Thread by @sunnshiiny

Allowing this to be propagated as is without clarification is irresponsible.

CERB was a wage replacement for employed citizens.

GST credits are federal tax rebates.

Child bonuses were an attempt to provide additional social benefits to those with children.

https://twitter.com/WumpySpeaks/status/1362750657330089984

Carbon Tax is in response to a global (never mind national) existential threat.

Only one is an infringement on provincial purview. And is meant to supplement provincial benefits already available.

The remainder are federal purview.

Several provinces have taken the feds to court over imposing a national tax. Because they refute the federal purview to impose a tax.

Not for any concern for citizens, but to protect large corporations who are actually the target of carbon levies.

So that puts to rest any question about purview.

Feds and provinces were assigned responsibility for governance at the point of confederation. Only a change in the constitution can alter those responsibilities.

US has a different constitution & fed/state responsibilities.

Alternatively, provinces and feds can opt to work together to offer programs and services that best meet the needs of the entire population. Universal healthcare is one of those circumstances. Feds did NOT impose universal healthcare. It was an option for provinces.

Feds used a carrot on a stick. Not just the stick to gain compliance.

It also wasn’t Tommy Douglas who unilaterally brought universal healthcare to Canada.

Yes he championed universal care. But so did many many others.

As premier of Saskatchewan, Douglas was the first to introduce public hospital insurance for Saskatchewan residents in 1947.
1950 in Alberta by Ernst Manning.

It wasn’t until 1966 that universal healthcare was adopted by feds. Much occurred in between.

coalitionsante.ca/tools-and-reso…

It took time and incredible lobbying effort by CCF/NDP and Liberals to get provinces to agree to universal healthcare. Some straggled in adopting universal healthcare. Doctors, corporate business and the far right resisted public healthcare.

The point is it wasn’t a minority govt that forced adoption of universal healthcare in Canada. It wasn’t Tommy Douglas screaming for universal healthcare on his own that led to Liberals proposing a national program.

It was a heck of a lot of work, by an assortment of partisans (from all three major parties) who had a similar goal, all working together to get it done. Publicly funded Health insurance was a concept since early 1920’s. But it took until 1966 for it to get done.

It’s a fallacy to believe Douglas demanded it of Liberals threatening a non confidence vote and that’s all that was required. That’s a lie and an oversimplification.

Major policy changes take time, effort, inter partisan coordination and collaboration.

How many Canadians died needlessly or went bankrupt attempting to pay for medical treatment for loved ones between 1920’s and 1966? Thousands. Perhaps hundreds of thousands.

No one ever mentions those people who suffered.

No one mentions the Great Depression and WW2 as contributing factors. No one wonders why Saskatchewan and Alberta were first to introduce legislation to help people access healthcare. Or why two disparate political parties opted for similar solutions to provide healthcare.

The lack of historical knowledge is astounding.

Has no one heard “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Burke, Santayana, Churchill.

The cliche has been made famous and repeated by many. Because it’s true.

To make enormous policy changes in societies, large significant progressive changes, it takes time. It does not happen overnight. Because you need the support of the majority of voters, political will of the party in power, and financial resources to accomplish big changes.

There are no magic wands that make it happen overnight. There are no charismatic populists who demand change and get it because they have the power to vote non-confidence. That’s not how change works. No matter what NDP leaders, Green Party Leaders, or revisionist historians say.

It is NOT because there was a minority govt that healthcare was adopted by Lester Pearson Liberals. It was the public who demanded it in each province. Because Liberals had the same goal & support of NDP and because the resources were made available, with much criticism from PCs.

The absence of pharmacare and dental was the compromise that enabled transferable universal healthcare in Canada. And 50% of the funds from the feds.

NDP like to claim it was Douglas, but it was many who worked together to achieve success.

If you want change, and I very seriously do, you need to understand the mechanisms available to you and the limitations of demands.

Demands only go so far. Democracy requires mutual agreement among a pluralist society and multi partisan support of a single goal.

And compromise. It means compromise is required. Had Douglass NDP and Liberals pushed for pharmacare and dental, the provinces would not have signed on. Taking on three healthcare resistant lobbies was not in the cards in 1966. It’s doubtful much has changed.

In 1966 doctors were the biggest resistors. Most contemporary doctors advocate for universal care. That’s societal level change.

Repeating that success with pharmacists, pharmaceutical corporations and dentists will take Herculean efforts and years of public pressure.

It will not be achieved using an autocratic decree from a party in power.

If you want the benefits of living in a democracy (freedom and human rights), you’ve got to put up with the frustratingly slow and messy way change is made.

It would also help to stop electing leaders who use demagogic populism and false promises they have no possible way to deliver.

On both ends of the political spectrum.

Just a suggestion ...