LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Just over a year ago the Quebec National Assembly agreed to Bill 190, “An Act to recognize the Members’ oath to the people of Québec as the sole oath required for Members to take office.”

In Quebec’s case this effectively does away with the oath to the British monarch for provincial legislators still prescribed in what we now call the Constitution Act, 1867. And some experts argue Quebec’s Bill 190 is unconstitutional.

Errol Mendes at the University of Ottawa believes the Quebec National Assembly does not have the power to do away with the traditional oath to the monarch by itself (even with the assent of the federal government).

But, he has observed, “stunningly it looks as if they may get away with it.”

In some similar spirit, this past December 7, 2023  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “announced the appointment of Manon Jeannotte as the new Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.”

The very next day the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved a motion to end the office of Quebec’s provincial lieutenant governor — still  theoretically a  representative of the monarch across the sea.

The office was characterized as “a symbol of colonialism,” and the motion called for “its replacement by a democratic institution.”

Set beside recent opinion poll buoyancy for both the Bloc and Parti Québécois (if not exactly “Quebec sovereignty”), all this underlines a deep if for some still uncomfortable truth. No Canada that includes a francophone-majority Quebec in any serious way can continue to pay colonial homage to the new King who lives in the United Kingdom.

(And this even seems ultimately workable coast to coast to coast, when recent opinion polls also suggest close to two-thirds of Canadians at large already do not believe Charles III’s monarchy has a long-term future in Canada.)

Similarly, as one step on a longer journey, democratizing the current office of lieutenant governor in Quebec is far from impossible.

It could equally be done without at all disrupting the current machinery of Canadian government. For real-world examples here see Canada’s fellow former British dominions of Ireland and India, and such other more generic parliamentary democracies as Iceland and Germany.

It is at least arguable as well that some reasonable interpretation of sections 41 and 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 could sanction a related constitutional amendment.

The major practical political problem with any serious democratization of the office of lieutenant governor and/or governor general is that it will cancel the Prime Minister of Canada’s current power to effectively appoint the holders of these offices.

Very briefly, one of history’s many cunning passages has rather irrationally given the head of government in our present political system the power to appoint the (de facto) head of state.

As Allan Levine’s 2011 biography clarifies, one of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’s objectives in the King-Byng Affair of 1926, and subsequent Statue of Westminster in 1931, was to transfer the practical power to appoint Canadian governor generals from the British to the Canadian prime minister.

A side effect was to seriously weaken the governor general’s reserve power as a non-partisan constitutional referee — in decisions for example to prorogue parliaments and/or call elections. This has enhanced the power of the Canadian prime minister. And what holder of the office today is going to give this power up?

Yet in 2024 or (most likely?) 2025 Justin Trudeau will be trying to become the first Canadian prime minister to win four consecutive federal elections in more than 115 years!

He may even want to make clear that a fifth consecutive contest would be impossible. And this kind of prime minister might be willing to leave office with more democratic governor generals and lieutenant governors for the Canadian long-term future as his highest high-policy legacy.

Probably not, of course, on several grounds. (Just one of the surprises about Justin Trudeau is that he does seem to be at least a pragmatic monarchist of sorts.)

Yet again, some test case on democratizing the lieutenant governor of Quebec could still have more limited surprise attractions for Prime Minister Trudeau in 2024 and perhaps 2025 — in a new age when pollsters are reporting “Conservatives making inroads in Quebec.”

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Lacking in both remorse and repentance, Liberal House Leader Karina Gould recently admitted to reporters that her government would not meet its 2023 deadline to enact pharmacare legislation.

I don’t think we’re going to get it passed by the end of this year,” Gould told the press, “but we’ll definitely keep working” she added, almost cheerfully.

With the House of Commons holiday break fast approaching, her message shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. By the time Gould finally acknowledged her government’s tardiness, there were only twelve sitting days left in the calendar year. As fellow Loonie Politics columnist Dale Smith has written, even 20 sitting days would likely have been insufficient to pass legislation. Twelve would have been unthinkable.

The NDP should have been the most frustrated by this development. After all, pharmacare is their signature policy demand.

Instead of ramping up the pressure, though, and lambasting the government for its poor punctuality, they meekly allowed the Liberals to continue procrastinating.

Perhaps they thought they could not leverage any more policy wins this year (after the Liberals tabled its anti-scab bill). Or perhaps the holiday season has made them overly charitable. Either way, they need to be much tougher on their supply-and-confidence partners.

Because believe me, the Liberals knew how long it would take to pass pharmacare legislation. They also knew all the necessary steps it would take to draft, introduce, and debate that legislation, before seeking its passage through both the House of Commons and the Senate.

But they dawdled and delayed, lingered and loitered, showing a complete disregard for the assurances they once made.

Now, as 2023 comes to an end, they have next to nothing to show for themselves. No Canada Pharmacare Act. No list of essential medicines from the National Drug Agency. No bulk purchasing plan. Nothing.

The answer why, is quite simple. It’s not a result of finite funds, or a struggling economy, as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has suggested.

Rather, it is because the wealthy pharmaceutical and insurance industries are hell-bent on maintaining Canada’s inadequate patchwork of drug coverage plans. And they have unleashed the full power of their lobbying efforts to keep it that way.

These industry types don’t care that approximately 7.5 million (one in five) Canadians either have no prescription drug insurance or lack adequate insurance, under the current status quo. Or that almost one million Canadians had to forgo heating their homes and spending money on food to fill their prescription. Or that three million others simply went without their necessary medication.

Immense profit is their only concern, and they’ll have it, so long as they can prevent the government from lowering the obscenely high price of prescription drugs in this country.

