Roundup: Telling the premiers no

Posted on by

The prime minister met with the premiers (virtually) yesterday, and while there was talk about the vaccine roll-out and that kind of good stuff, there was also a discussion about healthcare transfers – or more specifically, the premiers’ demand for some $28 billion in permanent new transfers with no strings attached. Justin Trudeau, to his credit, said no – or more specifically, he does see a role for the federal government to pay more, but now is not the time to discuss how much, and you can bet that it’s going to come with plenty of strings for new programmes that the federal government wants to launch, like pharmacare and national standards for long-term care.

There are a few things to remember about why there need to be strings attached to this money. One is that we can’t trust that provinces will actually spend this on healthcare, and lo, we have precedence for this. Prior to the Harper government capping the health transfer escalator at three percent or GDP growth (whichever was higher), healthcare spending increases by the provinces were far below what the health transfer escalator was – meaning that the provinces were not spending healthcare money on healthcare. Additionally, some of you may remember when Stephen Harper fell for Jean Charest’s bogus demands to address a “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and Quebec, so when Harper – desperate for Quebec votes – turned over a pile of money to Charest to address said bogus “imbalance,” Charest turned around and turned that into tax cuts, burning Harper in the process. On top of that, we have seen plenty of provinces during this pandemic alone just sitting on the money the federal government gave them to deal with it. So no, we should not trust that provinces will spend it wisely.

As well, the premiers have been misrepresenting the history of health transfers, citing the “it used to be 50-50” line, without acknowledging why it changed, which was to give the provinces tax points that they could use for healthcare or other programmes. There is a great thread here that you should all read that spells it out, and why we should take these provincial (and Bloc, NDP and now Conservative) talking points with a shaker of salt, because they’re misrepresenting history.

Last sitting day

Given that this is the last sitting day of 2020, I suspect that we may see a unanimous consent motion to pass a number of bills in one fell swoop before the Commons rises, being the UK trade deal bill, the Elections Act bill, and quite possibly the fiscal update implementation bill. Why those three? There are worries about trade disruptions if the UK trade implementation bill doesn’t get passed by December 31st, and this essentially just rolls over the existing CETA with the EU, so there would be very little that is contentious in this bill. With the elections bill, it is also relatively uncontentious, based on Elections Canada’s input that would allow for a pandemic election to have three voting days and extra advanced polling, plus some other changes for things like long-term care facilities and increased mail-in ballots – and since it needs 90 days from royal assent to come into effect, parties will want it to pass as quickly as possible. And as for the implementation bill, it contains both a fix for a flaw in the commercial rent assistance programme that they didn’t amend, plus has other pandemic supports, and again, they will want it passed as soon as possible. Of course, this means once again that there is plenty of spending that didn’t get scrutiny, and it jams the Senate by pushing a bunch of bills on them without time to give it proper study or the ability to move amendments, but this is becoming a hallmark of this parliament.

Good reads:

  • It is expected that the prime minister and environment minister will unveil their emissions reductions plans today, designed to exceed the Paris targets.
  • It is expected that the first doses of the Pfizer vaccine will arrive on Monday.
  • The assisted dying bill finally passed the Commons after the Conservatives ended their filibuster, but expect plenty of demands for amendments in the Senate.
  • The Parliamentary Budget Officer complains the fiscal update doesn’t have enough detail. Freeland says it’s too early to say when they will wind down programmes.
  • Here’s a look into Jason Kenney’s need to keep using Justin Trudeau as his political straw man when the federal government is spending billions on the province.
  • Kevin Carmichael explains the Bank of Canada’s speculation about the possibility of even lower interest rates – so long as they don’t go into negative rate territory.
  • Heather Scoffield points out that tackling the spread of COVID in low-income neighbourhoods relies on paid sick leave – but doesn’t focus on the premiers for it.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Telling the premiers no”

  1. At this point he should make funding contingent upon the premiers’ resignations. Their appalling handling of this pandemic, and buck-passing to a convenient boogeyman whose last name registers a Pavlovian rage response in their core constituents, is so atrocious as to border on the criminal. People are dying just so Donald J. Ford doesn’t have to use his bigly stable-genius brain to think about hard policy choices, and Ebenezer Kenney can continue shaking his fists at the ghosts of Trudeaus past, present and future. Conservatives should have to be stamped on their foreheads with a warning like cigarette packs: voting for this party is hazardous to your health.

  2. Thug Ford sat in his news presser today and decried the decision by the Federal government to increase the carbon levy. He stated that every thing in Ontario will go up causing great harm to citizens trying to cope with the pandemic even though the increase will not take place until next year. Not one reporter called him on his statement. Why doesn’t someone remind him and others that the carbon levy is designed to be neutral. Taxpayers get checks or tax credits sometime in excess of what they paid. The tax is designed to change behaviors. I don’t get it! Is it possible that reporters are afraid that they may be sanctioned for asking cogent questions like Tramp does in the WH?

Comments are closed.