Interest rate hikes: The Bank of Canada's 'resolute' fight against inflation could threaten its credibility

Story by Ellen D. Russell, Associate Professor,

 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Wilfrid Laurier University • 

THE CONVERSATION  1/25/2023

The Bank of Canada “resolutely” declared it will fight inflation by raising interest rates. To demonstrate its unwavering commitment to reaching the bank’s two per cent inflation target, today’s eighth consecutive interest rate hike brings the policy rate to 4.5 per cent. The bank expects to hold the rate for now, but is prepared to increase it again if needed to maintain its target rate.


Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada, 

The bank’s logic is this: when demand outpaces what the economy supplies, the result is inflation. Based on this analysis, the Bank of Canada raises interest rates to “dampen demand so supply can catch up.” Using interest rates to fight inflation has been central banks’ boilerplate approach for years.

Higher interest rates deliberately slow the economy by discouraging borrowing. In a slowing economy, labour demand eases and job vacancies decline. This is a bitter pill to swallow for those already struggling to make ends meet, since deliberately encouraging higher unemployment exerts downward pressure on wage growth.

‘Jawboning’

Why does the central bank emphasize how resolutely committed it is to raising interest rates? In central banker lingo, this is called jawboning or forward guidance.

Jawboning is communication intended to influence the expectations of the public. As Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, once explained — when he could talk more freely after leaving the bank — “monetary policy is 98 per cent talk and only two per cent action.”

By emphasizing its steadfast commitment to lowering inflation, the Bank of Canada hopes to persuade the public to expect lower inflation.


The Bank of Canada building is pictured in Ottawa in December 2022

The bank is eager to influence our expectations about inflation because expectations can be self-fulfilling. If we expect future price increases, we are likely to bid up prices (and seek higher wages) in anticipation of impending price hikes.

If the Bank of Canada convinces us that it can and will beat inflation, we are more likely to refrain from actions that bid up prices, and thereby support the bank’s fight against inflation.

But central bank influence on expectations is a double-edged sword. As Bernanke writes:

“The ability to shape market expectations of future policy through public statements is one of the most powerful tools the Fed has. The downside for policymakers, of course, is that the cost of sending the wrong message can be high.”

Jawboning only dampens inflationary expectations if the public has faith that the Bank of Canada is credible in its analysis and actions. But do we believe that raising interest rates is the right tool to control inflation?

Beyond the central bank’s control

Related video: Bank of Canada strategy to tame inflation is out of date, says economist (cbc.ca)

Duration 6:02  View on Watch

As the bank itself acknowledges, there are other causes of inflation, such as the war in Ukraine and supply disruptions caused by the pandemic. These issues will not be solved by increasing interest rates.

Arguably, the public worries about many inflation causes that are beyond the Bank of Canada’s control. For instance, Canadians may be concerned about “greedflation” that occurs when large companies exploit their extensive market power to boost prices excessively.

The recent Parliamentary inquiry and Competition Bureau study of competition among grocery stores was prompted by the possibility that food costs are impacted by this lack of competition.

Read more: Food giants reap enormous profits during times of crisis

The central bank has little control over many factors impacting inflation, such as extreme weather in areas that export food and raw materials to Canada. There are also longer-term supply challenges with inflationary repercussions.

Climate change and inflation

Consider the future implications of the war in Ukraine and other geopolitical instability. Globalization has been extolled for keeping costs down, but global supply chains are vulnerable to disruption by anything from the COVID-19 situation in China to ships getting stuck in the Suez Canal.

To protect supply chains, companies may onshore or ‘friendshore’ by moving production to locations viewed as more insulated from international turbulence. This could exert upward pressure on prices if it requires building new facilities in higher-cost areas.



Ever Given, a Panama-flagged cargo ship, blocked the Suez Canal for six days after it got stuck sideways in the crucial waterway in March 2021.

© (AP Photo/Mohamed Elshahed)

Climate change also influences inflation. It may reduce crop yields, for example. But fighting climate change also impacts inflation over the longer term. Living up to our climate commitments requires the transformation of energy production, manufacturing and transportation. This will be expensive.

Ironically, higher interest rates may further increase the costs of responding to climate change, localizing supply chains and other longer-term challenges. Building new production, transportation and other infrastructure takes funding, and higher interest rates makes it more expensive to borrow money to invest in restructuring.

Given the array of publicly visible factors contributing to inflation, the Bank of Canada needs to consider the possibility that the public will not be persuaded that their approach to inflation fits these unprecedented times.

Maslow’s hammer

Effective jawboning requires credibility. This credibility is based on the public’s belief that the central bank is using the right tools for the job. The Bank of Canada does not want to appear to be suffering from Maslow’s hammer — a bias against trying more appropriate tools because, as the saying goes, “if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Ultimately, the reputation of the Bank of Canada will be undermined if the public believes that it’s pounding away with a hammer that is not needed and causing much hardship in the process.

If the bank loses credibility, the public may conclude this hammering is preventing us from pursuing more constructive options. Paradoxically, inflationary expectations could be fuelled if the public believes we are relying on the wrong tool while neglecting better ones that might get the job done.

This is not to say that inflation has an easy fix. We may require all sorts of policy responses that are far beyond the Bank of Canada’s purview.

But so long as policymakers subscribe to the boilerplate analysis that concludes the hammer is the only tool worthy of consideration, we leave our whole toolbox on the shelf while the Bank of Canada behaves as though the only problem is a nail.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

The Bank of Canada’s own policy is the reason why inflation is so high

The Bank of Canada just hiked interest rates for the sixth time — is it too late?

Ellen D. Russell receives funding from SSHRC.

The Doomsday Clock is now at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have ever been to global catastrophe

Story by Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada 

Christian Faize Canaan, Master’s student, Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada 

THE CONVERSATION, Jan. 25,2023

On Jan. 24, history was again made when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ organization moved the seconds hand of the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. It is now at ‘90 seconds to midnight,’ the closest it has ever been to the symbolic midnight hour of global catastrophe.


