My CBC Letter Of Complaint

Although probably a futile effort, here is the letter of complaint that I have sent to the CBC ombudsman, The National, and CBC Audience Feedback regarding the Corporation's absolute failure to keep Canadians informed about the Health Canada's unwillingness to protect Canadians from tainted pharmaceuticals:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to complain about the abject failure of the CBC to inform Canadians on an issue that is a potential threat to both health and life. That issue recently emerged when The Toronto Star conducted an excellent investigative series into the lack of drug safety oversight being provided by Health Canada: http://www.thestar.com/search.html?q=apotex

The investigation revolved around the agency's failure to hold generic drug manufacture Apotex to account for issues that resulted in several of their drugs being banned by the American Food and Drug Administration, which maintains a publicly accessible database to keep its citizens informed over drug investigations, recalls, etc. Health Canada refused to make this information public; Health Minister Rona Ambrose cited 'proprietary privacy issues.'

The Star investigation also uncovered the fact that Health Canada asked Apotex to suspend the importation of certain drugs, and the company refused. Again, no details as to the suspect drugs were released to the public.

This matter was taken up in the House of Commons, and as a result of the efforts of both the NDP and The Star, action has finally been taken, as reported in today's edition: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/30/health_canada_bans_drugs_from_two_indian_factories.html

I am sure you would agree that this story is of national interest and significance. Yet as far as I can determine, on none of your platforms, be it radio, television, or Internet, has a word of this scandalous situation been uttered or printed.

This is behaviour totally unacceptable for Canada's national broadcaster.

I avidly await your explanation for this egregious failure to keep Canadians informed.

It's Why I Subscribe

To borrow a line from one of my favourite Shakespearean plays, Macbeth, "So fair and foul a day I have not seen."

It is fair because the newspaper I subscribe to and heartily endorse, The Toronto Star, has achieved a victory whose significance cannot be overestimated. Thanks to its investigative series into Health Canada's scandalous and potentially life-threatening negligence in overseeing drug safety, Health Minister Rona Ambrose, has finally acted:

Health Canada has banned the import of all drugs and drug ingredients made by two Apotex factories in Bangalore, India, with Health Minister Rona Ambrose saying Tuesday night that the trust between the regulator and the Toronto-based drug company has been “broken.”

Despite that action, long in coming, there are no plans to recall any of the 30 suspect drugs manufactured at the plants, drugs that include

a generic form of Viagra, the antibiotic azithromycin, and other drugs made to treat hypertension, dementia, high blood pressure, asthma, convulsions and Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Not surprisingly, the information that led to the decision was taken from the FDA database, which is fully transparent and accessible to the public.

So what is foul? Two things:

One, had it not been for the tenacity of The Star, Health Canada would have continued to give its imprimatur to potentially life-threatening drugs, thereby egregiously failing in one of the most important aspects of its mission.

Two, despite the significance of the scandal, and despite the fact that it provoked some intense questioning from the NDP in The House of Commons, no other media outlets reported the story to my knowledge, not even the CBC, our putative national broadcaster.

Why the silence? One can only speculate, but I do intend very soon to write a letter to the CBC to ascertain the reason. Some might link it to the Corporation's policy of appeasement, about which I have written previously.

I will let you know if I get any response from the CBC.

Cheap Rhetoric Versus Practical Questions

With regard to the ISIS threat, here is what Prime Minister Harper had to say in the House:

“These are necessary actions, they are noble actions” .... “When we think that something is necessary and noble, we don’t sit back and say that only other people should do it. The Canadian way is that you do your part.”

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, on the other hand,

asked a series of questions on the matter, including the length of the planned mission, the exit strategy and the exact demands of the United States for a Canadian military contribution.

While Harper is content to wrap himself in the flag, one wonders how ordinary Canadians will react once that flag is draped around coffins coming back from the Middle East.

This Is Not The Time For Absolutism

In the absolutist world of Stephen Harper, there are those who wear white hats and those who wear black. No berets (especially berets!) of middling colours are recognized. So when he declares that Canada will not stand on the sidelines on this possibly endless battle against ISIS, King Stephen is positing an absolutist scenario, one that sees military action as the only way to make a meaningful contribution.

It is a blinkered perspective with which not all agree.

Writing in The Globe, a professor of political science, Michael Bell, offers the following observations and reminders:

Western “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan and Iraq have been abject failures, leaving behind a still more profound conundrum. Could this happen all over again?

