Tag Archives: Pharmacare

Senate QP: Bland assurances from Morneau (part eleventy)

Posted on by

Things got underway a few minutes early, as finance minister Bill Morneau arrived in the Senate for what promised to be a day full of pointed questions and pabulum answers – Morneau’s particular specialty. Senator Larry Smith led off, asking about the $9.5 billion budgeted in the fiscal update for “non-announced measures,” and Morneau responded with bland assurances about getting the right balance in the budget. Smith noted that he didn’t actually answer the question and that they needed to hold government to account, to which Morneau said quite right, but again didn’t answer, and offered more pabulum talking points about dealing with challenges while still trending the deficit downward.

Senator Batters was up next, and brought up the PM’s comments on social impacts of male construction workers to rural areas, citing that she only sees benefits. Morneau first cited that they look at employment on projects, and then noted gender-based lens for impacts, but didn’t elaborate on the construction worker issue.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding action for Oshawa

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present, on a day of tough news for Oshawa, Andrew Scheer was absent yet again. Because why bother showing up to Parliament when you’re the leader of the opposition? Erin O’Toole led off, and said there was a future for manufacturing in Canada if they fought for it, and wanted to know what the government was doing. Justin Trudeau read a statement about their disappointment in the news, and how they would support the workers. O’Toole said that they needed to hear that the prime minister hasn’t given up on the sector, to which Trudeau said that they were working with other orders of government to support the workers. O’Toole asked if GM asked him about trade and tariff concerns that were impacting their competitiveness, to which Trudeau said that the auto companies worked with them as part of the new NAFTA talks, and there was more work to do in eliminating steel and aluminium tariffs. Luc Berthold took over in French to ask again about fighting for the jobs, and Trudeau picked his script back up to read the French version of his first answer. Berthold read some further concerns about the workers, and Trudeau read some further assurances about the industry being solid. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he worried that GM was getting “tax giveaways” while cutting jobs, to which Trudeau read a script about support for the auto sector and how they worked to make it globally competitive and innovative. Caron switched to the Canada Post strike and worried that back to work legislation wouldn’t have resulted in the gains the union made, and Trudeau read a script about all of the measures they took to help get a deal. Karen Trudel asked the same question again, and Trudeau extemporaneously explained how they worked respectfully with unions but the time came to make difficult decisions. Irene Mathyssen read that Canada Post was a toxic environment, to which Trudeau read about his faith in the collective bargaining process.

Continue reading →

QP: Lies versus pabulum, part eleventy-seven

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was not present today, just off of a plane from France, Singapore and Papua New Guinea. That said, Andrew Scheer was not present today either, for whatever reason. Alain Rayes led off, worried that the budget would not balance in 2019. Bill Morneau responded with a question of his own — where are we now? He went on to extol the low unemployment rates and the investments to grow the economy. Rayes repeated the question, and Morneau responded that the Conservatives only wanted to make cuts while the Liberal approach was working for growth. Rayes concerned trolled that the budget was “collapsing” under the weight of deficits, but Morneau retorted with the Conservative record of debts and low growth, while they have turned the growth rate around. Candice Bergen took over to ask again in English, railing that the Liberals were irresponsible, to which Morneau repeated his pabulum points in English about low unemployment and high growth. Bergen tried one last time, and Morneau noted the reduction in small business taxes and the lowest level of debt-to-GDP in the G7. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he worried about the pressure to cut corporate taxes to follow the US example. Morneau said that it was necessary to strike a balance to ensure tax fairness and competitiveness, and that was the approach they were taking. Caron worried about corporate “dead money,” and Morneau reiterated his points about striking the right balance. Peter Julian worried about record levels of personal debt and demanded that they end “corporate giveaways,” to which Morneau assured him that they were investing in Canadians by means like the Canada Child Benefit. Julian demanded investments in pharmacare, to which Ginette Petitpas Taylor recited the implementation on the consultations that would produce a report in the spring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deleting the message

Posted on by

The Conservatives decided to delete their tweet yesterday that depicted a black migrant crossing to Canada – over a bridge made of Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet, and through a broken chain-link fence. There was backlash that the tweet was racist, and it certainly was intended to stoke the xenophobic tendencies that they have been flirting with. I will point out once again that their continued reliance on the talking point that this is about the “orderly” asylum system would probably make most of Europe laugh and pat them on the head condescendingly, because it’s pretty precious that they think Canada should get the special status of an “orderly” system that no other country gets.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1019323971274248193

