A Globe and Mail investigation last year found that GPHIN’s capabilities had been allowed to erode over the past decade as priorities within the government changed.
Illustration by The Globe and Mail
A group of top scientists concerned about the decline of the federal pandemic early warning system in the years before COVID-19 emerged have proposed relocating the operation to a university where it can work independently of government.
The proposal is aimed at restoring the Global Public Health Intelligence Network to its former status as an internationally respected pandemic surveillance system. Documents outlining the plan were submitted to an independent panel in Ottawa that is reviewing the system’s future.
According to the documents, GPHIN would work with the World Health Organization and be based at the University of Ottawa’s Bruyère Research Institute. The university and the WHO back the idea, says the proposal, which was reviewed by The Globe and Mail.
“We propose the creation of a Canadian-based WHO collaborating centre for global health intelligence,” the proposal states. Such a move “would provide a new, stable and cost-effective environment for the future management of GPHIN.
“GPHIN must be guaranteed freedom from government influence or interference. To achieve independence of any future government influence, bias or interference, GPHIN must be situated outside of government.”
A Globe and Mail investigation last year found that GPHIN’s capabilities had been allowed to erode over the past decade as priorities within the government changed, and senior officials in the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) sought to deploy its resources elsewhere.
Some of the core functions of the system, which provided crucial intelligence before and during the 2003 SARS crisis and 2009 H1N1 outbreak, were silenced in 2018 and 2019. With no pandemic threats apparent, management in the department sought to shift resources to areas that didn’t involve outbreak surveillance.
The proposal to partner with the WHO is being led by Ron St. John, a former top federal epidemiologist who helped create GPHIN in the 1990s, and other current and former top federal scientists. If it succeeds, the operation would run as a non-profit, funded in part by the federal government, and also able to seek science and technology grants from other sources, which it currently cannot do.
That new funding would be used to rebuild GPHIN’s operations and expand the system’s technical capabilities, taking some of the financial burden off the government, the documents say. GPHIN’s annual budget is around $3-million, and federal documents show it lacked the resources needed to update or grow its surveillance capacity, particularly as the system was allowed to erode.
The proposal argues that the environment needed to properly run the pandemic early warning system no longer exists inside Public Health, due to a drain of scientific and medical expertise over the past decade.
“Meeting these principles and operational conditions is not possible within the current managerial environment that exists in PHAC,” the document states. “We cannot wait for these changes to happen, as waiting will result in irreversible degradation of GPHIN and further depriving users within the global public health surveillance community of an essential tool to detect and monitor public health threats.”
WHO collaborating centres around the world are a way for member countries to contribute resources to the WHO by offering skills or technology they have. The Bruyère Research Institute is already home to one such collaborating centre, which focuses on technology used to track global health equity.
At one time, GPHIN provided the WHO with as much as 20 per cent of its epidemiological intelligence, according to Ottawa’s records. The proposal documents say GPHIN would remain one of Canada’s key contributions to the WHO, with the government providing funding for the system’s analysts to work.
Health Minister Patty Hajdu ordered an independent review in September of how PHAC handled the system after a Globe investigation last summer detailed many of the problems.
A report by the Auditor-General of Canada issued two weeks ago also found that the federal government did not use the pandemic early warning system appropriately in the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, and that GPHIN failed to issue alerts. This contributed a series of faulty risk assessments as the virus began to spread around the world.
The independent review is expected to issue its final report in May, and the government won’t comment on its progress.
This is not the first time the idea of a WHO collaborating centre has been proposed for GPHIN. The proposal documents say the WHO has supported the idea since the SARS crisis, and has held talks on the subject six times, but those negotiations never came to fruition.
In 2005, talks were put on hold amid management changes inside Public Health. In 2009, similar discussions were halted due to the H1N1 outbreak. In 2012, another proposal was frozen during the Harper government’s deficit reduction plan. Similarly, talks in 2013, 2017, and 2018 never progressed due to internal restructuring in the Public Health Agency that resulted in management changes, and no further steps were taken.
The push to rebuild GPHIN comes at a time when other countries have identified the need to build their own early warning systems to help the international community detect major threats early and better contain outbreaks. The U.K. government and the Biden administration in the United States have signalled plans to bolster such capacities in recent months. An independent review examining the WHO’s pandemic preparedness is also expected to highlight the importance of such systems in its final report, expected this spring.
The epidemiologists behind the proposal say they want to restore Canada’s leadership in pandemic early warning and detection.