At 90 seconds to midnight, the Doomsday Clock indicates the level of human-made threats.© (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

The announcement, made during a news conference held in Washington D.C., was delivered in English, Ukrainian and Russian. The released statement described our current moment in history as “a time of unprecedented danger.”

The hands of the Doomsday Clock are set by the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. These leading experts focus on the perils posed by human-made disaster threats, which emanate from nuclear risk, climate change, biological threats and disruptive technologies.

Read more: What is the Doomsday Clock and why should we keep track of the time?

The Doomsday Clock is the most graphic depiction of human-made threats, and the act of moving the clock forward communicates a clear and urgent need for vigilance.

For 2021 and 2022, the clock’s hands were set at 100 seconds to midnight. Since this time-keeping exercise began in 1947, the announcement on Jan. 24, 2023 represents the closest the clock has ever been to midnight — a clear wake-up call.

Threats over time

In 1945, a group of scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project — a United States research project into atomic weapons — joined together to form the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

In the late 1940s, the new threat of atomic weapons cast a dark cloud over the world. The Doomsday Clock was meant to be a warning to humanity about the dangers of nuclear weapons; later in the 20th century it was expanded to consider other human-made threats.



A plasma dome produced by the first detonation of an atomic weapon on July 16, 1945 during the Manhattan Project’s research in New Mexico.© (Shutterstock)

In 1991, the clock was set at 17 minutes to midnight, the furthest the clock has ever been from doomsday. This move followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by the United States and Russia. In the 1990s, the world felt somewhat safer for a few years.

The 2010s brought the world closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time other than the present.

U.S. relations with other global nuclear powers like Russia and China became increasingly tense. The Iran nuclear deal was abandoned, affecting the geopolitics of the Middle East. The threat from North Korea’s nuclear arsenal entered an alarming new phase. Along with the dangerous rhetoric of former President Donald Trump and the global rise of the far right, the stage was set for the 2020s to be a tumultuous decade.

In 2023, the global crises we are currently contending with have devastatingly broad consequences and potentially longer-lasting effects. Our current moment is unsustainable, especially as catastrophic threats multiply and intensify.

Layered crises range from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine involving Vladimir Putin’s thinly veiled nuclear threats to the social and economic strains still present at the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These are unprecedented challenges to human survival.


The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in southeastern Ukraine was in Russian-controlled territory when a Russian missile damaged a distant electrical substation, increasing the risk of radiation disaster.© (AP Photo/File)

Apocalyptic anxieties

As the Doomsday Clock is now set at 90 seconds to midnight, the situation adds stress to an already anxious global populace.

In Europe, fears of COVID-19 were rapidly replaced by fears of a nuclear war.

Death anxiety — produced by a fear of dying — is related to nuclear anxiety, and the threat of nuclear war provoked by daily headlines could shape the way we think and act.

Nuclear weapons prompt a special existential anxiety, as weapons of mass destruction have the potential to eradicate entire cultures, lands, languages and lives. In the case of a nuclear attack, the future would be altered in a way that becomes inconceivable for us to process.

Philosopher Langdon Winner wrote that “during the post-World War II era, in a sense all of us became unwitting subjects for a vast series of biological and social experiments, the results of which became apparent very slowly.”

For those who grew up during the mid-20th century peak of the Cold War, and into the early 1980s, the resurgence of these worries carries a distinct tinge of déjà vu. To counter this recurring dread, coping tools include limiting media exposure, reaching out to others, cultivating compassion and changing your routine.

The time to act is now

The significance of the Doomsday Clock as a metaphorical time-keeping exercise serves as a graphic symbol of human-made multiplying perils. As the time to midnight has drawn closer, the urgency of the threat is intensified.

Whether or not one lives in one of the nine nations in possession of nuclear weapons, we have all become unwitting subjects of the experiment that began with the detonation of the first atomic weapon.

In 2023, the Doomsday Clock tells us that we are now 90 metaphorical seconds away from self-produced extinction. Time is of the essence.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Why the war in Ukraine is pushing the Doomsday Clock’s hands closer to midnight

How long to midnight? The Doomsday Clock measures more than nuclear risk – and it’s about to be reset again

Jack L. Rozdilsky is a Professor at York University who receives external funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as a co-investigator on a project supported under operating grant Canadian 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Rapid Research Funding.

Christian Faize Canaan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Shandro hearing : Doctors testify about tense exchanges with Alberta's then-health minister

Story by Jonny Wakefield •  Edmonton Journal

Evening was approaching when Dr. Mukarram Zaidi’s teenage sons stopped their basketball game in the front of the family’s Calgary home and told their father someone outside wished to speak with him.


Justice Minister Tyler Shandro.

Zaidi slipped on a jacket and a pair of slippers and found Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro on the sidewalk at the end of the driveway.

“He was crying, emotionally charged, his wife was holding him,” Zaidi testified Tuesday during the first day of Shandro’s Law Society of Alberta conduct hearing. “He said, ‘You can’t do this to us, we’re getting death threats.’”

“I said, ‘What happened?’ He said, ‘Your post. You need to delete your post.’”

Attendees at the tribunal hearing were treated to the unprecedented sight of Alberta’s sitting justice minister facing formal sanction from the province’s legal regulator.

The hearing, which is taking place over Zoom, will determine whether Shandro’s interactions with doctors and members of the public during two months of his stint as health minister violated the code of conduct governing Alberta lawyers.

Related
Law Society of Alberta to hold hearing into Shandro's conduct

Shandro appointment during investigation puts law society in a no-win situation: experts

Shandro sat in a boardroom alongside his lawyer, who said Shandro was the focus of a “cyberbullying” campaign related to the UCP’s decision to end the government’s agreement with doctors. Grant Stapon argued the law society should not discipline his client for conduct he argues is unrelated to the fact Shandro is a lawyer.

Lawyers for the law society, on the other hand, said Shandro’s actions bring the profession into disrepute and discouraged members of the public from engaging in legitimate political debate.

Internet ‘meme’ at the heart of case

Shandro faces three misconduct citations under the Legal Profession Act related to incidents that occurred in February and March 2020.

