I get so upset when i read articles like this, which clearly point out something that 'me general public' is unaware of that a government is trying to underhandedly slide into legislation...and then I cannot even share it to Facebook to inform my circle of influence because the same government completely botched the job of trying to 'give a freebie' to dying media dinosaurs by getting all news content banned on Facebook Canada. Seriously, i was a long time Liberal supporter but you can't win for trying anymore. our Executive branch is incompetent, underhanded, self serving and condescending. I hope they lose so massively they lose party status and have to have a LONG HARD COMING TO JESUS MOMENT!
Clearly the Liberals have yet to understand the value of Chesterton's Fence despite having been trampled by bulls several times after having removed fences heedless of the frantic yells of nearby farmers. This government thinks they're smarter than they really are, and don't accept or seek external input or criticism. The result has been a series of failures related to what the Liberals think are unanticipated consequences, but turned out to have been anticipated by many people that the Liberals didn't care to listen to.
I agree with Mr. Kadysh that this is a measure that is not required and is likely to be misused. I question his assertion that the drug approval process is as simple as "if your drug works as intended and has no side effects, it will be approved". Given that drug manufacturers pay for their drug to go through approval process, there is significant pressure on government regulators to approve drugs. It is not quite the innocent, evidence-based process that he implies, unfortunately.
The question that NDP voters should be asking themselves is this: “why is Jagmeet Singh propping up a government that just gave Pierre Poilievre’s Minister of health the power to ban puberty blockers with the stroke of a pen and without outside review from anyone?”
It’s foolish when political parties act like they will always be in government. It’s laughably stupid when a party is so down in the polls as the LPC does it
It almost feels like deliberately hiding one’s head in the sand over the powers that are being given. I know it’s always a blind spot but it’s particularly egregious right now. It’s weird.
But I guess governments in their dying days do weird stuff. I was just reading about how the PET Liberals stuffed the Canadian Air Safety Board with patronage appointments in 1984 in their waning days, and almost killed the organization from the Board infighting it set off.
I wonder if those who complain about “activist judges” would make the same complaint if one of them were to rule that there was an obligation on the part of the Minister to exercise his discretion reasonably, and, to for him to give reasons for whatever is decided? Or to disclose the information on which the decision is based?
You know…to demonstrate that the decision was, in reality, (not just in rhetoric), “evidence based” and in the public interest.
Because it is just this kind of delegated and ostensibly unreviewable Ministerial power, exercised behind closed doors, which poses a real threat to open and accountable government.
For example, who would have known of the SNC Lavalin shenanigans [especially given the way in which the “get out of jail free” legislation was surreptitiously smuggled into legislation) if Jody Wilson Raybould had been an unprincipled toady of the PMO?
Or consider the nonsense (both misrepresentation and incompetence) that surrounded the Ministerial designation of prohibited firearms.
Which, of course, is all the more troubling now that “Ministerial responsibility” has virtually vanished – or, more accurately, has been subverted by the PMO.
Indeed, can we plausibly trust THIS GOVERNMENT not to be affected by political considerations - like where the manufacturer is located? For how long did it take to fully ban asbestos, (2018!) and why?
Because I am not sanguine when, for example, it will not even answer Paul Wells’ question of whether it is getting expert advice on the lessons from Covid.
In my view, this would not be such a bad thing, if there is a science-based assesment that gives reason to control a substance, drug or natural health product that is found, after approval, to cause unforeseen negative consequences.
It would cut the red tape and long delays of the current legislative process to achieve the same outcome. It would be more agile and efficient.
Think opioids, vaping products, and drugs that have recently been removed from approval, long after known negative consequences.
I would agree that there should be some understanding that new assesments and approvals continue, without political interference.
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s what’s going on here. This is not without political interference. If anything, it IS political interference.
Ministerial discretion is the absolute worst kind of political interference, undemocratic, opaque, subject to kinds of non-parliamentary pressures and on a whim a "cabinet secret".
It's this uncertainly in the continued sanctity of the process for approval that scares off investors.
Making an approval process "may issues" meaning subjective to the whims of the authority, rather than "shall issue" meaning only pre-stated reasons may be used to deny a qualified and completed application adds more toxic uncertainty, and spooks off investors in areas as diverse as home building, new business or even BDC loan applications.
This IMHO is the single most important action that the Government of Canada could do to grow our economic investment.
Shouldn't decisions about the drugs that are made available to Canadians be made by experts if the field as opposed to an elected official who most likely has little to no knowledge of the field?
That this is a "sneak-in" in an omnibus bill that they promised not to use just makes this a bigger disappointment.
I would guess that the Liberals did this because of (fill in the blank)
.
.
.
.
. Hint: Could it have been l-o-b-b-y groups?
PS: And after Mr Polievre's group form government (does anyone still believe it won't happen after the next federal election?), well, they'll likely start, too (after an appropriately "modest" interval).
I get so upset when i read articles like this, which clearly point out something that 'me general public' is unaware of that a government is trying to underhandedly slide into legislation...and then I cannot even share it to Facebook to inform my circle of influence because the same government completely botched the job of trying to 'give a freebie' to dying media dinosaurs by getting all news content banned on Facebook Canada. Seriously, i was a long time Liberal supporter but you can't win for trying anymore. our Executive branch is incompetent, underhanded, self serving and condescending. I hope they lose so massively they lose party status and have to have a LONG HARD COMING TO JESUS MOMENT!