Meanwhile, Maclean’shas a look at the history of the Safe Third Country Agreement, and how it’s basically just waiting for Donald Trump to blow it up if he actually learns about what it is and what it does. Chris Selley, on the other hand, points out the ways in which both the federal government and the new Ontario government are mishandling the whole file, which is fair criticism. But I do think we can’t take our eye off the fact that the Conservatives are flirting with xenophobic populism for partisan gain, and playing cute with it, pitting one group of newcomers against another, and patting themselves on the back for their “compassion” for certain groups of refugees that they use solely as props to hammer away at the regime they’re fleeing. This has been their modus operandi since Jason Kenney was immigration minister, but they’ve poured it on a little thicker since they saw that this kind of populist rhetoric worked for Trump and Brexit (never mind the fact that we have solid proof of election interference in both, and definitive proof of broken rules in the Brexit referendum). This is worrying for our democracy, and we should be very wary of their adopting these techniques.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senate constituency office?

Posted on by

Independent Senator Dan Christmas has opted to open a “constituency” office in his local Mi’kmaw community in Nova Scotia in a bid to be more accessible. Which is all well and good, but the CBC piece that reported on this is atrocious. Embarrassingly so.

The article refers to Christmas as a “member of the Canadian government” which he explicitly is not. Being a member of government means being part of Cabinet, which Christmas certainly is not. In fact, as a senator, his job is to hold government to account. That’s not talked about in here at all. I’m also not sure what he hopes to use the office for, because senators traditionally don’t do the kinds of constituency work that MPs do, such as acting in an ombudsman-like capacity for constituents having trouble dealing with the civil service (particularly with immigration files, which is a huge problem). And it’s not like he’s the first senator to do so – I recall Senator Mike Duffy making a big deal about doing the same thing in PEI (which I can’t recall if he ever got around to actually doing, or if it was simply a stated intention that some of the usual pundits went around congratulating him for), and Senator Bob Runciman had a constituency office as well. Regardless, the article doesn’t really give much of a sense of his plans for the office – just that he wants to be visible in his community and that he wants to be a kind of “ambassador” to Ottawa from the Mi’kmaw, which again, not really an apt analogy because he doesn’t represent that government in any capacity. I am forced to wonder if this is a result of a lack of understanding of his role because, as an Independent senator, he lacks much in the way of proper mentoring from established senators, but again, I remain mystified, and we’ll see how long this lasts before he realises he could better spend his office budget doing things that are of more utility.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Barriers and non-solutions

Posted on by

As part of a discussion on Power & Politicsyesterday on barriers women face in politics, there were a few well-worn tropes thrown out there, but I wanted to poke into a couple of the items discussed (much of which I’ve already written about in my book, but a refresher course never hurts):

  1. This needs to be an issue addressed by the parties at the grassroots level and shouldn’t be legislated top-down. Parties are already too centrally controlled, and if you want empowered MPs that are women and those who are from diverse communities, they need to participate from the ground-up rather than be appointed top-down.
  2. The side-effect of quotas, be they de facto or de jure, tends to be that women and minorities are nominated in “no-hope” ridings. We’ve seen this time and again, even from the NDP, who have their “no nomination can be run unless the riding association has exhausted the possibility for an equity-seeking candidate” rule. That rule is often conveniently broken if they think they have a winnable straight, white male candidate, and 2011 is a perfect example of how they loaded a lot of women and racialized candidates in “no hope” Quebec ridings that got swept up in the “orange wave.” Most were not good MPs, and some had never been to their ridings before winning, which is the opposite of how nominations should be run.
  3. The voting system is not the problem – it’s entrenched barriers in the nomination system where not enough encouragement is given to women to run (i.e. until this last electoral cycle, they didn’t recognize that women need to be asked several times before they will consider running, and they may have things like childcare issues that need to be sorted when running). A PR system usually creates some manner of list MPs, where your women and minority MPs come from lists rather than having had to run and win ridings, which creates two-tiers of MPs. This also manifests itself in countries with quotas, and women MPs in places like Rwanda have seats but little power as a result.
  4. We can’t do much more to make our parliament more “family friendly” without hollowing it out even more than it has been. While there are issues with childcare, MPs are not without resources to address it (like hiring nannies) rather than forcing the institution to hire precariously-employed childcare workers for part of the year with no sense of numbers on a daily basis. While 60-day parental leave is not objectionable, remote voting and Skyping into committee meetings is very much a problem that we should not encourage in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carbon tax figures in context

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his latest economic and fiscal outlook yesterday, which included some not unexpected things like warnings that the deficit might be larger than anticipated, or that debt servicing charges might start to increase, or that some government programmes may wind up costing more than stated in the budget. All fair game. But it was his analysis of the federal carbon price that really go the Conservatives (and their mouthpieces) excited – and as usual, it was an exercise in cherry-picked numbers that ignored the context of what was actually said.