In addition to confronting Zaidi, Shandro is accused of using Alberta Health Services records to access the private phone numbers of two physicians who were critical of him, as well as emailing — from his ministerial account — a member of the public who contacted Vital Partners, the health care brokerage Shandro owns with his wife.

During opening arguments, law society counsel Ken McEwan said the incidents took place against a backdrop of controversy following the Alberta government’s February 2020 decision to unilaterally end its 2012 master agreement with doctors , which governed pay schedules, codes and billing rules.

Around that time, observers began to comment on Shandro’s involvement with Vital Partners, which McEwan described as a brokerage that helps companies develop private health insurance benefit plans. McEwan said Andrea Shandro holds 50 per cent of the voting shares, with her husband controlling the remainder.

Related video: Alberta premier pressured justice minister's office on COVID charges: sources say (cbc.ca)   Duration 3:59   View on Watch

Tyler Shandro’s shares in the business are believed to be held in a blind trust, McEwan said, but added the law society has not been provided evidence of this.

Zaidi, a family doctor of Pakistani origin, is active in politics and met Shandro in 2018. Zaidi sat on the board of the United Conservative Party’s Calgary West constituency association — near Shandro’s Calgary-Acadia constituency — and lived in the same neighbourhood as Shandro and his family. Zaidi said the interaction made him nervous given the way political activists are frequently treated in his home country.

Wearing a red tie with a stethoscope around his shoulders, Zaidi testified that many doctors were upset about the state of primary health care in early 2020. On March 21, 2020, — days after Alberta declared its COVID-19 public health emergency — Zaidi posted a meme on his social media pages which drew attention to what he described as a conflict of interest involving Vital Partners.

The meme includes a photo of Shandro with a cartoon thought bubble, “So every Albertan that I can kick off health care is another client we can sign up for Vital Partners! We’re going to be RICH!”


Dr. Mukarram Zaidi in his medical clinic in Calgary on Nov. 23, 2021.

Zaidi said he regularly takes strong political stances but was nonetheless “intimidated” when Shandro, his “ultimate boss,” showed up at his home. Zaidi said Andrea Shandro made a comment about how “he (Zaidi) doesn’t care about us, he just wants his money.” The encounter ended after Zaidi went inside and deleted the post, replacing it with a conciliatory message urging people not to threaten the minister and his family.

While claiming he wanted to keep the incident “low-key,” Zaidi discussed what happened a week later after being contacted by a CBC journalist. After the news broke, Premier Jason Kenney faced calls to remove Shandro as minister of health. Kenney resisted, framing the incident as someone defending a spouse who was “being attacked and even threatened and certainly defamed.”

Zaidi accused Kenney of vilifying him, saying he never attacked or threatened Andrea Shandro and that he received death threats in the wake of the premier’s comments.

During a cagey cross-examination, Stapon said Zaidi posted the meme to embarrass the government and potentially leverage fee negotiations. He accused Zaidi of leaking news of the incident to CBC through “buddies” connected to the Alberta Medical Association, and of posting the meme despite an email from the AMA president urging members not to “cyberbully” elected officials and their families.

At one point, Stapon accused the AMA of engaging in a “political advocacy program … to discredit Mr. Shandro by any means possible.”

Stapon further argued Shandro took no steps to “kick” anyone off health care, and noted that Vital Partners does not deal in primary care but rather third-party benefits like dental, glasses and massage. He also disputed that Tyler Shandro had been crying when Zaidi encountered him outside his home.

Zaidi bristled at the questions, saying they were repetitive and urging law society lawyers to intervene. He stood by his claims and said he was unaware of the AMA email regarding cyberbullying until after he posted the meme.

Minister made sexual harassment claim against medical association official: doctor

The tribunal also heard from Dr. Lauralee Dukeshire, a family doctor who relocated to Nanaimo, B.C., from Red Deer in 2021.

Dukeshire confronted Shandro and Kenney at a February 2020 funding announcement at Red Deer Regional Hospital, a few days after the province ended its agreement with the AMA. She accused the politicians of refusing to sit down with doctors and called Shandro a “liar and a cheat” as he left the hospital in an elevator.

The next day, Dukeshire received a voicemail from Shandro offering to speak with her. She said she never asked to be contacted and was concerned about how Shandro got her private, unlisted number.

After consulting with the AMA, however, Dukeshire called Shandro back. She said he was initially friendly but became “defensive” when pushed on the AMA agreement.

She said at one point, Shandro claimed an official at AMA, who he named but she did not identify, “had sexually harassed his staff.” Stapon said Shandro was “surprised” to hear the claim because he had only male staff members.

Shandro’s hearing is scheduled to run through Thursday.

Minister Tyler Shandro tells hearing his family was the target of threats, harassment

Story by Paige Parsons • 

Alberta's Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro told a hearing Wednesday that a tidal wave of harassment and threats against him and his family were "perpetuated" by members of the Alberta Medical Association.


Justice Minister Tyler Shandro is testifying at a Law Society of Alberta hearing in Edmonton. He faces three complaints of unprofessional conduct.© Mike Symington/CBC

The minister is in the midst of a conduct hearing before the Law Society of Alberta, where he faces three complaints of unprofessional conduct that date back to his dealings with doctors and a member of the public as health minister in 2020.

Tyler Shandro was called as his own witness and spent Wednesday afternoon being questioned by his lawyer Grant Stapon.

He said beginning in the fall of 2019 through spring 2020, decisions he'd made as health minister — such as changing drug coverage and ending a physician compensation agreement with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) — were causing increased anxiety.

Threats escalate

He said his security advisor compiled between 900 and 1,000 pages of threats of violence, death and otherwise.

In spring 2020, he said threats directed at his wife Andrea Shandro began to flood in, including threats of physical and sexual violence.

At the time, Andrea Shandro's operation of Calgary company Vital Partners had become the subject of public scrutiny.

Among other services, Vital Partners brokers supplementary health insurance, including for some coverage delisted through legislative changes advanced by Shandro.

Ethics commissioner Marguerite Trussler had said Shandro was not in a conflict of interest because he had transferred his shares in the company to a blind trust.

