While the prime minister was in town, he opted to take a pass on Question Period today, as did a couple of other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he led off by praising overinflated praise for Teck Frontier, and he wanted to know how the PM personally felt about the “cancellation,” which was actually a withdrawal. Chrystia Freeland responded by stating that it was a difficult decision for the company, before listing the projects they support and have been getting built. Scheer accused the prime minister of not having the strength to stare down radical activists, to which Freeland that reconciling climate action and resource projects is challenging and not helped by extreme rhetoric. Scheer breathily accused the government of sitting on Teck’s approval since July, to which Freeland took exception to the rhetoric, and stated that the country needed to find a path forward on getting projects built while combatting climate change, and it was a complex task. Alain Rayes took over in French to decry Trudeau’s lack of leadership, and demanded the rail blockades be ended, to which Freeland read that Trudeau showed leadership when he said that the injunctions needed to upheld before mentioning that Carolyn Bennett was on the ground meeting with the hereditary chiefs. Rayes demanded a date for all of the blockades would be down, to which Freeland reiterated her response. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and accused the lack of leadership from the PM for creating the rail blockades in Quebec, for which Freeland underscored that they were all working together to combat the challenges, and thanked the Bloc for their constructive suggestions on the New NAFTA. Therrien tried to “I told you so” on the meetings with the Wet’suwet’en, to which Freeland repeated that Trudeau showed significant leadership and That Bennett was on the ground. Jagmeet Singh was up for the Bloc, and demanded that the prime minister personally meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland somewhat didactically stated that this was a BC problem, and the government was working closely with them. Singh listed dates Trudeau met with corporate lobbyists but not the hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland stated that the PM has worked harder and more sincerely toward reconciliation than any prime minister in history, before touting Bennett’s meeting.
Tag Archives: Pharmacare
QP: Some clarity on a willingness to meet
After a number of statements about the need to stop bullying in support of Pink Shirt Day, things got underway for proto-PMQ day. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a bunch of concern trolling about Teck Frontier, pretending that the project was economically viable when it was not. Justin Trudeau calmly responded that Teck pulled their own application and that they pointed to the need for credible environmental plans. Scheer then made up some bullshit about global commodity prices not bring an issue, to which Trudeau stated that you can have a jobs plan without an environmental plan. Scheer scoffed and stated that Trudeau had no plan, and blamed Trudeau for the problems in Western Canada, to which Trudeau responded that the statistics showed that they helped created a million new jobs, and lifted a million people out of poverty. Scheer blustered about how that couldn’t possibly be true, before switching to French to call Trudeau weak over the rail blockades. Trudeau stated that they needed to find a peaceful but sustainable resolution, and that aggressive and simplistic solutions like those the Conservatives proposed would not help. Scheer returned to English to claim that the Wet’suwet’en people really wanted the project and that Extinction Rebellion was listed as a terrorist organization (which is false), to which Trudeau said he was concerned that Scheer described the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs as “radical protesters,” which the Conservatives shouted him down over twice. Yves-François Blanchet wondered if Trudeau would unilaterally implement UNDRIP, to which Trudeau read that he was disappointed that the Conservatives stopped UNDRIP legislation in the last parliament. Blanchet reiterated the desire to immediately move ahead with such legislation, and would get Bloc support, to which Trudeau said they would table such legislation soon, before listing their accomplishments toward reconciliation thus far. Jagmeet a Singh was up next, and he demanded that Trudeau commit to meeting with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau noted that the NDP was focused on simplistic solutions when it is complex and that the minister is willing to meet him at any point. Singh repeated the demand, and Trudeau stated that there is a diversity of voices in the Wet’suwet’en community, and he didn’t want to influence the community’s internal discussions by only sitting down with one group.
He didn’t imply it — he stated it outright. #QP https://t.co/QSaYmgmsaL
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 26, 2020
Scheer said: " … Extinction Rebellion, an organization that has been listed as a terrorist organization in the United Kingdom."
