Tag Archives: Pharmacare

QP: Griping about the Colbert appearance

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in New York, but his deputy was present once again, while the Conservatives were revved up because this was their Supply Day, and they were busy gathering clips from their prepared speeches in favour of their non-confidence motion. With that in mind, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately demanded that the Bloc vote against the government. The Speaker warned him about questions being related to administrative responsibilities of government, but Jean-Yves Duclos stood up anyway to denounce that Poilievre told people dental care doesn’t exist. Poilievre again listed the government’s supposed failures to demand the Bloc vote against them, and Soraya Martinez Ferrada decried that Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer got a trip paid for to Florida from a pro-life church. Poilievre switched to English to recite slogans and demand an election, and Mark Holland listed things the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre accused Holland of coming unglued before saying completely untrue things about pharmacare and demanded an election. Holland pointed out his scare-mongering before saying that free diabetes medication and contraceptions are actually freedom. Poilievre again claimed that pharmacare would “ban women” from using their existing drug plans before trotting out the “nuclear winter” line to demand an election. Karina Gould got up to say that freedom doesn’t look like trips to Florida to meet with anti-abortion groups.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded “justice” for seniors via enhancing OAS, and Steve MacKinnon listed efforts to help seniors and that the Bloc voted against it. Therrien declared that seniors deserve better than partisanship, and again demanded the OAS enhancement. MacKinnon again noted that the Bloc has always voted against more help for seniors, including dental care.

Jagmeet Singh demanded the Liberals stand up to Doug Ford around private health care, and Mark Holland said that if he wants to talk courage, the NDP capitulated to the Conservatives when bullied. Singh switched to French, and swapped François Legault for Ford, but asked the same thing. Holland urged parliamentarians to stand up to what the Conservatives would do to the healthcare system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bringing in the spouses?

Posted on by

The fallout from Jagmeet Singh’s confrontation with members of the Asshole Brigade who are harassing people in front of Parliament Hill has taken a couple of strange twists. In his post about the incident, Singh said that “That’s the country that Pierre Poilievre wants,” which of course sent the Conservatives into the usual bit of performative victimhood. Among those was Michael Cooper, who was seen hanging out with some of those members of the Asshole Brigade, and he tweeted out that he didn’t know them, that they approached him at the restaurant he was eating in…but there is video that shows him meeting with them before the restaurant, so perhaps that’s a very judicious use of the truth.

The stranger part was that Anaida Poilievre wrote a long Twitter missive to rebut the accusation and to praise Poilievre’s good character, while taking shots at Singh and Justin Trudeau. There has been a long-held convention in Canadian politics that spouses stay out of things, and they get a semblance of anonymity as a result. The fact that she has been very active in Poilievre’s campaign is a sign that she could be much more active in a future where Poilievre becomes prime minister, and that’s a bit of a problem because we don’t have “First Ladies” in this county like the Americans do, because our “First Lady” is Queen Camila. If she plays an active role, does she then become a target for other parties? Does that open up attacks for their spouses? I worry about that given the coarsening of politics as it is, and the fact that far too many people are already targeting MPs’ homes as part of protests. We don’t need them to become fair game as things continue to race to the bottom.

https://x.com/AnaPoilievre/status/1836225640938508466

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling in Zaporizhzhia killed one woman and injured two others, while another attack targeted energy facilities in the central city of Kropyvnytskyi. Ukrainian drones have struck a Russian military base north of Moscow, causing an “earthquake-sized” blast. President Zelenskyy will be addressing the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A recommendation to the Industrial Relations Board

Posted on by

The rail duopoly lived up to their plans and locked out workers at midnight last night, and lo, the business lobbies across this country howled, and railed that the federal government didn’t prevent this from happening. Why didn’t they pre-emptively impose binding arbitration, they asked? Well, they actually can’t. They don’t have the legal authority to, they can only recommend it to the Industrial Relations Board, who can recommend binding arbitration, but they also know that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there is a Charter right to collective bargaining, so why they would imperil that right before the courts is something that these business lobbyists haven’t bothered answering. Seriously, it’s an issue. But also, these same lobbyists didn’t blame the rail duopoly for the lockout, which is also a problem because they didn’t need to do that.

