The Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton recently rejected the cabinet’s confidentiality claim and ordered the disclosure of a PowerPoint presentation and cabinet committee minutes. It arose out of a case challenging a decision to remove the province’s school mask mandate and prevent school boards from wearing their own. Lawyers for the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) and the parents of five immunocompromised children say Albertans have a right to know what led to the decision to lift the mandate. The first of the long-awaited documents is a February 8 PowerPoint presentation prepared by Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, who was introduced by Health Minister Jason Copping, according to the province. IMPORTANT – Tabs 13 and 14 are CMOH Hinshaw PowerPoint & Cabinet Minutes. Now a public record. https://t.co/g5JQHtOkNv —@Sharonadactyl It offers three possible options for lifting the restrictions, which were apparently created within the parameters of previous guidance from the Cabinet’s Priorities Implementation Committee (PICC). “Consistent with PICC’s previous direction, three-step approaches to relaxation are proposed, with an emphasis on lifting the cap exemption program and easing youth coverage requirements,” the PowerPoint presentation said. The first option proposed a significant relaxation of Step 1, including the immediate elimination of the school mask. The second option suggested more moderate relaxation initially by removing the school mask in Step 2. The third option left the approach open to the ministerial committee. “The options presented to the cabinet were very much in favor of lifting restrictions,” said Lorian Hardcastle, who teaches health law and policy at the University of Calgary. This summary of options for easing public health measures was included in a February 8 PowerPoint presentation prepared by Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw. (CBC) “Interestingly, what I would have expected to be a scholarly discussion incorporated thoughts around political concerns and economic concerns. And very notable to me is that one of the ‘advantages’ mentioned in this presentation was that Alberta was a leader in reopening, and this has nothing to do with science. This is politics.” In its discussion of the timeline, the paper noted that some unspecified metrics would need to be achieved before moving on to the next steps and that “Alberta will be a leader in entering the endemic space, balancing the risks and benefits for relaxation ahead of other Canadian jurisdictions ».
Ministerial Committee Minutes
The provincial government has also been ordered to hand over cabinet committee meeting minutes from February 8, the day it announced plans to lift public health measures. The minutes — which include the decision taken but no documentation of any discussion — show that the second, more moderate option was chosen. However, the framework for easing restrictions actually put forward differs from the second option presented to the cabinet and it appears that the plan has been modified. The province lifted masks in schools two weeks after moving to Step 1 and before moving to Step 2. It also lifted the blanket provincial mask mandate earlier than expected. According to Hardcastle, without a record of the cabinet discussion, it is impossible to know exactly what led to the changes. “We don’t have a lot of information about how or why that decision was made, and I think that’s unfortunate from an accountability perspective,” he said. Lorian Hardcastle teaches in the departments of law and medicine at the University of Calgary. (Colin Hall/CBC) While the PowerPoint presented a plan to lift public health measures, it also noted that Alberta was not yet in the endemic phase. Any easing of measures, it said, “should be based on a reduction in the rates of new COVID-19 hospitalizations over a sustained period of time.” The PowerPoint noted that the positivity rate for COVID at the time had been stable for a few weeks, and while hospitalizations appeared to be at “high rates,” they were “still high and straining the system.” He also warned that once the infrastructure for COVID-19 is “strengthened”, it will be difficult to quickly restore it and that an increase in cases would be expected as restrictions are eased. “If the situation worsens and continued transition to endemic is not possible due to the level of strain on the acute care system, a resumption of public health measures may be recommended,” the PowerPoint states. The AFL, which is one of the applicants in the case, called the revelations in the documents “disturbing”. “They clearly had their eyes on politics and their own narrow political interests, rather than the wider public interest where their focus should have been,” AFL president Gil McGowan said. “I find it really worrying that the government would make a decision that was going to affect the health and safety of so many people, including our children, just so they could say they were first. That’s not something they should be concerned about. What they should be focusing on is public interest and public safety, not bragging rights.”
The Alberta government is defending the decision
The Alberta government said documents filed in court show what they’ve been arguing all along. “We have moved forward with a plan to safely lift public health measures, consistent with other provinces and other countries, based on the best available evidence and advice from Alberta Health and the chief medical officer of health,” Steve Buick, press secretary for The Minister Copping Health said in a statement emailed to CBC News. “We stand by our decision to lift public health measures, including ending mandatory masks in schools. It was the right choice for the children and does not pose an undue risk to our communities.” Buick said the documents show the provincial government did not discount the advice contained in the PowerPoint presentation. Suggestions that we have ignored or sidestepped the recommendations are simply false.- Steve Buick, Press Secretary to the Secretary of Health “The Health Minister gave cabinet three options, which were presented evenly with no recommended option. Cabinet chose from those options. Suggestions that we ignored or bypassed the recommendations are just false,” Bewick said, adding that the provincial government is determined to avoid disruption of schools in the future as much as possible. What these documents highlight, one expert argues, is the demarcation between public health and political decision-makers. “It would not be unusual for there to be fairly strict general guidelines announced by the decision-maker and then the public service working within those guidelines to give choices about precise details of implementation,” said Dr Michael Curry. , a clinical associate professor in the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia who teaches legal and ethical issues. “So I think what Albertans can gather is that there was a discussion between cabinet that put some limits on the options that the public health office would provide, and the public health office brought some expert recommendations to cabinet. But the exact implementation seems to have been a decision taken by the cabinet.”