Clearly the Liberals have yet to understand the value of Chesterton's Fence despite having been trampled by bulls several times after having removed fences heedless of the frantic yells of nearby farmers. This government thinks they're smarter than they really are, and don't accept or seek external input or criticism. The result has been a series of failures related to what the Liberals think are unanticipated consequences, but turned out to have been anticipated by many people that the Liberals didn't care to listen to.
You really hit the nail on the heas
I agree with Mr. Kadysh that this is a measure that is not required and is likely to be misused. I question his assertion that the drug approval process is as simple as "if your drug works as intended and has no side effects, it will be approved". Given that drug manufacturers pay for their drug to go through approval process, there is significant pressure on government regulators to approve drugs. It is not quite the innocent, evidence-based process that he implies, unfortunately.
Maybe true, but leaving to the discretion of a single person, no matter how wise and well intended, is the wrong solution.
Of what value are promises of transparency from people who, when they look in an inkblot, see, "Control! Control!"?
The question that NDP voters should be asking themselves is this: “why is Jagmeet Singh propping up a government that just gave Pierre Poilievre’s Minister of health the power to ban puberty blockers with the stroke of a pen and without outside review from anyone?”
It’s foolish when political parties act like they will always be in government. It’s laughably stupid when a party is so down in the polls as the LPC does it
This x💯
It almost feels like deliberately hiding one’s head in the sand over the powers that are being given. I know it’s always a blind spot but it’s particularly egregious right now. It’s weird.
But I guess governments in their dying days do weird stuff. I was just reading about how the PET Liberals stuffed the Canadian Air Safety Board with patronage appointments in 1984 in their waning days, and almost killed the organization from the Board infighting it set off.
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/myths-men-and-the-minority-report-the-crash-of-arrow-air-flight-1285-136b296158a2
I wonder if those who complain about “activist judges” would make the same complaint if one of them were to rule that there was an obligation on the part of the Minister to exercise his discretion reasonably, and, to for him to give reasons for whatever is decided? Or to disclose the information on which the decision is based?
You know…to demonstrate that the decision was, in reality, (not just in rhetoric), “evidence based” and in the public interest.
Because it is just this kind of delegated and ostensibly unreviewable Ministerial power, exercised behind closed doors, which poses a real threat to open and accountable government.
For example, who would have known of the SNC Lavalin shenanigans [especially given the way in which the “get out of jail free” legislation was surreptitiously smuggled into legislation) if Jody Wilson Raybould had been an unprincipled toady of the PMO?
Or consider the nonsense (both misrepresentation and incompetence) that surrounded the Ministerial designation of prohibited firearms.
Which, of course, is all the more troubling now that “Ministerial responsibility” has virtually vanished – or, more accurately, has been subverted by the PMO.
Indeed, can we plausibly trust THIS GOVERNMENT not to be affected by political considerations - like where the manufacturer is located? For how long did it take to fully ban asbestos, (2018!) and why?
Because I am not sanguine when, for example, it will not even answer Paul Wells’ question of whether it is getting expert advice on the lessons from Covid.
See: https://paulwells.substack.com/p/our-dumb-country-an-update
Or consider the deceptive and obstructive song and dance that surround the request for an enquiry into foreign interference.
Accordingly, it seems to me that, in the current reality, the writer’s suspicion and skepticism are entirely warranted.
That would be a very obvious case of a legislating activist judge and such a judge has no business wearing the robes.
“The law is dumb and a very bad idea” isn’t an acceptable reason for override the elected government. That’s what elections are for.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
This dangerously increases the risk of another Thalidomide tragedy happening again.
In my view, this would not be such a bad thing, if there is a science-based assesment that gives reason to control a substance, drug or natural health product that is found, after approval, to cause unforeseen negative consequences.
It would cut the red tape and long delays of the current legislative process to achieve the same outcome. It would be more agile and efficient.
Think opioids, vaping products, and drugs that have recently been removed from approval, long after known negative consequences.
I would agree that there should be some understanding that new assesments and approvals continue, without political interference.
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s what’s going on here. This is not without political interference. If anything, it IS political interference.
Ministerial discretion is the absolute worst kind of political interference, undemocratic, opaque, subject to kinds of non-parliamentary pressures and on a whim a "cabinet secret".
It's this uncertainly in the continued sanctity of the process for approval that scares off investors.
Making an approval process "may issues" meaning subjective to the whims of the authority, rather than "shall issue" meaning only pre-stated reasons may be used to deny a qualified and completed application adds more toxic uncertainty, and spooks off investors in areas as diverse as home building, new business or even BDC loan applications.
This IMHO is the single most important action that the Government of Canada could do to grow our economic investment.
Shouldn't decisions about the drugs that are made available to Canadians be made by experts if the field as opposed to an elected official who most likely has little to no knowledge of the field?
That this is a "sneak-in" in an omnibus bill that they promised not to use just makes this a bigger disappointment.
Wow.
I would guess that the Liberals did this because of (fill in the blank)
.
.
.
.
. Hint: Could it have been l-o-b-b-y groups?
PS: And after Mr Polievre's group form government (does anyone still believe it won't happen after the next federal election?), well, they'll likely start, too (after an appropriately "modest" interval).