By the end of the day, labour minister Steve MacKinnon declared that the issues at the bargaining table were at an impasse, and made his recommendation to the Board that they end the lockout that could include binding arbitration, but also extending their previous collective agreement to now, so that they can get trains rolling again in a matter of days, should the Board agree to these recommendations—but they may not! They’re arm’s-length, and recent court decisions show that the test for these kinds of tactics are a high bar.

The NDP, meanwhile, had a predictable meltdown over this, saying it was “anti-worker” and trotted out their lines about corporations without necessarily actually understanding what happened with the referral to the Board, who will make their own determination. Jagmeet Singh also took to the microphones to insist that he won’t support any back-to-work legislation (which is unlikely to be necessary), even if it’s a confidence measure…which doesn’t matter, because the Conservatives would support it. To add to this, pretty much every headline in the country got the point of binding arbitration wrong, making it sound like the minister ordered it when he doesn’t have that legal authority. This shouldn’t have to be so hard, and yet…

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs killed two civilians in Sumy region, while evacuations continue from Pokrovosk in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian drones have been attacking an airbase in Volgograd in Russia. President Zelenskyy visited the Sumy region, which borders Kursk. CBC has been speaking to people in Kursk, hearing about Russians disillusioned by their own government, and conscripts surrendering to Ukrainians.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1826629421236977861

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to the constituencies

Posted on by

At long last, the children—and by “children,” I mean MPs—have gone home for the summer. Finally. Not before there wasn’t another last-ditch effort by Conservatives to try and demand more committee hearings over the summer, because they need clips for their socials, after all. I also find it particularly strange that the Conservatives have been phrasing their condemnations that the other parties want to go back to their ridings to “vacation” for the summer, because normally MPs are extremely precious about the fact that this is not a break because they have sO mUcH wOrK tO dO in their constituencies and that if they had their druthers they’d do even more work in their constituencies and less in Ottawa, so this feels like the Conservatives making a tacit admission that they don’t do work in their constituencies. (I know they’re not, but this is what happens when you make dumb arguments to score points).

This being said, MPs are absolutely behaving like children over all of this, and they all need a gods damned time out, not that I expect things to get much better in the fall because the incentives for this kind of behaviour remain—it’s all about getting clicks and engagement on their socials, and acting like children gets them that, apparently. It’s too bad the incentives aren’t there for them to act like adults, but the world has gone stupid.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians resumed air attacks on Ukrainian power facilities. (Timeline of such attacks here). The fire at the oil terminal in southern Rostov burned for a second day after Ukraine’s drone strike. Here’s a look at how Russian glide bombs have accelerated the time it takes for them to destroy front-line settlements in Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1803342727267885346

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates what little credibility he had left

Posted on by

It looks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, decided to extend his “winning” streak and cover himself in glory at the Commons’ finance committee yesterday, and once again immolated what credibility he has left. Defending his report, claiming he had access to a confidential report from Environment Canada that he was “gagged” from releasing (which the Conservatives jumped on and launched a thousand shitposts about, because committees are now only about content generation), lamented that the government doesn’t publish more climate modelling of their own, and how he hates how his reports are politicised, even though he’s been at this job for years and knows full well that PBO reports are always politicised, because that’s why MPs like them—so that they can both wield those reports as a cudgel, while hiding behind the shield of the PBO’s non-partisan “credibility” to keep the government from attacking it.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1797780078203671008

https://twitter.com/prairiecentrist/status/1797691621708054916

While this Tony Keller column lays out four major problems with the original carbon price report that the PBO produced—which again, Giroux continues to not really apologise for—energy economist Andrew Leach has some additional comments, driving home both how shallow the analysis is, and the fact that it’s not replicable because the PBO studiously refuses to explain his methodology, relying on “trust us, that’s our job.” But as we saw on P&P and again at finance committee, he complained that the government should be doing this kind of modelling work when it’s literally his one statutorily legislated job to do.

