Sunshiny Profile picture
19 Feb, 23 tweets, 4 min read
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.
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 ...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sunshiny

Sunshiny Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sunnshiiny

21 Feb
O’Toole is protecting an unhinged extremist Christian Nationalist who is inciting STOCHASTIC TERRORISM. This is the same type of rhetoric that inspired the Capitol insurrection attack.

They called Biden a pedophile & accused Pelosi & Schumer of drinking the blood of babies.
She also accuses PMJT of fixing the election.

This is how stochastic terrorism works.

Using this type of toxic “Big Lie” rhetoric raises the probability of lone wolf terrorism by far right radicalized extremists to very close to 100%. It’s impossible to predict when or where.
But it will happen if this kind of rhetoric continues to be used. That’s a certainty. Not a probability.

Q’Anon conspiracy theories are overlaying Evangelical Christian Nationalist beliefs about the divine liberty of “true”Christians.
Read 40 tweets
16 Feb
Covid is airborne. For this who don’t understand this medical term, that means it spreads when we inhale covid virus that is exhaled by an infected person.

The old virus was highly contagious. About 15 minutes and a small but significant viral load was required for infection.
Over 21K people have died and 827K have been infected in Canada.

And that’s with most of the population making severe choices to distance, wear masks and eliminate unnecessary outings.

The new virus variants are more infectious.
Meaning these variants require a far smaller viral load to infect or perhaps a smaller amount of exposure time or the virus lingers in the air and stays infectious for long after the host has left the area (like measles).
Read 25 tweets
15 Feb
Remember when American far right promoted seniors sacrificing themselves so the economy could remain strong for their children and grandchildren?

In the UK, the cons have broadened that narrative to include parents of children in school.
The woman in the embedded thread was told she had already lived long enough and she should sacrifice herself for her children’s mental health.

That’s insane. The use of consequentialist ethics to ensure working parents can continue to work is reprehensible & diabolical.
In the ongoing conversation in the thread, some reference is made to comorbidities.

As if health issues are relevant to the situation?! She should gladly sacrifice her life so that her children can be with their peers and receive an education. WTAF?!?
Read 20 tweets
15 Feb
@BillBlair @cafreeland @liberal_party @CommrRCMPGRC @CMOH_Alberta @KayceeMaduYEG @jkenney

This is ridiculous that the RCMP are refusing to shut down this facility and continue to allow severely disinformed church goers to continue to put people in the Edmonton region in danger.
This must be stopped and the RCMP must be investigated to discern if there is any favouritism and leniency being provided in light of the Church’s board member and elder being a former RCMP officer.
It is intolerable for the vast majority of citizens to continue to be held in lockdown because some people refuse to follow the covid orders and flout the law.

Obviously, local law enforcement and political leaders are not enforcing covid measures.
Read 17 tweets
14 Feb
I have to admit, I tend to agree with Joe Clark. But not his rationale.

I am getting frustrated with the Liberal govt.

Not because of the nonsense offered by opposition parties as scandals, but bc of the negligence in general over health & economics. cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…
I know the Liberals have done a great job protecting the public’s health and ensuring most people have the funds to get through the pandemic. I have a few complaints though.

As an Albertan, we’ve been hung out to dry, again.
It’s no secret that Kenney is ignoring Covid safety measurements and creating a dangerous situation by swinging back and forth to open and close the economy for the maximum spread of covid.

Ottawa must know the reason. Because UCP has absolute power during the pandemic.
Read 25 tweets
10 Feb
PALEOLIBERTARIANISM.

This article doesn’t analyze why the province wants to move to a provincial police force. While it reviews costs, it doesn’t delve into the “benefits” from the perspective of UCP. Why might UCP want it’s own police force?

stalberttoday.ca/local-news/may…
To understand the decision making premise of UCP, first you need to understand their ideology.

Paleolibertarianism is the prevailing ideological base from which UCP operates.

While they call themselves conservative, paleolibertarians are not. They’re in a league of their own.
Roughly fashioned after Reconstruction Era 19th century Gilded Age Robber Barons and Redeemers, paleolibertarians represent “Old Conservatism,” institutional authoritarian governance through social pressure, and unregulated property rights and deregulated free market economies.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!