It is ironic that the American-led invasion of Iraq and the abortive Arab Spring in Syria, albeit the latter a noble failure, combined to let loose the explosive radicalism we are faced with today. The subsequent power vacuum unleashed unchecked ethnic nationalism and extremist ideology. The law of unintended consequences prevails again. Whether “boots on the ground” will ultimately be the answer is more than doubtful.

Roger Barany of Vancouver points out that there are viable alternatives to military engagement for Canada:

The disturbing examples of extremism we have seen (or avoided seeing) from Islamic State are no justification for Canada to be part of a massive aerial bombing campaign that could kill as many innocent civilians as intended targets. And this is assuming that the intelligence is reliable in the first place (For Harper, Decision To Deploy Must Come With Full Disclosure – Sept. 29).

This is not our war, but not being part of it does not mean sitting on the sidelines. Canada will always have a humanitarian role to play. It can start by joining a coalition of countries willing to help deal with the massive refugee outflows and human suffering caused by the air strikes in Syria.

If the Prime Minister is intent on Canada having a direct combat role, the debate should be premised on the worst-case scenario: Canadian soldiers deployed in a long-term ground war in the Mid-east. Then the question should be put to a free vote in Parliament so that MPs of all stripes can vote their individual conscience and that of their constituents.

Today's Globe editorial also warns against hasty commitments:

...sending our forces into combat is not the only alternative to standing on the sidelines and watching. The Harper government is among the world’s most vocal supporters of Ukraine and Israel – but no Canadian troops or planes have ever been involved in the fighting in those countries. Opposition to the IS does not necessarily mean a direct combat role. Humanitarian aid, technical support, financial support, weapons, training – there are ways Canada can participate usefully in Iraq and Syria without intervening directly.

And it warns that once engaged,

no one should believe that this is a battle that will begin and end with a few fighter-jet sorties.

Expect these warnings, based as they are on logic, recent history and reflection, not to be factors in the Harper regime's decision.

When Is An Apology Not Really An Apology?

When it is delivered, not by the offending party, but rather by an unseen narrator instead.

A Clear And Present Danger?

Only for some, I'm happy to report.

A Possible Soution To Health Canada's Willful Impotence

Yesterday I wrote about the fact that Health Canada has 'convinced' (not ordered) Apotex to stop importing drugs from one of its suspect plants in Bangalore, India. The agency's (and Health Minister Rona Ambrose's) ongoing timid relationship with pharmaceuticals at the expense of our health and safety suggests stronger measures are needed

Writing in The Star, Amir Attaran thinks he might have a solution to this sorry state of affairs. The professor in the Faculty of Law and faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa asks,

should we reduce, or nearly abolish, Health Canada’s drug regulatory functions? Could we be safer by trusting in the decisions of larger, better-funded, foreign drug regulators instead of little lame Health Canada?

He looks to Europe for a model:

The 28 countries of the European Union, many of them quite small, long ago decided that it is expensive, inefficient and sometimes dangerously ineffective for each country to have its own drug regulator. Nowadays, most of them have delegated large parts of their drug regulatory functions to an EU-wide organization, the European Medicines Agency.

Attaran is not optimistic that Canada will likely follow suit with a similar co-operative venture:

Here, the Harper government’s asphyxiating control of government scientists and almost childish pride in Canadian sovereignty mean that Health Canada minimally co-operates with America’s FDA just next door. This is dumb: the FDA is more transparent, better resourced and scientifically better equipped than Health Canada will ever be.

He goes on to offer a picture of the FDA's ruthless effectiveness in interdicting suspect drugs:

Consider the case of Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company from India. Last year, the FDA successfully prosecuted Ranbaxy for manufacturing adulterated drugs and misleading it with false, fictitious and fraudulent drug testing data — crimes for which Ranbaxy paid $500 million (U.S.) in criminal and civil penalties.

Contrast that decisiveness with Health Canada's feckless dealings with the same company:

Even though former Ranbaxy executives say they are “confident there were problems” with drugs sold here, after the criminal conviction Health Canada refused to ban Ranbaxy’s factories, and instead negotiated with the company to voluntarily pull a few of its medicines off the market for testing; Health Canada won’t say which ones.

According to Attaran, the main reason for this gross disparity of response is not legal, but cultural,

namely the indolent, lapdog attitude of ministers like Ambrose and the public servants at Health Canada, who seem to lack any understanding of how governments should regulate.

Because they refuse to learn from the best practices of bodies like the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, he concludes that

we should in part abolish Health Canada and harmonize our drug regulation with those foreign agencies that are more competent than our own government.

While that might strike many as too drastic a solution, it is clear that major changes are needed if we are to be protected from corrupt and venal pharmaceutical companies that place their profits and their shareholders above the health and safety of Canadians.