To accuse your political opponent of being a liar is so serious a charge that the word is banned in legislatures. And so when federal Health Minister Mark Holland last week told a reporter that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was lying about pharmacare, he levelled a grave accusation.
But was that accusation of lying itself true?
Mr. Poilievre had said he would not support the government’s new pharmacare legislation because, he claimed, it would require people who had prescription plans through their workplace to move over to the government’s plan.
Except the legislation as it currently exists does not do that. It offers contraceptive and diabetic medication through a government plan to those who have no plan of their own. But no one is required to abandon their existing arrangement. Mr. Holland said the Conservative Leader was “spreading what are out-and-out lies.”
For some political observers, Mr. Poilievre’s remarks were symptomatic of a dangerous new trend that is being spread by right-wing populists and personified by former U.S. president Donald Trump: peddling conspiratorial untruths to rally uninformed voters to their side. Like everything in politics, however, the reality is more complicated.
Mr. Holland left out a key fact, a bit of mendacity-by-omission. While the existing pharmacare legislation does not compel universal public access today, it aspires to that eventual end. Bill C-64 states that it seeks to improve “the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs … with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.”
So while covered workers will not lose their private plan tomorrow, they may lose it some day. Mr. Poilievre could and should have made that distinction. But his words were not the bald-faced lie that Mr. Holland said they were. They belonged, instead, to the everyday prevarication, obfuscation and distortion that is the stuff of political discourse.
Such as when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, last October, announced that home heating oil would be exempt from the carbon price. The move disproportionately benefited Atlantic Canada, which is far more dependent than other parts of the country on heating oil.
Mr. Trudeau denied the carve-out was aimed at saving the Liberals’ political bacon in the Atlantic provinces. Suspending the tax, he said, was intended to help everyone who heats their homes with oil make the switch to cleaner alternatives.
But the truth is that the tax was deeply unpopular in Atlantic Canada, and MPs from the region had been lobbying hard for the exemption. As he made the announcement, a gaggle of them stood behind Mr. Trudeau, nodding happily.
Lest there be any doubt about the politics of the decision, Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings offered a solution for those in the West who complained that natural gas had not also been exempted: “Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they’ve heard from their constituents, and perhaps they need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies so that we can have that conversation as well,” she told CTV.
Nothing that Mr. Trudeau said about the home heating oil exemption could be described as a lie. And yet the political calculations behind the announcement clearly contradict the Prime Minister’s own words.
Whether or not a statement is an outright lie, claims that play fast and loose with the truth degrade politics. Mr. Poilievre could have said that he would not support a pharmacare plan that could one day bring an end to private plans. Mr. Holland could have said those existing plans are safe for the foreseeable future. Those two statements would have laid the foundation for a proper political debate. Instead, each of them distorted and misled.
Mr. Poilievre took political rhetoric far past the breaking point recently when he visited anti-carbon tax protesters camped out beside a highway near the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia boundary. “People believed his lies,” he told them, referring to Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Poilievre disagrees with his opponent and thinks his policies are wrong-headed and damaging; he should simply say that. Childish insults are, or should be, beneath his office.
There’s a reason Parliament bans words such as “lie” and “liar”: They coarsen and corrode discourse, and turn political debate into trash talk. That’s true inside a legislature, and beyond its confines.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.
Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.
On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.
Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.
British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.
That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.
The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.
And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.
Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