In this particular case, the headline number was that by 2022, when the full $50/tonne price is implemented, the price could – and one has to stress could– cost the economy 0.5 percent of GDP, or $10 billion. And this had the Conservatives, and Pierre Polievere in particular, whooping at the government about how this was going to kill the economy. The problem is that the report goes on to say that if provincial governments actually recycle those revenues through reducing corporate or personal income taxes, for example, it would nullify that effect. Not that things like context or nuance, or even truth will dissuade a political talking point. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe explains more here:

Tombe also found this bit of the report overlooked by other media reports:

Continue reading →

QP: Borders and carbon prices

Posted on by

On a warm and sunny Monday in the nation’s capital, all of the leaders were present, so it was either going to be a really good day…or an insufferable one. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he noted the unfolding situation of an alleged attack in Toronto with a white van running down pedestrians. Justin Trudeau noted that his thoughts were with those affected, and he would update the House as he learned more. Scheer then asked about the number of irregular border crossers affecting those who “wait in line” — except there’s not a line for asylum seekers, there’s a process, and he’s conflating it with immigration. Trudeau noted that Canada is signatory to international conventions, and that any arrivals are processed and that they go through proper security checks. Scheer tried again, and this time Trudeau wondered if Scheer was suggesting that they violate their international obligations. Scheer then turned to the PBO report on carbon pricing, and he cherry-picked one figure that portended doom (where the report stated differently). Trudeau gave a weary sigh, and reminded him that the economy and the environment go together. Scheer tried to insinuate that there was some kind of cover-up about the “economic damage” that a carbon tax would do, and Trudeau hit back that if Scheer was so concerned about secrecy, he should stop censoring Maxime Bernier. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and after he made a quick statement about the situation in Toronto, he demanded the immediate implementation of a universal pharmacare programme. Trudeau took up a script to say that the system can be improved and they are consulting on a national pharmacare programme — note that he didn’t say universal. Caron asked again in French, detailing previous Liberal promises, and Trudeau said that the NDP wanted to set up something without a clear plan, which is why his government set up an advisory committee to study and evaluate a universal pharmacare programme (not sure if universal was just a translation issue this time). Rachel Blaney took her own turn to demand pharmacare, and Trudeau repeated his answer about needing a plan, emphasising the digs at the NDP in the process. Blaney tried again, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Convention resolutions to be forgotten?

Posted on by

Coming out of the Liberal policy convention, the party’s top five resolutions were pharmacare, mental health, decriminalizing small amounts of drug possession, decriminalizing sex work, and protecting pensions. Some of the resolutions are controversial to members of caucus, and there’s no guarantee that any of these will show up in the party platform (or the Order Paper beforehand) despite its what the grassroots members allegedly want (big caveats here given how centralized and top-down this process has become under their new constitution), but maybe there will be pressure to implement them. Maybe. Trudeau doesn’t seem keen on decriminalization talk while the marijuana bill is still being debated (and he’s expending political capital on it).

Their big exciting Obama-connected guest (because that’s what the Liberals and NDP have grasped onto for the past eight or nine years) was David Axelrod, who said that the party needs to show that they are still change-makers and not the status quo, while he and Gerald Butts talked about political life. Dr. Danielle Martin, who makes the case for healthcare in the US, spoke about the need for universal pharmacare in Canada. Among the ministers who got up to speak to delegates, Ahmed Hussen talked about being racially profiled while he encouraged Liberals to combat racism. Trudeau’s own speech to the faithful included its share of digs at the Conservatives as still being the party of Harper, so good thing they can still draw on that particular bogeyman. New party president Suzanne Cowan spoke about how they all needed to be fundraisers going forward. And hey, the rank-and-file members were expressing some particular concerns about the rash of self-inflicted wounds that the party keeps enduring.