Again, that's not true according to the Home Office's proscribed list. https://t.co/A8zfohGi87
— Alex Boutilier (@alexboutilier) February 26, 2020
QP: Blockades and Teck
With protests going on outside of Parliament Hill, and a whole lot of performative bluster going on over the cancellation of the Teck Frontier mine inside the House of Commons, all of the leaders were present for the theatrics that were to come. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some condemnation about Trudeau’s alleged weakness and demanded to know how a future blockade would be handled. Scheer turned to English and started immediately getting breathy as he railed that there was a playbook for future radical activists, to which Trudeau reminded him that by cherry-picking only the Wet’suwet’en who agreed with him, Scheer demonstrated that he didn’t understand reconciliation. Scheer then pivoted to the Teck cancellation, and tried to make a connection to Trudeau allegedly breaking the law over SNC-Lavalin’s activities but his point got a bit lost after that. Trudeau reminded him that the message from Teck’s CEO was that you can’t have projects if you don’t have a credible plan on climate change. Scheer got increasingly breathy as he read condemnation, to which Trudeau stated that the opposition has refused to understand that the world is changing, and that global investors have indicated that they need to see strong action on climate change. Scheer then listed a number of falsehoods about Teck Frontier meeting requirements, for which Trudeau quoted Teck’s CEO’s support for climate pricing and regulations, and accused the Conservatives’ polarization for putting the economy at risk. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and wondered why there wasn’t action on getting the barricades removed. Trudeau stated that even though the RCMP withdrew from the affected area and the barricades didn’t come down, they had to escalate the situation. Blanchet worried things would get worse, and Trudeau reiterated his previous points. Jagmeet Singh was up next in French, putting the blame personally on Trudeau for not bringing down the barricades peacefully, to which Trudeau stated that they came to the table in good faith but other parties involved did not. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau reiterated that when there was no reciprocal openness to dialogue from the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, they changed their posture.
QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec
While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.
Trying to wedge parole board officers in the judicial training bill is a ludicrous overreach. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 4, 2020
Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules
My tolerance for ginned-up outrage is mighty thin, and it was exceeded yesterday as a certain media outlet ran a completely bullshit story about how in the last fiscal year, $105 million of Veterans Affairs’ budget went unspent and was returned to the consolidated revenue fund rather than simply kept in the department for the following year as the government “promised” to do following a completely inane NDP Supply Day motion a year previous. The story is one hundred percent not worth anyone’s time, and we have a media outlet who has decided to waste precious resources into putting a disingenuous framing mechanism around an NDP press release and calling it accountability.
To be clear: the whole premise of this “outrage” is the fact that the NDP have deliberately ignored how accounting and budgeting rules work in order to dial up a fake controversy for the sake of scoring outrage points in the media. The unspent money from Veterans Affairs is because they’re a demand-based department – they estimate how much they’ll need to deliver services to veterans every year, and if the funds don’t all get spent, then the law states that money goes back to general revenue, and reallocated in the following year’s budget. This does not mean there is deliberate under-spending – it means that they overestimated what the demand for services would be in an abundance of caution. And yes, there are backlogs in the department, but when you have capacity issues because they can’t hire enough qualified staff at the drop of a hat (after the previous government let hundreds of them go), you can’t just throw that “leftover” money at that problem. Pretending that it works otherwise is frankly dishonest.
One of the journalists at said outlet took exception to my calling out the disingenuous framing and insisted that the government shouldn’t have promised not to keep the funds in the department if they didn’t intend to keep the promise – and I would almost accept that as a valid argument except for the whole promise in and of itself was the result of shenanigans. The NDP’s whole Supply Day motion last year was illusory outrage, and government explained over and over how accounting rules and demand-based departments work, but if they voted against the (non-binding) motion, they would be voting against veterans and it would be bad optics. The path of least resistance is to vote for it and just keep following the rules. Because what is the alternative – vote for it, and then bring in new legislation to contort the accounting rules for this one-off bit of faux outrage over a non-scandal that is the direct result of a party that deliberately misstated how said accounting rules work in order to try to generate headlines? How is that a productive use of anyone’s time or energy? It would be great if we could get certain media outlets to engage in some critical thinking and not fall for this kind of transparent spin, and then gin it up as though it were a real scandal. We all have better things to do.
To recap: I spent time this week calling out the government for weaselling out on a promise that has life-and-death consequences for vulnerable people.
I did not give oxygen to the performative outrage of MPs who deliberately misconstrue accounting rules. https://t.co/pneGv9JGyC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 31, 2020
QP: Platitudes and the Parole Board
After a number of members’ statements dedicated to both the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and #BellLetsTalk, and a moment of silence for the mosque shooting, things got down to business with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about MasterCard getting government funding. Trudeau responded with some bland platitudes about growing the Middle Class™. Scheer tried again, got much the same response, and then Scheer demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine be approved. Trudeau said that railing about activists and celebrities didn’t help the energy sector, but working in partnership with all sectors and Indigenous people was the path forward. Scheer then switched to French to ask about a parole case, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they had ordered an investigation into the Parole Board’s decision. Scheer switched to English to lie about Trudeau apparently opposing mandatory minimum sentences for violent murderers, and Trudeau repeated his answer in English. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, to get back to his usual complaints about aluminium under the New NAFTA, and Trudeau gave his usual assurances that there are new content guarantees that don’t exist currently. Blanchet threatened to vote against the Ways and Means motion on the treaty, and Trudeau listed the good things about the agreement. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he worried about evacuating Canadians from China — something that was addressed in a press conference moments before QP began. Trudeau read a statement about their concern, and that they were working to assist the 160 Canadians who had contacted them. Singh then raised that MasterCard contract instead of giving that money to pharmacare, and Trudeau stood up to correct him as to the actions they have taken to make prescription drugs more affordable.