And to be helpful, Jennifer Robson provides some unsolicited advice on how the PBO could make his methodologies more transparent, if he actually wanted to do that (which I doubt, because so many of his reports rely on his pulling a novel methodology out of his ass, according to the many economists I’ve interviewed in the past). But that’s also part of the point about why he has no credibility left, and why he should start drafting that resignation letter.

https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/1797817128483254759

Ukraine Dispatch:

A civilian was killed in a Russian strike on a recreation facility in Kharkiv. Here’s a look at what to expect from Ukraine’s peace summit to be held in Switzerland next week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A question with the intention to intimidate

Posted on by

Conservative MP Chris Warkentin has put a question on the Order Paper asking whether a number of economists have received any government contracts, and for any information about those contracts if they have been the recipient. While Stephen Gordon responds for himself below, it was also noted that all of the economists listed (who include names like Kevin Milligan, Andrew Leach, and Mike Moffatt) are all male, which I’m sure is just a coincidence and not indicative of a mentality that they think there’s no such thing as a “lady economist.”

This having been said, I think it’s important to point out that what Warkentin is doing here, on behalf of the party, is directly out of the authoritarian playbook. Number one of the seven key tactics in that playbook are to politicise independent institutions (and university academics would qualify), while number four on that list is about quashing dissent, and many of these names are economists who signed onto that open letter about the value of carbon pricing (which, to reiterate, was not defending the Liberal policy because it’s not actually carbon pricing, but a carbon levy plus regulation and subsidies). The Order Paper question is a shot across the bow that they are looking for anything to discredit these economists as partisan hacks whose expertise can be discounted for that reason. It’s about as subtle as a ham-fist, but they don’t care because they’re riding high in the polls. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be alive to what they’re doing, because it absolutely matters.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A missile strike in Kharkiv has killed at least seven civilians, as the Russian assault continues. Russians have also taken control of the village of Andriivka, southwest of Bakhmut. Russian jamming has also prevented many of Ukraine’s newer glide bombs from hitting their intended targets.

Continue reading →

QP: The “refusing to rule out” ploy

Posted on by

On a bright and sunny Tuesday in the nation’s capital, both the prime minister and his deputy were present for QP, as were most of the other leaders (some of whom stated they would be here but were not). Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried that the city of Montreal has requested the “legalization of hard drugs” in their communities, and wanted an admission that what happened in BC was a “deadly mistake,” lest the prime minister repeat the same problem. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with BC on modifying their project, and that they are working only with provinces, and no other requests have been made. Poilievre switched to a English to ask if the prime minster supports decriminalisation for using drugs in parks, hospitals or public transit, and Trudeau repeated his answer. Poilievre pointed out that Trudeau refused to answer his question, and suspected it means he wants to impose the same “radical” policy elsewhere. Trudeau said that nobody supports that, but that Poilievre was trying to use tragedies to score political points, and took a jab at Poilievre for willing to suspend Charter rights if he feels it suits him. Poilievre accused the prime minister of secretly planning to impose “legalisation” on Toronto, and Trudeau reminded him that they will only with with provinces, not the municipalities directly. Poilievre said that Trudeau was not ruling out future extensions, which was obviously ridiculous, before he accused the prime minister of killing more people in the meantime. Trudeau said that they only took three days to approve BC’s completed request, and that the opposition was only scoring cheap points.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and accused the government of threatening French, to which Trudeau gave a paean about defending the French language and language minorities around the country, while the Bloc was just picking fights. Blanchet raised comments by an MP about “extremists,” and Trudeau said that they stand for protecting French across the country. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP in French, and took swipes at Conservatives for not supporting pharmacare legislation, and exhorted the government to support them in passing it (which is dumb, because it’s the government who needs their support as it’s government legislation). Trudeau thanked the NDP for their support, and said that the Conservatives were against it because their anti-choice members opposed contraception. Leah Gazan took the question in English, with more of an emphasis on birth control instead of diabetes, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s sad display of performative toughness