“GPHIN has achieved world-wide recognition as a rapid provider of accurate information regarding a variety of global events of public health importance,” the proposal says. “Future versions of GPHIN must build on and maintain this pre-eminent position. It’s Canadian origin and Canadian support during its lifetime is recognized and should be retained.”
Job seekers owe it to themselves to understand and accept; fundamentally, hiring is a process of elimination. Regardless of how many applications an employer receives, the ratio revolves around several applicants versus one job opening, necessitating elimination.
Essentially, job gatekeepers—recruiters, HR and hiring managers—are paid to find reasons and faults to reject candidates (read: not move forward) to find the candidate most suitable for the job and the company.
Nowadays, employers are inundated with applications, which forces them to double down on reasons to eliminate. It’s no surprise that many job seekers believe that “isms” contribute to their failure to get interviews, let alone get hired. Employers have a large pool of highly qualified candidates to select from. Job seekers attempt to absolve themselves of the consequences of actions and inactions by blaming employers, the government or the economy rather than trying to increase their chances of getting hired by not giving employers reasons to eliminate them because of:
Typos, grammatical errors, poor writing skills.
“Communication, the human connection, is the key to personal and career success.” ― Paul J. Meyer.
The most vital skill you can offer an employer is above-average communication skills. Your resume, LinkedIn profile, cover letters, and social media posts should be well-written and error-free.
Failure to communicate the results you achieved for your previous employers.
If you can’t quantify (e.g. $2.5 million in sales, $300,000 in savings, lowered average delivery time by 6 hours, answered 45-75 calls daily with an average handle time of 3 and a half minutes), then it’s your opinion. Employers care more about your results than your opinion.
An incomplete LinkedIn profile.
Before scheduling an interview, the employer will review your LinkedIn profile to determine if you’re interview-worthy. I eliminate any candidate who doesn’t have a complete LinkedIn profile, including a profile picture, banner, start and end dates, or just a surname initial; anything that suggests the candidate is hiding something.
Having a digital footprint that’s a turnoff.
If an employer is considering your candidacy, you’ll be Google. If you’re not getting interviews before you assert the unfounded, overused excuse, “The hiring system is broken!” look at your digital footprint. Employers are reading your comments, viewing your pictures, etc. Ask yourself, is your digital behaviour acceptable to employers, or can it be a distraction from their brand image and reputation? On the other hand, not having a robust digital footprint is also a red flag, particularly among Gen Y and Gen Z hiring managers. Not participating on LinkedIn, social media platforms, or having a blog or website can hurt your job search.
Not appearing confident when interviewing.
Confidence = fewer annoying questions and a can-do attitude.
It’s important for employers to feel that their new hire is confident in their abilities. Managing an employee who lacks initiative, is unwilling to try new things, or needs constant reassurance is frustrating.
Job searching is a competition; you’re always up against someone younger, hungrier and more skilled than you.
Besides being a process of elimination, hiring is also about mitigating risk. Therefore, being seen as “a risk” is the most common reason candidates are eliminated, with the list of “too risky” being lengthy, from age (will be hard to manage, won’t be around long) to lengthy employment gaps (raises concerns about your abilities and ambition) to inappropriate social media postings (lack of judgement).
Envision you’re a hiring manager hiring for an inside sales manager role. In the absence of “all things being equal,” who’s the least risky candidate, the one who:
offers empirical evidence of their sales results for previous employers, or the candidate who “talks a good talk”?
is energetic, or the candidate who’s subdued?
asks pointed questions indicating they’re concerned about what they can offer the employer or the candidate who seems only concerned about what the employer can offer them.
posts on social media platforms, political opinions, or the candidate who doesn’t share their political views?
on LinkedIn and other platforms in criticizes how employers hire or the candidate who offers constructive suggestions?
has lengthy employment gaps, short job tenure, or a steadily employed candidate?
lives 10 minutes from the office or 45 minutes away?
has a resume/LinkedIn profile that shows a relevant linear career or the candidate with a non-linear career?
dressed professionally for the interview, or the candidate who dressed “casually”?
An experienced hiring manager (read: has made hiring mistakes) will lean towards candidates they feel pose the least risk. Hence, presenting yourself as a low-risk candidate is crucial to job search success. Worth noting, the employer determines their level of risk tolerance, not the job seeker, who doesn’t own the business—no skin in the game—and has no insight into the challenges they’ve experienced due to bad hires and are trying to avoid similar mistakes.