Testifying Wednesday, Shandro described the suggestion there was a conflict of interest as a "conspiracy theory."

He said the threats against his wife were causing a great amount of distress, and that at one point a man showed up at her office and told people he planned to attack her.

It is in this context, the minister said, that his wife received a message from Janice Fraser on March 20, 2020.

Tyler Shandro's response to Fraser is one of the three allegations of unprofessional conduct he faces.

Earlier on Wednesday, Fraser told the hearing she was familiar with his work as a lawyer.

She was once a supporter of Shandro but had lost confidence in him.

Lost respect

Global NewsAlberta premier under fire over allegation of political interference
2:14

Global NewsAlberta premier says government ‘making strides’ on healthcare despite lack of funding from feds
1:08

cbc.caAlberta's premier calls mistakes learning opportunities
3:48


Fraser, who said she has worked in constituency offices and who has had involvement with various political parties including the United Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and Green parties, got involved in supporting Tyler Shandro's nomination for the UCP in Calgary-Acadia.

"He was genuinely concerned about fairness," she said.

But Fraser said she believed, despite Trussler's ruling, that the Shandros' involvement in politics and ownership stake in Vital Partners was a conflict of interest.

She said she visited the company's website, and sent a message to Andrea Shandro through a feedback form, writing that she'd lost respect for her husband and that all Albertans would consider it a conflict of interest.

"We will not forget!" she wrote before signing off. She told the hearing she was referring to not forgetting when the next election came around.

Power imbalance

Fraser said within an hour, she received a response from Tyler Shandro in which he accused her of sending a threatening email and told her to direct any further messages to him.

"Email her again and it will be referred to protective services," he said.

Fraser said she believed the minister meant he would contact the police, and said it triggered her PTSD and that she was "petrified."

"There was an imbalance of power between myself and a minister," she said.

She said she felt like she needed to do something to respond as a measure of self-protection, so she replied to Shandro, looping in media, police, various politicians and others.

"If I had been actually threatening, [then] protocol would determine that this should go to the Alberta sergeant-at-arms for review and they should be contacting me, neither of you should be!" Fraser wrote.

"However, your response to me is more than threatening and I will be providing this to the appropriate authorities as per this email."

She added that the incident made her lose confidence in the justice system and in Shandro specifically.

"I think it's important that people realize I would never hire Tyler Shandro as a lawyer again, or have him represent me," she said.

Engaging with affected parties

During his testimony Wednesday, the minister said his wife had noticed Fraser's message because she said she knew him.

He said Fraser could have contacted him, and that he found her message "inherently threatening."

"I think she knew going to Andrea . . . would be interpreted as threatening to our family," he said.

The minister said he believes that his response to her was appropriate and told his lawyer he doesn't think he did anything wrong.

Shandro also answered questions about another of the complaints — that he'd called two central Alberta doctors on their personal cell phones after-hours. He said he didn't know the numbers were private and that he was under the impression that they wanted to speak with him.

"I think politicians are expected to engage people affected by government policy," Shandro said.

Both of those physicians, and a third doctor who says he was intimidated when Shandro showed up at his home to confront him about a meme, testified at the hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing will continue Thursday, when Shandro is expected to continue testifying. His wife is also expected to be called as a witness.

Shandro begins testimony in law society hearing; Calgary woman says she was 'petrified' when health minister responded to criticism of wife's company

As settings go, it was unremarkable — a cluttered conference table in an otherwise nondescript Alberta law office.


Tyler Shandro at the McDougall Centre in Calgary on Feb. 20, 2020, 

when he was health minister.

Story by Jonny Wakefield •  Edmonton Journal

What was happening at that table, however, was remarkable, and likely without precedent — a sitting Alberta justice minister, answering questions about whether his behaviour brought the legal profession into disrepute.

Tyler Shandro began testimony Wednesday afternoon in his Law Society of Alberta tribunal hearing .

Shandro, who is currently serving as minister of justice, is accused of breaching the society’s code of conduct by contacting doctors and other members of the public in February and March 2020, when he was minister of health.

The incidents occurred around the time the Government of Alberta made the controversial decision to end its 2012 agreement with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA).

Shandro described what he called an “extreme” response from the AMA to the move. He said the AMA’s advocacy at times “became very personal” and led him to take action, both to engage with upset doctors and protect his family from what he considered a campaign of harassment.

During direct examination by lawyer Grant Stapon, Shandro said one board member of the AMA “had created the idea that I had killed a physician.”

“Had killed a physician, you personally?” Stapon replied.

Shandro added there were 1,000 pages of threats against himself and his family in his security adviser’s file, describing one incident in which a man allegedly visited his wife’s office and threatened to attack her.

Minister responded to comment on wife’s company website

The actions under scrutiny include Shandro’s decision to confront Dr. Mukarram Zaidi outside his home over a social media post, reaching out to two Red Deer doctors on their private cellphones, and contacting a member of the public who emailed his wife to criticize what she believed to be a conflict of interest

Janice Fraser testified Wednesday she was concerned about Vital Partners Inc., a third-party health-care benefits brokerage co-founded by Andrea Shandro.

On March 20, 2020 — days after Alberta declared its COVID state of public health emergency — Fraser used a comment form on the Vital Partners website to contact the company.

“Dear Andrea,” she wrote. “You and your husband Tyler Shandro (who I used to have a tremendous amount of personal and professional respect for up until 2020) are considered to be in a conflict of interest by Albertans. We will not forget! Sincerely Janice Fraser.”

Tyler Shandro soon responded from his government email address.

“Janice,” he wrote. “Sending threatening emails to my wife is completely inappropriate and must stop. If you want to believe lies about her on social media, that’s up to you. But you can send your threatening emails to this office and this office only. Email her again and it will be referred to protective services.”

Fraser said she was “petrified” by the “threat” to call protective services because she has PTSD related to previous dealings with the justice system as a victim. She previously worked in constituency offices and has held memberships in parties including the Liberals, the Greens, the Progressive Conservatives and the UCP. Prior to the 2020 email, she respected Shandro from his time on the Criminal Injuries Review Board, and for his pro-bono work related to the Calgary ring road.