QP: A conciliatory note, and then a lie
And we’re back. While Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, and most, but not all other leaders were as well. After a moment of silence for the victims of PS752, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk as usual, and he asked for progress on bringing PS752 victims home and holding perpetrators to account. Trudeau thanked him for the question, and picked up a script to note that they were supporting victims, and what he told the Iranian President directly. Scheer thanked him, and then moved onto cancelled energy projects and lied about the cost of living versus wages and demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau reminded him that they were growing the economy while protecting the environment. Scheer then stated that the government was destroying the energy sector — again, falsely — and lamented deficit spending, to which Trudeau reminded him that they made the choice to invest, and it was paying off. Scheer then switched to gang violence and claimed the government was taking the “lazy approach” of targeting lawful gun owners, to which Trudeau took up a script to list the measures they were taking. Scheer then moved onto the survey which stated that Canada dropped three spots on the transparency ranking (which is a self-reported metric), to which Trudeau listed ways in which Canada was strong on the international stage. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and raised a potential deportation case and demanded that the minister intervene. Trudeau, with script, to read a platitude about how they examine each case based on merit, and said that they were aware of the case but could not speak to it. Christine Normandin raised the question again, and Trudeau repeated his response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded did that the government immediately pay the compensation for First Nations children demanded by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Trudeau reminded him that they are working on reconciliation, noted the new approvals under Jordan’s Principle, and that they were still working on the issue. Singh then demanded immediate action on pharmacare and claimed he has a bill to immediately implement it (which a private members’ bill can’t do), and Trudeau took a script to list actions they have taken to reduce drug prices and noted they were negotiating with the provinces.
Second question and Scheer falsely says that wages have stagnated and not kept up with the cost of living. That is not true. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 27, 2020
Roundup: Promising an improper bill
As part of his press scrums coming out of pre-sitting caucus meetings, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh declared that the party’s first private members’ bill would be to make universal pharmacare a reality. And apparently no one in the media pushed back against this, because let me tell you, it’s a whole lot of hand-wavey bullshit, and it quite literally goes against the rules of Parliament.
Seriously? How is this remotely going to be voteable and not require a Royal Recommendation, or compel the government to negotiate with the provinces (let alone force provinces to agree) given that it’s an area of provincial responsibility? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/MGITZSIllf
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 23, 2020
For the uninitiated, private members’ bills have a very limited scope, and they are not allowed to spend public funds. To spend public funds, you need a Royal Recommendation, which only the government can provide. (It would have been nice if The Canadian Press article could mention that fact rather than simply say that PMBs have a tougher time passing). You can’t make pharmacare a reality without money, and given that it’s an area of provincial jurisdiction, it’s likely any bill would be unvoteable. In his release, Singh says he wants to legislate the necessary criteria by which provinces will get funding for the programme, which is a very interesting way to go about negotiating something that is in their area of jurisdiction. (Also, Singh’s constant line that Trudeau is somehow acting on the bidding of Big Pharma ignores that they are not happy with him, particularly over the changes the government made to the Patented Medicines Price Review Board – essentially, Singh is lying for the sake of a talking point he’s borrowing from the Justice Democrat crowd in the US). Singh also says that restoring the health transfer escalator will bring the provinces onside, which holy cow is a lot of money, but also ignores that the escalator was rising faster than healthcare spending, so it meant provinces were using that money for other things. But it’s only money, right?
You can’t just handwave this. I point this out over Twitter, and every NDP apologist under the sun insists that a) this is about keeping pressure on the government, and b) that the Liberals have somehow backed away from their campaign promise, which is false. The campaign promise was a $6 billion “down payment” while they negotiate with the provinces, because it’s largely provincial jurisdiction. They committed to following the Hoskins report, and already started with the creation of some of the necessary organizational tools necessary. A few days ago, the health minister said she couldn’t guarantee that it would happen during this parliament because it’s contingent upon negotiation with the provinces – provinces who are publicly reluctant, and we haven’t even broached the subject of how to negotiate a national formulary, which is a Very Big Deal and integral to any pharmacare system. And yet Singh was out promising that this could be done by 2020, because since when are these kinds of negotiations a problem? Yeah, that’s not how this works, kids, and lying about what Trudeau promised in order to justify Singh’s promises doesn’t make you a hero.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1220070604872671232
Roundup: The reality of negotiation
As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.
“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.
What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).
And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.
Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy
As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.
“I can’t. I’m Middle Class. I used to have ponies.”
My mind flashes back to this scene every time this government deploys their Middle Class™ talking points. https://t.co/P2nvnNlnwP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 23, 2019
And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.
What is a recession? pic.twitter.com/eCzDBKaJzV
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) December 17, 2019
On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.