“Taking a chance” on a candidate isn’t in an employer’s best interest. What’s in an employer’s best interest is to hire candidates who can hit the ground running, fit in culturally, and are easy to manage. You can reduce the odds (no guarantee) of being eliminated by demonstrating you’re such a candidate.
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.
Human Resources Officers must be very busy these days what with the general turnover of employees in our retail and business sectors. It is hard enough to find skilled people let alone potential employees willing to be trained. Then after the training, a few weeks go by then they come to you and ask for a raise. You refuse as there simply is no excess money in the budget and away they fly to wherever they come from, trained but not willing to put in the time to achieve that wanted raise.
I have had potentials come in and we give them a test to see if they do indeed know how to weld, polish or work with wood. 2-10 we hire, and one of those is gone in a week or two. Ask that they want overtime, and their laughter leaving the building is loud and unsettling. Housing starts are doing well but way behind because those trades needed to finish a project simply don’t come to the site, with delay after delay. Some people’s attitudes are just too funny. A recent graduate from a Ivy League university came in for an interview. The position was mid-management potential, but when we told them a three month period was needed and then they would make the big bucks they disappeared as fast as they arrived.
Government agencies are really no help, sending us people unsuited or unwilling to carry out the jobs we offer. Handing money over to staffing firms whose referrals are weak and ineffectual. Perhaps with the Fall and Winter upon us, these folks will have to find work and stop playing on the golf course or cottaging away. Tried to hire new arrivals in Canada but it is truly difficult to find someone who has a real identity card and is approved to live and work here. Who do we hire? Several years ago my father’s firm was rocking and rolling with all sorts of work. It was a summer day when the immigration officers arrived and 30+ employees hit the bricks almost immediately. The investigation that followed had threats of fines thrown at us by the officials. Good thing we kept excellent records, photos and digital copies. We had to prove the illegal documents given to us were as good as the real McCoy.
Restauranteurs, builders, manufacturers, finishers, trades-based firms, and warehousing are all suspect in hiring illegals, yet that becomes secondary as Toronto increases its minimum wage again bringing our payroll up another $120,000. Survival in Canada’s financial and business sectors is questionable for many. Good luck Chuck!. at least your carbon tax refund check should be arriving soon.
NORMAN WELLS, N.W.T. – Imperial Oil says it will temporarily reduce its fuel prices in a Northwest Territories community that has seen costs skyrocket due to low water on the Mackenzie River forcing the cancellation of the summer barge resupply season.
Imperial says in a Facebook post it will cut the air transportation portion that’s included in its wholesale price in Norman Wells for diesel fuel, or heating oil, from $3.38 per litre to $1.69 per litre, starting Tuesday.
The air transportation increase, it further states, will be implemented over a longer period.
It says Imperial is closely monitoring how much fuel needs to be airlifted to the Norman Wells area to prevent runouts until the winter road season begins and supplies can be replenished.
Gasoline and heating fuel prices approached $5 a litre at the start of this month.
Norman Wells’ town council declared a local emergency on humanitarian grounds last week as some of its 700 residents said they were facing monthly fuel bills coming to more than $5,000.
“The wholesale price increase that Imperial has applied is strictly to cover the air transportation costs. There is no Imperial profit margin included on the wholesale price. Imperial does not set prices at the retail level,” Imperial’s statement on Monday said.
The statement further said Imperial is working closely with the Northwest Territories government on ways to help residents in the near term.
“Imperial Oil’s decision to lower the price of home heating fuel offers immediate relief to residents facing financial pressures. This step reflects a swift response by Imperial Oil to discussions with the GNWT and will help ease short-term financial burdens on residents,” Caroline Wawzonek, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance and Infrastructure, said in a news release Monday.
Wawzonek also noted the Territories government has supported the community with implementation of a fund supporting businesses and communities impacted by barge cancellations. She said there have also been increases to the Senior Home Heating Subsidy in Norman Wells, and continued support for heating costs for eligible Income Assistance recipients.
Additionally, she said the government has donated $150,000 to the Norman Wells food bank.
In its declaration of a state of emergency, the town said the mayor and council recognized the recent hike in fuel prices has strained household budgets, raised transportation costs, and affected local businesses.
It added that for the next three months, water and sewer service fees will be waived for all residents and businesses.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 21, 2024.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/U5EFU6A235AJPMZCPFHH2TIJJI.jpg)