As many in academia, civil society, and leftist political circles have long advocated, a single-payer, universal pharmacare system is the best solution to bring drug prices down. At the same time, it will improve the health of millions of Canadians, while saving the country billions.

In a recent 2023 study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that such a system would result in $1.4 billion in annual savings. By 2027-28, those savings would rise closer to $2.2 billion.

Others, like University of British Columbia professor Steve Morgan, and Carleton University professor Marc-Andre Gagnon, anticipate much greater annual savings. According to their estimates, pharmacare could save anywhere between $7.3 and $11.4 billion, respectively.

While various experts differ in their projections, all agree that pharmacare, and access to more affordable drugs, will reduce hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

Alas, as transformational as the system would be, the likelihood of it getting implemented, much less enduring beyond the current Liberal tenure in office, appears tenuous at best.

Even if the NDP succeeds in pressuring the Liberals to adopt a universal, single-payer pharmacare system – their preferred system – it may be too late to become effectively entrenched from C/conservative assault.

For the entirety of his eight years in office, Justin Trudeau has had to contend with fierce hostility from the Conservative Party of Canada. They have outright opposed – and even vowed to scrap – almost every policy they deem remotely progressive, regardless of its merit.

Take the carbon tax, for instance.

Knowing how controversial the new tax would be, Trudeau attempted to neutralize its threats. He allowed provinces to create and administer their own carbon pricing systems, sent rebate cheques to low- and middle-income citizens, and bought a multi-billion-dollar pipeline to help justify its existence. Still not satisfied, Trudeau also introduced carbon contracts to, among other things, help secure the survival of his emissions pricing scheme.

If you think that means the tax is safe, though, think again.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has unequivocally promised to “axe the tax” should he become prime minister. And you can bet he will do the same to a future pharmacare program.

If the NDP wants to ensure pharmacare lives on after this government, they are going to have to demand an end to Liberal tardiness. Already, it may be too late.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

Opinion poll guru Éric Grenier has recently noted that PM Justin Trudeau is “in a deep polling hole.” And “few prime ministers have dug themselves out this far out from an election.”

Assume, in other words, that the National Post is wrong. An “enfeebled Trudeau” does not have “the NDP seriously reconsidering its support.”

As the March 2022 supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and New Democrats broadly envisions, the next federal election in Canada probably will take place not quite two years from now, in the fall of 2025.

Yet, Mr. Grenier points out, even with this kind of  contest, historically only two federal leaders with equally bad (or worse) polling numbers this far away have gone on to win the next election.

Both were Conservatives. The more recent is Brian Mulroney. His party was 15 points behind in 1986, but then won a majority of seats in the 1988 election. (Justin Trudeau is 14 points behind in 2023, awaiting an election in 2025 — again probably.)

Some 30 years before this, John Diefenbaker’s party in 1956 was 16 points behind, under George Drew. Then Dief succeeded Drew that December. And the Diefenbaker Progressive Conservatives won the biggest election victory in Canadian history in 1958.

Both the 1958 and 1988 federal elections had unusual features. Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis gave an unexpected boost to Diefenbaker in 1958. The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was the key issue in 1988!

The Justin Trudeau who has  already won three consecutive federal elections in 2015, 2019, and 2021 (albeit with two minority governments), is swimming against the historical tide in another way as well. The last Canadian PM to win four elections in a row was Wilfrid Laurier in 1908.

At the same time, today’s calculations stressing points behind the poll leader may be misleading.

Consider the latest 338Canada polling projections. They give the Conservatives an almost astounding 205 seats (where 170 is a bare majority) in a federal election held  now. But they still show the Liberals and NDP together with more of the cross-Canada popular vote (45%) than the Conservatives (40%).

Moreover, if you add the Greens and (say) about half the Bloc Québécois vote to the progressive equation, the current broadest quasi-governing group in parliament, intermittently identified with PM Justin Trudeau, would get 52% of the popular vote in a federal election held right now.

Similarly, Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats did recently support  Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative motion to exempt all home heating from the federal carbon tax. But this was only after NDP House leader Peter Julian pronounced the Poilievre pitch “clearly not a confidence motion.”

(And, as it happened, the NDP only voted for the Conservative motion after Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet had announced that his MPs would vote against it, alongside the Trudeau Liberals. The motion was finally defeated 186 to 135 in the House.)

In such ways the second Justin Trudeau Liberal minority government, supported on crucial supply and confidence votes by Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats (and others), does at the moment seem to stand a reasonable chance of surviving until October 2025.

Very recently the prime minister looked very strong in the House as well, in a spirited early November exchange with Official Opposition Leader Poilievre, on divisiveness in Canadian politics. More of this could help Justin Trudeau overcome dissatisfaction inside his own party, and run as leader again in 2025 (as his plan still does seem to be).

If current polling trends carry on into 2024 and beyond, whenever the next federal election exactly happens the Poilievre Conservatives may finally win something like the 211 seats won by the Mulroney Conservatives in 1984. (When John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as Liberal leader.)

On the other hand, however inexact they may be as Liberal models of 2023 and 2025, the Diefenbaker Conservatives in 1956 and 1958, and the Mulroney Conservatives in 1986 and 1988, do show that coming back from polling holes even somewhat deeper than Justin Trudeau’s at the moment is not historically unprecedented.

Much stirring of political plots around the world is in the air right now — along with many unpredictable human calculations. What, just as an example, if the part of the female vote that lately seems to have abandoned PM Trudeau returns to the fold?

As Kaniz Supriya at the online Business Standard site explained this past summer, “Justin … is probably one of the most good-looking prime ministers in history.”

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.