At that time, however, she was frightened and decided to go to the media to protect herself.

“I’m just a nobody really, but the minister of health had time, within an hour, to respond to me, in a pandemic,” Fraser said. “It was pretty scary.”

‘I wasn’t harassing’

Alberta’s ethics commissioner previously said Shandro’s involvement in Vital Partners did not require an investigation because his shares are in a blind trust.

Andrea Shandro later responded to Fraser to explain Vital Partners’ role in the health-care system, but concluded by accusing her of spreading “misinformation” that had resulted “in hundreds of death threats to me, my employees, my children and my husband.”

Tyler Shandro later addressed his interactions with the public in a tweet, saying he was “first and foremost a father and husband” protecting his family.

Fraser said she was taken aback by the response.

“I wasn’t harassing,” she said. “I sent a comment on a public website that invited comments. I take quite deep offence to the association of my comment with death threats.”

Fraser said her interactions with Shandro undermined her confidence in both him as a lawyer and in the legal system as a whole.

“I would never hire Tyler Shandro as a lawyer again or have him represent me in any way,” she said. “He has displayed a complete incapacity to separate personal, legal professionalism, and politics.”

During cross-examination by Shandro’s lawyer Stapon, Fraser pushed back on the suggestion that the “we will not forget” was anything other than a reference to the upcoming provincial election.

“You’d agree ‘we will not forget’ is ambiguous?” Stapon asked. “It could have a number of meanings?”

“None of them threatening,” she replied.

Fraser added that in her view, Shandro’s response to her message confirmed her suspicions about the alleged conflict of interest.

The tribunal also heard testimony from Victoria Lane, Alberta Health Service’s chief privacy officer, who then-CEO Verna Yiu tasked with determining whether AHS breached privacy laws when it provided Shandro with the personal phone numbers of Red Deer physicians Dr. John Julyan-Gudgeon and Dr. Lauralee Dukeshire.

Lane said AHS should not have provided the numbers, which came after Shandro asked AHS vice-president communications Colleen Turner for help identifying two people who confronted him at a funding announcement at Red Deer Regional Hospital.

Lane said AHS should have sought the doctors’ permission to share their contact information or provided publicly available details. “That was a failing as an organization,” she said.

She also revealed Ivan Bernardo, Shandro’s personal legal counsel at the time, had contacted her asking for the numbers to review her findings. Lane refused.

During cross examination, Stapon noted that AHS, not Shandro, was responsible for any privacy breach, suggesting he was simply being an attentive elected official reaching out to individuals who raised concerns.

Shandro’s testimony is expected to continue Thursday.

jwakefield@postmedia.com

twitter.com/jonnywakefield

Premier pressured justice minister's office to get rid of COVID charges, sources say

Wed, January 25, 2023 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith looks on as Justice Minister Tyler Shandro talks during a November announcement. Smith's contact with his office over COVID-related court cases has been called inappropriate by sources familiar with the matters. 

(Jason Franson/The Canadian Press - image credit)

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressured the attorney general and his office to intervene in COVID-related court cases, according to multiple sources familiar with the interactions.

Exchanges between the premier's office and Justice Minister Tyler Shandro's office over several months included what sources characterized as attempts to influence cases.

"I would classify it as inappropriate," one source close to the situation said. CBC News has agreed not to name them because of potential professional repercussions.

Smith would ask for updates on cases or inquire whether it would be possible to abandon them, they said.

This specifically included the prosecution of Artur Pawlowski, a pastor charged with two counts of criminal mischief and a charge under Alberta's Critical Infrastructure Defence Act related to the Coutts border blockade.

Another source with knowledge of the situation confirmed Smith committed to taking that case to Shandro with the intent to make the charges go away.

CBC News has agreed not to name the sources, as they were not authorized to discuss these matters and out of concern they could lose their jobs.

Communications appropriate: premier's office

The premier's office says Smith's public statements explained her exploration of legal options to grant amnesty for pandemic charges.

"After taking office, the Premier and her staff had several discussions with the Minister of Justice and Justice department public servants, requesting an explanation of what policy options were available for this purpose. After receiving detailed legal advice and recommendations from the Minister not to proceed with pursuing options for granting amnesty, the Premier followed that legal advice," the premier's office said in a statement.

"All communications between the Premier, her staff, the Minister of Justice and Ministry of Justice public servants have been appropriate and made through the proper channels."

In a subsequent statement Wednesday afternoon, Smith called for CBC to retract its story from last week in which sources said the premier's office had emailed Crown prosecutors about Coutts-related cases. She called that story "outrageous" and "defamatory," adding that CBC had not seen the emails in question.

Smith has said publicly she asked the attorney general and his deputy minister to consider whether COVID-related cases were in the public interest to pursue and whether there was a reasonable chance of conviction before proceeding.

However, sources confirmed some of these conversations went beyond those considerations and veered into pressure.

"They're constantly pushing," a source said, adding that the minister's office has been resisting.

"I would interpret that as pressure."

The justice minister's office denies the premier issued direction.

"While Premier Smith requested briefings and they were provided, at no point in time was there any direction provided to the Attorney General by the Premier or her office. The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service acts independently and at no time has any political decision affected ongoing prosecutions," Ethan Lecavalier-Kidney, the minister's press secretary, said in a statement.

Relationship under scrutiny

The relationship between the minister's office and the premier's office over the approach to COVID-related court cases has been subject of recent public scrutiny.

An interview between Ezra Levant, who runs the right-wing media company Rebel News, and Pawlowski suggests there were efforts behind the scenes to get the government to help make the pastor's charges disappear.

Last December, on the morning of what was supposed to be his trial on offences connected to breaching public health orders in Calgary, Pawlowski's charges were stayed.

"Do you think someone called [the prosecutor] off? Do you think some big boss phoned her up that morning and said 'Hey prosecutor, you're throwing in the towel'?" Levant asked Pawlowski in an interview posted to Rebel's website on Dec. 20.

