Most provincial leaders would rather leave the COVID-19 pandemic in the rear-view mirror and stop any discussion or examination of it.
Premier Danielle Smith bucked the trend by having a panel formed to examine the government’s response to the pandemic and offer recommendations for actions in future emergencies. It has reopened the debate on what should or shouldn’t be done by the state in the event of emergencies, and while we may be tired of the subject, these issues must be discussed.
One of the key recommendations was to shift authority for decision-making in public health issues into the hands of the government and cabinet rather than keeping it within the purview of the chief medical officer of health. Clarifying the authority of top bureaucrats and elected officials in the event of emergencies should help streamline government responses.
The Manning report leans heavily toward the protection of civil liberties and individual rights being protected in the event of emergencies. This ties in with putting the decision-making authority into the hands of the government rather than top health bureaucrats. Doctors make recommendations solely on the potential health benefits of policies. They often don’t look at the broader economic and social implications of their recommendations. Governments and cabinets tend to look at issues from a higher level and presumably can see the costs of infringing upon individual rights more clearly than medical practitioners may.
Manning also highlights the economic cost of the lockdowns. According to him, the Alberta economy contracted by 8 percent due to the lockdowns at a cost of $24 billion. Economic costs must be taken into consideration when lockdowns are considered, and politicians have been reticent to point that out for fear of being called heartless or greedy when resisting government interventions. Having costs documented within the report will offer a reference for decision-makers in the event of future emergencies.
Manning has said the proposed rights should guarantee freedom of regulated professionals from “institutional censorship.” Many health practitioners found themselves censored or even put out of work for questioning the establishment’s orthodoxy in treating COVID-19. The report wants to protect the rights of those professionals to speak out. He also speaks to the right of people to medical privacy. Employees should not have to choose between keeping their jobs or having a medical treatment or procedure they are not comfortable with.
Opponents claim this is opening the door to quack medicine, but it must be better than gagging medical discourse in times of emergency.
The report also calls for increasing the capacity of the health-care system. Lack of hospital space was used as a justification for lockdowns many times. That speaks to a wider issue of health-care reform in general as hospital space is always tight in every province. Running at or near medical capacity makes us vulnerable when emergencies strike.
The only silver lining that may be taken away from the COVID-19 pandemic will be if we have learned from it.
Will our governments acknowledge errors made during the pandemic?
Will governments embrace new legislation to ensure errors aren’t repeated in future emergencies?
It’s hard to say. Governments can have woefully short memories at times. Eventually, another emergency will impact a province or the nation. If legislation has been crafted and amended to reflect the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, we may avoid having to learn those lessons all over again.
Manning’s report provides a thoughtful review of the government’s actions during the pandemic.
Let’s hope provinces follow Alberta’s lead.
