There was a time when the New Democratic Party (NDP) took care to court and reassure Quebec of its intentions. Today this era seems more and more behind us. By demanding that the drug insurance program that the NDP extracted from the Liberal government be “universal, complete and entirely public,” NDP activists have ignored the respect for Quebec that they had once demonstrated. An affront which would also be supported “unanimously” within the caucus, according to the elected representative of the project in Parliament, Don Davies. Whatever Quebec (and the Canadian provinces, by the way) think.
The emergency resolution adopted unanimously on the floor of the NDP congress draws a “red line” to the agreement linking the party to Justin Trudeau’s minority government. The federal bill, promised by the end of the year to lay the foundations for pan-Canadian drug insurance, will have to create one of the scope desired by the NDP. Otherwise, the agreement will be torn up. Although the motion is not binding, the party has chosen to support it.
To the great dismay of the Liberals, who must now try to save the agreement ensuring their survival with a social program that they would instead like to complement existing plans, which leave 14% of Canadians without public or private insurance. The “fiscal capacity” of the federal government has been mentioned many times, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer has just estimated that universal insurance would cost more than 13 billion per year and that the federal deficit has widened to 46.5 billion .
Justin Trudeau’s troops also recall the reluctance of the provinces, all of which have a hybrid insurance model. The Prime Minister of Quebec, François Legault, again demanded on Tuesday a right of withdrawal with full compensation. Who would have thought that a call to temper (just a little) federal interference would come from the Liberal benches…
Asked to comment on the possible granting of such a right of withdrawal for Quebec, the New Democratic leader, Jagmeet Singh, avoided coming forward. On two occasions, last month, he instead hammered home the merits of a “completely universal and public” program, bringing together “the power of the entire country to reduce drug costs.” An eloquent non-answer.
Behind the scenes, the New Democrats insist that their Sherbrooke declaration still stands, which guarantees an asymmetrical federalism for Quebec by always granting it a right of withdrawal if that is the wish. But the fact that the NDP authorities have to correct their comments on their own says a lot about the state of sensitivity towards Quebec within the former orange wave party.
This inherent recognition of Quebec specificity, which former leaders Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair carried, is today far from Jagmeet Singh’s priorities. It is also diluted within a caucus of 25 elected officials which only has one Quebec MP, even if Alexandre Boulerice is also deputy leader.
Because the NDP support agreement is riddled with other incursions in health matters: increasing the number of doctors and nurses, improving mental health care, adopting a law on care long-term or another on childcare.
Last weekend’s convention weakened this partnership between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada. Beyond the drug insurance ultimatum posed by the delegates, it is their less enthusiastic support for the leader which could this time convince him to carry out his eternal threat to dump the Liberals. At 81%, this is the lowest support rate for a NDP leader in 20 years — besides the 48% which pushed Thomas Mulcair towards the exit.
Former leader Ed Broadbent, whose opinion is still very respected in the NDP, also took the liberty of suggesting that the agreement should end a year before the next election, in order to allow the party to “make the most of it.” merit.” Mr. Broadbent knows something about this, having succeeded David Lewis in 1974 after the NDP suffered from having offered similar support to Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
The current Trudeau government is suggesting for the moment that it will not give in to the NDP demand. The choice of chef Jagmeet Singh is therefore perilous.
If he withdraws from the agreement, he runs the risk of precipitating an election that no one wants – his party included – and which could offer a majority government to Pierre Poilievre. His influence in the Commons would immediately evaporate. If he holds on much longer, he can continue to hope that the dental and drug insurance programs will be finalized. And that the voters of English Canada will end up being grateful to him.
To hear it this week, the strategy chosen focuses on the second avenue. And too bad for Quebec.