Pawlowski — who goes to trial on the Coutts-related charges next Thursday — responded.

"We have been working in the background on the political level, trying to talk to the UCP government to call their dogs off because this is pure vendetta," he told Levant.

"Maybe someone smarter than the Minister Shandro said 'Hey, this is not in our interest to wage the war against the ministers and pastors.'"

Artur Pawlowski/Facebook

Pawlowski's lawyers declined to comment on Wednesday.

"As this is a live situation that could conceivably impact trial next week, we are not in a position to comment on this situation right now," said Sarah Miller in an email to CBC News.

Levant has been instrumental in fundraising for Pawlowski's legal fees and publicly campaigning to get the pastor's Coutts-related charges dropped ahead of his Feb. 2 trial.

Smith herself was on the receiving end of a pressure campaign involving Levant earlier in the fall.

In October, following an in-person meeting, Levant advocated for the premier to drop COVID-related charges. He outlined what he thought she should do in a lengthy email to Smith's office. Levant confirmed the contents of the email and the meeting with the premier.

"The Premier was interested in any information that I could provide her about the situation on the ground and the mechanisms available to her to provide leadership on these issues," reads part of the email, obtained by CBC News.

It argued why some charges should be stayed or withdrawn and why the attorney general should intervene — specifically mentioning Pawlowski in the correspondence. CBC News learned the email was then forwarded from the premier's office to Shandro's office.

REBEL MEDIA'S EZRA LEVANT

"I expect that with the proper guidance and direction from the Premier's office, the prosecutions related to the Coutts protest (the non-violent cases, without firearms), other anti-lockdown protests, or offences under the Public Health Act … can all be withdrawn, stayed or otherwise discontinued," it reads.

In response to a request for comment Wednesday, Levant posted the letter on his website.

"I'm very proud of that letter, and I stand by every word of it," said Levant.

He said he has been public in his calls for pressure to be put on the attorney general to withdraw charges connected to the pandemic.

"I have no idea what Smith did or didn't do with the letter I wrote to her."

CBC News recently reported, based on sources, that a staff member in the premier's office had emailed Crown prosecutors several times last fall about ongoing cases related to Coutts border blockade charges. CBC News has not viewed those emails.

The premier said she had no knowledge of the matters and launched an email search, which her office said yielded no evidence of email contact.

The government later added that deleted emails would only be retained for 30 days, which would reach back to Dec. 22.

Two weeks ago, Smith backed down from a promise to seek official pardons for COVID-19 health violators, saying premiers don't have that power.

The premier spent several days clarifying conflicting comments on her contact with Crown prosecutors about these cases. She initially stated she had talked directly to prosecutors before then saying she had only spoken with her justice minister.

Smith said she wanted prosecutors to consider the reasonable likelihood of conviction and public interest but also that COVID charges are unique.

Premier's office calls for apology, retraction of CBC story alleging contact with Crown prosecutors
Story by Matthew Black , Lisa Johnson • Edmonton Journal

Premier Danielle Smith

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is calling on CBC News to retract and apologize for a story that cites unnamed sources alleging her office emailed Crown prosecutors regarding the handling of cases tied to last year’s Coutts border blockade.

In a statement Wednesday, Smith’s office referred to CBC’s reporting in a story published Jan. 19 as “defamatory” and containing “baseless allegations.”

“The premier calls on the CBC to retract its outrageous story, and further, that the CBC and the Official Opposition apologize to the premier, premier’s office staff, Alberta Crown prosecutors and those in the Alberta public service for the damage caused to their reputations and that of Alberta’s justice system,” the statement reads.

Smith goes on to note the CBC has amended its story to clarify that it had not seen any emails between her office and prosecutors.

“The CBC’s allegations and insinuations to the contrary are, once again, baseless.”

According to its journalistic standards and practices , CBC’s stories are required to be based on “information we have verified” and use “first-hand, identifiable sources” whenever possible while acknowledging the need for anonymity in some cases.

“If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.”

Chuck Thompson, head of public affairs for CBC, said that the organization stands by its reporting, saying the allegations are attributed to “trusted sources.”

“As is our practice, we gave the premier and her office an opportunity to react and we included that response prominently in the story.”

Earlier Wednesday, CBC reported in another story that the premier pressured the province’s attorney general and his office to intervene in court cases related to COVID-19 and public health measures, citing multiple unnamed sources.

The latest report claims the cases included that of Artur Pawlowski, a pastor charged with criminal offences and violations under the Public Health Act.

In its statement, the premier’s office references her prior stated intent of seeking amnesty for those charged with non-violent, non-firearms offences related to the pandemic.

It further claims that Smith and her staff had “several discussions” with Justice Minister Tyler Shandro and ministry officials “requesting an explanation of what policy options were available for this purpose.”

“After receiving a detailed legal opinion from the minister to not proceed with pursuing options for granting amnesty, the premier followed that legal advice. All communications between the premier, her staff, the minister of justice and Ministry of Justice public servants have been appropriate and made through the proper channels,” it states.

IT review found no evidence of emails

The latest report follows the release of what Alberta Justice referred to as a “comprehensive” review of almost one million incoming, outgoing and deleted emails from approximately 900 government email accounts belonging to prosecutors, their staff and staff from the premier’s office.

The review found no emails between the premier’s office and what the government described as “relevant” prosecutors.

The department noted that it has “no ability” to search personal email accounts, although any message sent from a personal email to a government address would have been captured in the search.

While the government’s Monday news release said the review covered four months’ worth of emails, CBC’s latest report said the government later added that deleted emails would only be retained for 30 days, which would reach back to Dec. 22.

Smith has changed her story regarding interactions with prosecutors over the past weeks.

Late last year, Smith said she asks provincial Crown prosecutors on a regular basis to consider whether such charges are in the public interest and whether they are likely to see a conviction.

But, her office walked that claim back soon after, claiming Smith had only spoken with Shandro and deputy attorney general Frank Bosscha, asking them to examine their options on outstanding COVID-related cases.

During a prior radio broadcast, Smith went beyond that, saying she urged Shandro and his deputy attorney general to consider whether the cases were in the public interest and whether there was a reasonable chance of conviction before proceeding.

