correspondence with Fred Horne). The original respirologist was hopeful that it would eventually be funded, especially if enough people drew the Minister's attention to the issue of IPF and Esbriet / pirfenidone. Thus, we asked friends to write the Health Minister.

In a pulmonary care exercise program with an Edmonton primary care network, we were told that IPF could deteriorate quickly at any time (acute exacerbation), and we needed a physician to manage it. We opted for a respirologist who was younger and therefore the wait time to see her was less and was affiliated with the University of Alberta Hospital, the facility closest to us.

Her approach was caring but more or less 'all business' and straight forward.

• She reassured Peter not to worry about no Esbriet funding. The drug is not a cure for IPF and has significant side effects. 
• Her approach was, Let's take a few key tests (lung function, echocardiogram, CT scan, 6 minute walking test, review earlier sleep apnea test results) so that she could assess his current medical condition. 
• Then she would discuss where he was at and treatment options.

We appreciated this approach: Let's assess the current state of the disease. What can we do, if anything?

LEARNING POINTS
Some of the key things we've learned:

1. Public advocacy programs for government funding of expensive drugs to treat incurable diseases are worthwhile but work better under certain circumstances.

• Many voters are mobilized to advocate the cause. 
• Helps, but does not guarantee success, if
• Celebrities participate
• Disease is common
• Victims pull at heart strings 

2. Government funding of drugs is shrouded in smoke and mirrors. 

• Health Canada approval does not equal provincial funding.
• Governments seem content to let advocates 'piss in the wind' and only fess up to reality when pressed.
• Provincial exceptional drug therapy programs to fund high cost drugs for rare conditions do not apply to drugs unapproved for funding by CADTH's CDEC. [Except perhaps for children with heart-wrenching diseases like this little girl.]

3. Lung specialists vary in their approaches to dealing with patients with life-threatening, incurable diseases.

• One approach does not fit all because communication involves a communicator (Dr.) and a recipient (patient), and recipients vary greatly in their ability to accept harsh facts. 
• In our case a reality-based approach is okay. 

4. Evidence-based medicine is highly touted and used to denigrate or justify many treatments. But often the evidence is not there or is conflicting or flawed or tainted by private interest and politics. 

• Canada's CDEC clearly puts cost-effectiveness first. No doubt cash-strapped provinces prefer this. 
• Otherwise, why would the UK's NICE committee recommend funding Esbriet to treat IPF, and Canada's CDEC recommend the opposite, based on the same evidence? 
• For the record, NICE's 64-page report is transparent and discusses all issues in detail. CDEC's report is 5 pages. 
• UK experts noted that it was unlikely that clinical trials for IPF treatments can ever have enough statistical power to detect a difference in mortality. They recognized this limitation.
• Yet new studies show Esbriet reduced the relative risk of death or disease progression by 43% compared with placebo.
• Canada's experts chose to ignore statistical power.
• Statistical power: Ability of a study to detect a real difference, if one exists. Power is affected by how big the difference is and sample size. If a difference is big, it's easier to detect. And large sample sizes make a real difference easier to detect. 

5. Autopsies show that IPF coexists with many serious conditions, making diagnosis and treatment options difficult. As an example, 

• In discussing why spouse's lung biopsy showed evidence of pulmonary hemorrhage, not one specialist could explain it. 
• Seems medicine remains both a science and an art. 

UPDATE
Miracle of miracles, early in Dec. 2014 we learned that the Alberta government would fund Esbriet under the STEDT program. For this we thank Peter's initial respirologist, Dr. Lyle Melenka. See

• Expensive drug for deadly, rare lung disease funded by Alberta government (24 Dec. 2014)

FOR FUN
As Peter and I deal with a diagnosis of an incurable disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, we focus on the glass half full. Every day, every month, every year is a blessing.

Which brings me to an old but fabulous Beach Boys ditty.

• Good vibrations (Love this song)

Further Reading

• Autopsies in acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (Interesting findings. Perhaps they can be of use in treating IPF.) 
• Acute exacerbation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. 
• Clear diagram of the 3 types of disease progression in IPF.
• Drugs for rare diseases. Evolving trends in regulatory and health technology assessment perspectives (CADTH, Aug. 2013)
• Quote in Summary on Alberta: 'A Short Term Exceptional Drug Therapy program for funding high-cost non-formulary drugs for rare conditions is available for both in-patients and outpatients.' [In theory, not in practice.]

As always, comment are welcome.