Posted on by

In a Parliament that is mired in some of the worst theatrics imaginable, it’s hard to think about something that could possibly take the cake, and yet, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh certainly tried with his sad, pathetic performance over the weekend. To wit: The government started debate on the pharmacare legislation at the end of last week, and Conservative MP Stephen Ellis put forward a “reasoned amendment” at the bill be killed at second reading for *handwaves* reasons. Singh would not stand for this, so he…wrote a strongly worded letter, and threatened the Conservatives that he would not stand for delays. And then put out some press releases to show how tough he was in sending that strongly-worded letter. And lo, the deadline he gave the Conservatives to withdraw their amendment came to pass, and wouldn’t you just know it—nothing happened.

The thing with these “reasoned amendments” is that the Conservatives are now moving them on every piece of legislation because it essentially adds time to the clock, which they can use to then run out the clock, again and again, blocking the ability for the government to get more legislation through the process. It’s a tactic that is supposed to be used as a last resort for very serious matters, but it’s being used routinely now, because this is who the Conservatives are, and they will do absolutely anything to keep the government from moving on its agenda. There is a lot that could be written about the absolute degrees of procedural warfare that has taken place over the last few years that have bogged the government and its agenda down entirely, but I’ll get around to it at a later date.

Suffice to say, this is just one more example of Singh making himself (and his party) irrelevant. He keeps pretending he’s going to be tough on the government for their budgets, and then goes along with them (per the Supply and Confidence Agreement). After each song and dance, he swallows himself whole, and then pats himself on the back for how much he accomplished in that budget (never mind that the NDP did absolutely none of the work, but still take full credit for everything). This attempt to “threaten” the Conservatives is just yet more sad spectacle, and it showcases just ineffective he really is.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Russian drone attack on the power facilities in Sumy region wound up cutting power to 400,000 consumers. Russian forces claim to have taken control of two more villages—Soloviove, and Kotliarivka, and Ukrainian bloggers appear to corroborate this claim.

Continue reading →

QP: Continued weaponising of human misery

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town today, he was not in QP, though his deputy was on the day that “debate” began on the budget implementation bill. Most of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he worried about the cost of housing in Quebec, and lurid tales of certain people in media who have lost their homes. Sean Fraser got up to praise their agreement with Quebec to build more affordable housing. Poilievre dismissed this as “more expensive processes,” and took a shot at the Bloc for agreeing to government spending, and falsely blaming that on inflation. Chrystia Freeland praised the government’s plan to build more housing and for the green industrial transition, which the Conservatives voted against, before patting herself on the back for the renewed Moody’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre switched to English to blame the government for the approximately sixty deaths that happened over the past ten days, as though they were solely because of decriminalisation. Ya’ara Saks stood up to say the problem is the toxic drug supply, and that were working with BC to amending their decriminalisation proposal. Poilievre insisted that they need to ban hard drugs and get people into treatment, and called the policy “insane.” Saks said they were working on a comprehensive solution with BC, and called out misinformation on the file. Poilievre went full Helen Lovejoy to worry about needles in parks, which have been happening for decades, and this time Freeland stood up to reiterate that they are working with BC, and to pour scorn on the opposition for trying to score points on this tragedy. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed about the possibility of CBC and Radio-Canada being brought closer together, and demanded they be kept independent. Pascale St-Onge said that French services will not be affected by internal restructuring, and that their position was closed to the Conservatives on trying to pit CBC and Radio-Canada against one another. Therrien again raised this spectre of a merger and St-Onge pointed out how the Conservatives were applauding the Bloc position, which spoke volumes.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, to decry the Conservative amendment to block contraception in pharmacare legislation, and Mark Holland got up to give a paean about women having control over their own bodies. Singh repeated the question in French, and Holland repeated his paean in French as well. 

Continue reading →