Smith’s shifting stories raise concerns: NDP

New Democrat MLA Rakhi Pancholi renewed the Opposition’s calls Wednesday for a full, independent investigation by a third party and for the premier to take questions from reporters in person.

Pancholi said too many questions about the premier’s conduct and the government’s IT review of emails remain unanswered.

“This is an unmitigated mess from the premier, and what she’s doing is continuing the chaos and undermining Albertans’ trust and confidence in the administration of justice,” said Pancholi.

In response to the premier’s suggestion the Official Opposition is using the CBC story to smear the reputations of the premier, her office staff, Crown prosecutors and the public service, Pancholi pointed to Smith’s own statements.

“It is the premier herself who has stated multiple times on the record that she has contacted prosecutors and the attorney general related to cases that are before the courts or that are currently being charged,” she said, adding individuals who claim to have knowledge of interference should be able to give evidence, and should not be forced to speak anonymously to media outlets and fear retaliation.

mblack@postmedia.com
lijohnson@postmedia.com

Edmonton Journal 
Wednesday's letters: Smith started interference controversy herself

Does our premier have no shame? How many times do Albertans have to be confronted yet again with the premier backing down and/or clarifying positions she has personally trumpeted because of the controversy unleashed due to their thoughtlessness, personal bias or perceived political interference?


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks with media at McDougall Centre in Calgary on Tuesday, January 10, 2023.

The recent controversy over potential interference with prosecutorial processes was brought on by no one else than by the premier herself. Subsequent discourse had been maneuvered to look for possible emails to capture the culpable. Yet much overlooked in this drama is the common practice within government, especially when dealing with sensitive issues, to use phone calls or side conversations to deal with sticky business — no paper, no emails, no recordings.

These conversations in provincial government are not recorded, so public accountability is easily deniable. The premier uttered the words that sparked the controversy. Was she so full of herself and so keen with bravado that she states unequivocally her acting at a time when action was called for, only to renege when confronted with the consequences for taking ownership for such personal attribution? I am tired of being taken for a naïve Albertan.

Ken Crutchfield, St. Albert

Targeted policies can help decarbonize Canada one home at a time

Story by Ekaterina Rhodes, Assistant Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria and Meghan Corbett, Master's student, Public Administration, University of Victoria 

THE CONVERSATION

• Yesterday 2:23 p.m.

Be it through the food we eat, vehicle we use or way we live, we use fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases in various activities in our daily lives. We need to reduce emissions across sectors, starting with our homes. This requires ambitious and quick action.

As we face more and more climate change-induced weather extremes, we heavily rely on the use of home heating and cooling infrastructure. The emissions from space heating and cooling in homes represent almost one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In Canada, home emissions account for around six per cent of emissions, largely because most homes rely on natural gas-fired or oil-powered furnaces and boilers, although additional emissions are associated with air conditioning.

Canada should decrease emissions from residential buildings by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve a net-zero emissions building stock by 2050 to meet its climate targets. Our recent study found that the first step towards this goal is using targeted policies that encourage the use of low-carbon technology in our homes, like heat pumps.

Some provinces take the lead on decarbonization policy

Across levels of Canadian governments, many types of policies have been designed to encourage switching from fossil fuel-based to low-carbon technologies.

These include subsidies or loans for switching to low-carbon technologies, educational programs and adopting economy-wide policies such as carbon pricing, regulations for building emissions and renewable natural gas mandates.

For example, the province of British Columbia offers its residents subsidies for switching away from fossil fuel-based heating systems. It also offers bonuses for performing additional low-carbon retrofits.

Prince Edward Island offers an interest-free loan for up to $30,000 to residents who upgrade the current heating system in their homes to a cleaner, more efficient low-carbon system that reduces their carbon footprint.

Canada recently updated the carbon price, in line with its planned yearly increases in stringency.

While such efforts to decarbonize buildings are increasing, current policies seem to be insufficient for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

Five factors that influence Canadians to decarbonize

Heat pumps can significantly decarbonize Canada’s homes because they are powered by electricity, and not fossil fuels. They also provide similarly efficient space cooling with the same system, and may be able to reduce consumer energy costs.



But despite many policies that incentivize their adoption, these heat pumps are used in only around five per cent of home heating systems in Canada. Why is adoption so low?

Using data from a nationally representative sample of 3,138 Canadian homeowners, we explored the main motivators for heat pump adoption in our study.

We found that while one-third of Canadian homeowners express willingness to adopt heat pumps, they are generally unaware of existing government efforts or policies in place to support its adoption. Only five per cent of our respondents were able to name such policies from memory. This policy awareness was higher in British Columbia, and for heat pump subsidies and carbon taxes.

However, policy awareness, we found, is a weak positive predictor of willingness to adopt heat pumps. We found that homeowners are more willing to adopt a heat pump if they

1) believe it can effectively heat and cool their home,

2) think it can improve air quality and help fight climate change,

3) are interested in technology,

4) support policies that encourage heat pump adoption, and

5) don’t perceive heat pumps as being too expensive or inconvenient to install.

The top-down approach

So, instead of focusing their efforts on educating homeowners about existing policies, our research suggests that policymakers should aim to increase homeowners’ confidence in low-carbon infrastructure like heat pumps. They must highlight the effectiveness and environmental benefits of these technologies.

Policies can also be designed to help remove barriers of high financial and inconvenience costs during heat pump installation. For example, subsidy amounts could cover inconvenience costs and more funding could be directed towards training contractors in such installations.

Considering these drivers and barriers while tailoring policy design and structure will help augment the adoption of such low-carbon technologies, and by extension home decarbonization.

While this holds true in Canada, at both the national and provincial levels, it can also be replicated in other jurisdictions with similar climates or policy regimes such as Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and the northern United States.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Here’s how your cup of coffee contributes to climate change

How ‘net-zero’ and ‘passive’ houses can cut carbon emissions — and energy bills

Ekaterina Rhodes receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant # 430-2020-00214.