And because it wasn’t all sunshine and roses coming out of the convention, MP Francis Drouin is now facing an allegation of sexual assault from an incident that happened during the convention, and he’s put out a statement to say that an allegation has been made and he’s cooperating with the investigation – nothing else. It’s probably worth noting that there were harassment workshops at the convention that both Justin Trudeau and Kent Hehr attended, and the facilitator of said workshops noted that Trudeau simply listened and took notes throughout, which impressed her. So we’ll see what transpires from here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s epiphany

Posted on by

All of the drama yesterday was the news that Maxime Bernier decided to spike his own planned book after his chapter blaming his loss on “fake Conservatives” supporting Andrew Scheer, particularly when the defenders of Supply Management took out memberships to stop Bernier. When he did release a statement late in the day, Bernier basically blamed the media for writing about the controversial stuff, which is kind of ridiculous given that he should have known that questioning the legitimacy of Scheer’s win, and putting in print that he planned to renege on his promise to shut up about Supply Management was going to be trouble no matter what else was in the book. (No word on whether he spent his advance already, as he now will have to refund it).

A couple of observations first: Of course the leadership contest was lousy with “fake Conservatives.” That’s what our leadership contests have become in Canada, given that it’s about trying to get as many new members as possible to bestow enough “democratic legitimacy” on a would-be leader so that they can turn the party into their own personal cult. Until we change the system and restore it to caucus selection, this will only get increasingly worse as time goes on. Part of his analysis that his problem was just defenders of Supply Management as the problem ignores the fact that there were a hell of a lot more people taking out party memberships in order to stop Kellie Leitch (and by extension, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, but mostly Leitch). They didn’t deliver the contest for Michael Chong, and it’s hard to say how many of those ballots wound up going toward Scheer instead of Bernier. Also, Scheer knew that Bernier was going to be mavericky when he made him a critic on an economic portfolio, so he can’t be surprised that this kind of eruption was going to happen. It’s who Bernier is, and it’s kind of surprising that it took this long for Bernier to realize that maybe it’s not a good thing for the image the party is trying to put forward. (On a side note, every time a leader insists that they’ve never been more united, I brace for a defection, because I’ve heard those insistences too many times).

Paul Wells wrote a very good piece about Bernier and the value of loyalty in politics, which most journalists don’t really grasp, which explains why politicians do the things they do, and compromise in the way that they do. It’s one of the things I do think about and probably don’t wrap my head around enough, but it goes back to the way in which people continue to blame the parties for “making” MPs do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, right up to compromising their beliefs and whatnot. MPs have the choice to do whatever – parties don’t make them, MPs do these things of their own volition. Senators too, for that matter – even when it goes against their best interest, or the normal operations of that chamber. They do it out of loyalty to the leader or the party, take your pick, and while we could have a debate about the effect of method of selection on that loyalty, we need to think more about that lens when we’re having these discussions.

Good reads:

  • In London, Justin Trudeau met with the Queen, as well as Thresa May, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Arden, as well as Five Eyes partners on a security briefing.
  • Chrystia Freeland is headed back to Washington for some crucial decisions on NAFTA talks.
  • While Kinder Morgan’s CEO says the political battles may mean the pipeline remains untenable, BC says that they will file their court reference within days.
  • The Commons health committee released their study on universal pharmacare, which the health minister says will be the basis of their consultations.
  • In advance of the Liberal convention, the health minister has already rejected the policy resolution to adopt a Portugal-style drug decriminalization scheme.
  • Speaking of the convention, Kent Hehr says he will attend, and attend one of the sexual harassment workshops being offered there.
  • UN climate data shows our GHG emission are decreasing – but not nearly fast enough to meet our Paris targets.
  • A report from the former Inspector General of CSIS was uncovered, showing problems with the way the agency conducts interviews with detainees abroad.
  • The agency that was supposed to create guidelines for service dogs for veterans with PTSD has pulled out of the project unexpectedly.
  • Two Catholic Bishops took to the Hill to defend the Pope’s refusal to apologise for residential schools. One Conservative MP blocked a motion to demand an apology.
  • The RCMP are set for their union certification vote.
  • Pierre Poilievre continues to snipe about the guaranteed minimum income report, and cites Ontario’s model as a bad starting point because of costs.
  • Andrew Coyne looks at the PBO report on guaranteed minimum income, and wonders if three points on the GST is a good deal for eliminating poverty.
  • Chantal Hébert reads the polls and wonders if the pipeline debate is really resonating with Canadians, and whether it will affect Trudeau in the next election.

Odds and ends:

Liberal MP Neil Ellis was taken to hospital for an undisclosed condition.

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/986641462380126208

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.