Let's start with Morneau and what has to be one of the most rapid turnarounds/reversals I have ever witnessed in politics. On Monday, I was delighted to learn that Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins had resigned his post to head an Ottawa study into pharmacare, a universal program covering drug costs for all, a feature of all countries with universal health care save Canada. Then, less than two days later, Morneau 'clarified' his intention (doubtless after hearing from the pharmaceutical and private insurance companies) that
a new national pharmacare program will be "fiscally responsible" and designed to fill in gaps, not provide prescription drugs for Canadians already covered by existing plans.
Why the walkback/misdirection? Well, part of the allure of real pharmacare is the fact that bulk-buying of drugs means massive savings. This, however, does not sit well with the powerful pharmaceutical industry.
Traditionally, they have threatened to stop manufacturing drugs in jurisdictions that engage aggressively in bulk buying.Consequently, Morneau is now facing conflict of interest accusations on the pharmacare file.
The Canadian Federation of Nurses, Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Labour Congress wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demanding Morneau be removed from the file.Moneau's cowardice has earned the scorn of The Toronto Star:
They said he has already decided it will not be a universal “plan” that covers all workers, merely a “strategy” to fill in the gaps for those who currently don’t have coverage — to the detriment of Canadians, and the benefit of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and, they suggested, Morneau Shepell.
They said it contradicts “overwhelming evidence” on the need for a universal program and undermines the work of Hoskins’ council before it begins.
“It is our hope that insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry interests will not play a role in the implementation of universal public pharmacare,” the letter to Trudeau states.
...the projected savings that have made comprehensive drug coverage such a popular proposal in policy circles depend in large part upon the program’s universality. Most of the savings created by a pharmacare program would be achieved through the bulk-buying of drugs and the elimination of bureaucracies – potential benefits at least partly forgone by the sort of means-tested approach that Morneau is hinting at.Increasingly, the Trudeau government is proving itself to be a massive disappointment to progressives in Canada who, unlike some, demand substance, not just the vapid photo-ops that are coming to define this government.
Morneau doesn’t really mean “fiscally responsible.” He means politically palatable. With no plan to return to a balanced budget, the finance minister wants nothing to do with the inevitable initial costs of such a project, even if avoiding these means forgoing enormous long-term savings.
In Part 2, I will look at International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau's plans to cut the private sector in for a piece of the foreign aid action.
For anyone whose image of the Liberal Party was formed prior to the Chretien era and, especially, the Ignatieff and Trudeau period, today's Liberal governance is, as you call it, "a massive disappointment."
ReplyDeleteTrudeau is socially liberal on matters of gender and some aspects of inequality (but by no means most) but he is faithful to neoliberalism on just about everything else. This requires a healthy and resilient capacity for cognitive dissonance, something Mr. Trudeau regularly reminds us he has in abundance. A devout neoliberal cloaked in his father's buckskins.
It also makes some demands on the electorate's critical-thinking skills, something that many people are either lacking or happy to park away when it comes to Justin and his merry band, Mound.
DeleteAs I read this post and Owen's my mind turned to electoral reform. If we had some type of electoral reform, the sort that prevents false majorities and, in essence, restores political power to the voting public, would that put paid to these neoliberal antics and the litany of broken election promises? Is it likely we would have had the same iteration of a prime minister Trudeau had he been democratically accountable? Trudeau and Harper before him have measured their threshold of honesty and accountability on their perceived ability to win another majority with the support of 39 or 40% of the voting public. If 40% of the vote translated into 40% of the seats, the support of the public would be vital to governance. Vox Populi indeed.
ReplyDeleteYou have called it most accurately here, Mound. What surprised me was how quickly the old Liberal arrogance reasserted itself, despite having spent a considerable amount of time in the political wilderness. Electoral reform would be a effective tonic, but restoratives like it seem far off in some distant future.
Delete