Meghan Corbett received funding from from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant # 430-2020-00214.

Thousands of seasonal agricultural workers arrive in Ontario
Story by The Canadian Press • 

Migrant workers hired under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program have started to arrive from the Caribbean and Mexico to help Niagara farmers.

About 3,000 seasonal workers from Mexico and the Caribbean began arriving this month at greenhouses in Niagara, Leamington and other parts of Ontario, said Ken Forth, president of Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, better known as FARMS.

Thousands of workers come to Niagara-on-the-Lake through the eight-month program to help plant, pick and package fruits and vegetables.

The program has operated in Ontario for 56 years and helps fill labour shortages at farms and greenhouses throughout the province.

“We wouldn’t have the horticulture industry if we didn’t have these workers,” Forth told The Lake Report.

FARMS is a federally run operation that plays an administrative role in the seasonal workers program.

Many of the workers arriving this month are doing greenhouse work. Come spring, they’ll be pruning orchards and vineyards, said Forth.

About 20,000 workers will be coming to Ontario this year, he said, a few more than prior to the pandemic.

“What we’ve seen in the last few years, some people are changing over to the (agricultural) stream,” he said.

The agricultural stream is a one- to two-year program, whereas the seasonal program is only eight months.

“Some growers need people all year-round now and so some of them are slightly reducing their (seasonal) workers and bringing back (agricultural) stream workers,” he said.

He noted this could still be the same worker. Only the length of their contract will have changed.

“This program has kept the horticulture industry in place and has also given an opportunity to the workers to find a job that pays a lot more than they can make at home,” said Forth.

Somer Slobodian, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Lake Report

How can health data be used for public benefit? 3 uses that people agree on

 The Conversation,

Sunday

Health data can include information about health-care services, health status and behaviours, medications and genetic data, in addition to demographic information like age, education and neighbourhood.


Support for use of health data is conditional on whether the use has public benefits.

© (Brittany Datchko/Graphic Journeys)

These facts and statistics are valuable because they offer insights and information about population health and well-being. However, they can also be sensitive, and there are legitimate public concerns about how these data are used, and by whom. The term “social licence” describes uses of health data that have public support.

Studies performed in Canada, the United Kingdom and internationally have all found public support and social licence for uses of health data that produce public benefits.

However, this support is conditional. Public concerns related to privacy, commercial motives, equity and fairness must be addressed.


Public support for use of health data is conditional on things like public benefits, attention to privacy and fairness.© (Brittany Datchko/Graphic Journeys)

Our team of health policy researchers set out to build upon prior studies with actionable advice from a group of 20 experienced public and patient advisers. Studies have shown that health data use, sharing and reuse is a complex topic. So we recruited people who already had some knowledge of potential uses of health data through their roles advising research institutions, hospitals, community organizations and governments.

We asked these experienced advisers to exchange views about uses of health data that they supported or opposed. We also gathered participants’ views about requirements for social licence, such as privacy, security and transparency.

Consensus views

After hours of facilitated discussion and weeks of reflection, all 20 participants agreed on some applications and uses of health data that are within social licence, and some that are not.

Participants agreed it is within social licence for health data to be used by:

health-care practitioners — to directly improve the health-care decisions and services provided to a patient.

governments, health-care facilities and health-system administrators — to understand and improve health care and the health-care system.

university-based researchers — to understand the drivers of disease and well-being.

Participants agreed that it is not within social licence for:


an individual or organization to sell (or re-sell) another person’s identified health data.


health data to be used for a purpose that has no patient, public or societal benefit.

Points of disagreement


The participants also had different views about what constitutes an essential requirement for social licence.© (Brittany Datchko/Graphic Journeys)

Among other topics, the participants discussed uses of health data about systemically marginalized populations and companies using health data. Though some participants saw benefits from both practices, there was not consensus support for either.

For example, participants were concerned that vulnerable populations could be exploited, and that companies would put profit ahead of public benefits. Participants also worried that if harms were done by companies or to marginalized populations, they could not be “undone.” Several participants expressed skepticism about whether risks could be managed, even if additional safeguards are in place.

The participants also had different views about what constitutes an essential requirement for social licence. This included discussions about benefits, governance, patient consent and involvement, equity, privacy and transparency.

Collectively, they generated a list of 85 essential requirements, but 38 of those requirements were only seen as essential by one person. There were also cases where some participants actively opposed a requirement that another participant thought was essential.

Using the findings


Potential benefits of health data use include better patient care, better health system planning and better understanding of disease and wellness.© (Brittany Datchko/Graphic Journeys)

This work was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada to inform the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy. In parallel, an expert advisory group for the strategy recommended that one or more public assemblies be established to provide advice and guidance.

We strongly agree with the expert advisory group’s recommendation to “give voice to people” as the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy is implemented.

The findings from our work may help focus the work of the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy and other initiatives aimed at expanding uses of health data. These initiatives should start by focusing on uses of health data that have clear public support.

We note that there could be many important benefits just from the users of health data that the 20 participants in our project supported: health-care practitioners; governments, health-care facilities and health system administrators; and university-based researchers. These benefits include better patient care, better health system planning, and better understanding of disease and wellness.

Our hope is that the work described in this article will be a step forward in a concerted and continuous effort to identify and act on increasing the uses of health data that members of the public support.

Read more:

Health data collected during the coronavirus pandemic needs to be managed responsibly

What the public hopes and fears about the use of AI in health care

Story by:

 Kimberlyn McGrail, Professor of Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, 

P. Alison Paprica, Professor (adjunct) and Senior Fellow, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto,

 Julia Burt, Public Engagement Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 

Roxanne Dault, Research coordinator, Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en informatique de la santé, Université de Sherbrooke , 

 Annabelle Cumyn, Professor of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke • 

P. Alison Paprica receives funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada and national and provincial research funders.

Annabelle Cumyn participates in a research program that receives funding from CIHR. She is affiliated with the University of Sherbrooke and is a member on the Interagency advisory panel on research ethics.

Kimberlyn McGrail receives funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada and national and provincial research funders.

Julia Burt and Roxanne Dault do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.