Front Burner - Is it time for an NDP, Liberal divorce?

Episode Date: February 22, 2024

On paper, the Liberals’ deal for the NDP’s support is supposed to prop up their minority government until next summer.But in exchange, the Liberals agreed to a bill on pharmacare, and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is threatening that the deal could be done if they miss an approaching March 1st deadline.So could the coming weeks see the end of the deal? Would the Liberals really risk an election right now? And did the deal deliver wins for the NDP that voters will remember?CBC’s chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton returns to unpack it all.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. Back in March of 2022, Canada's liberal minority government entered into this deal with the NDP. The liberals would push forward policies that the NDP wanted, and in exchange, the NDP would prop them up in votes that could bring down the government. In theory, the deal is supposed to go until next summer.

Unless it all falls apart. Maybe this week. I want to put it to Justin Trudeau and the Liberals that we're getting very close to a final offer on the table. And if they do not come through with their commitment, if they break their promise by March 1st, there will be consequences. That was NDP leader Jagmeet Singh saying basically get a pharmacare bill done or the deal is off. So today I've got a lot of questions for my colleague, CBC's chief political correspondent, Rosemary Barton, about whether it's time for the NDP and liberals to divorce. Rosie, hi.

Hi there. Hi, hi. Thank you so much. Hi, welcome back. Thank you. Glad to have you back. I am thrilled and I'm thrilled to be talking to you and drinking hot coffee and having adult conversations. So to start, can you take me back to March of 2022?

This supply and confidence agreement starts today and will be in place until the end of this parliament in 2025. Parliament in 2025. When the Liberals and the NDP announced this marriage deal, essentially, that would see the NDP support the Liberals in votes that could bring down the government, but with strings, of course. They didn't enter into this for nothing. And what did they want out of it? What were the big things the Liberals essentially agreed to? I do want to, because I do think that the timeline,

the context of that time matters too. So let's just, you know, put some frames around where we were in March of 2022. We were, yes, coming off of COVID and still sort of coming off the back end of COVID, if you will. We were coming off an election where COVID and vaccine mandates were a really big deal. And we were just coming off in this town anyway, the so-called Freedom Convoy, where it really exposed a lot of polarizing views in the country at the time. focused on trying to cooperate inside Parliament and find ways to advance a common agenda, which I think is not something people think about very often when we think about Parliament or minority Parliaments. That they cooperate? That they cooperate, that they get along, that they might have common values and policy

goals. But yeah, they do and they have been up until now, and we'll get to that. It is called officially, for Canadians now a supply and confidence agreement. But I thought you'd be happy to know that in this town, it's also called SACA because we like to just abbreviate everything. So it's called SACA. And in really it was to say between the Liberals and the NDP, okay, how can we get your votes and what kind of things do we want to focus on in order to secure ourselves, the Liberals, secure ourselves until Parliament rises in June of 2025.

This is an opportunity to deliver for Canadians. Tommy Douglas uses power to bring in Medicare. Jack Layton uses power in a minority government to bring in affordable housing. So it was health care, affordability, climate change, some stuff around labor and workers and some stuff around tax changes. A lot of it, Jamie, has been done. And I know we'll talk more about some of the big, big pieces, but housing accelerator fund, homeowners bill of rights, reducing emissions, ongoing progress, anti-scab law, 10 days of paid sick leave for federal regulated workers. So a lot of this

has and is happening, but there's some big, big pieces still. Let's break down those big pieces. I know the first one is dental care. And tell me sort of what the latest is on that. So it is, let me put it this way, it has started. And it started off on the right foot. We listened to seniors, to experts, on what they needed, both in terms of coverage and in terms of the application process. New Democrats have helped secure dental care for 9 million Canadians.

It's no exaggeration to say that this is the biggest expansion of public health care in Canada in many generations. This was very much, I would say, an NDP push. Not something that the Liberals have talked about time and time again. This was something that the NDP really wanted about time and time again. This was something that the NDP really wanted to see. So it has begun slowly. In theory, it will help about 9 million Canadians by the time it's up and running. It costs about $13 billion. And it's going to help Canadians who have no coverage at all. So it's not, I don't like my coverage. It's no coverage

for most basic dentistry costs for households who make under $90,000. Right now, it is open to eligible seniors, 87 and older. And that will start to roll out in a more staggered way as it continues, including for kids under 18. They'll be able to start to apply in June of 2024, and so on and so forth until we get to 2025, when it should be that broad based coverage for those 9 million or so people who will need it. And so that that's a big shift in this country. And a lot of people, as you know, believe that dental health is just as important as everything else. And that really was, I think, something significant that the NDP got from from the liberals here.

Yeah. And we'll make a, you know, as you said, a big difference in people's lives who are basically foregoing going to the dentist right now because they can't afford it. Yeah. And it's, you know, teeth whitening is not going to be covered. Those kinds of things won't be covered. But fillings, x-rays, dentures, crowns, like the things that you need in order to be OK. All of that will be covered. OK, so that, as you say, is largely kind of done, like checkmark. Yeah, checkmark. But the big one that seems to be a major sticking point in this deal between the Liberals and the NDP, well, it doesn't seem is, and that is Pharmacare. And let's talk about

Pharmacare and the problems that have been going on as negotiations progress there. So Pharmacare is, you're right, much more complicated. And I think from an ideological point of view, this is where the two parties have very different views of how this should work. And here, the Liberals have talked about pharmacare, probably in every election that I've covered. They've discussed some coverage to help people. Canada is the only country that has a universal health care program and no universal drug program. So there has always been a desire on the left and from progressives to try and get something in place. But this has become increasingly sticky. It's also already in overtime. The timeline was extended. It was supposed to happen by the end of the year. They were supposed to see something move on that.

They couldn't get there. So now we're looking at March 1st as the next deadline. And in the agreement, the fine print of the agreement, the deal is really to try and get steps toward some sort of national pharmacare program. And I think that's important because it will not be a full-blown universal national pharmacare program. It will just be steps toward. How many steps? How far the NDP will push the liberals? I think that's the part that we don't know. And the major sticking point seems to be, from what we understand, is around what kind of pharmacare are we talking about here? The NDP would like a universal single-payer system. Right now, we have

a model of public and private. So if you have private insurance, you do that. Some places they have little bits of things and it's all different depending on where you live. This idea by the NDP would mean that just like health care, you would get your prescription from your doctor for whatever prescriptions you need, whatever drugs you need. You'd go to the pharmacy and it would be covered and it would be covered by the federal government. But the cost is massive for that kind of thing. It's anywhere between 15 to 30 billion dollars, depending on different estimates. And also, I think lots of people would question whether it's needed. Why would you encourage people to give up private insurance in order

to go on a public program? And that's where the rubber meets the road for the two parties. The liberals are looking for more of a mixed system to fill in some of the gaps for people who have no coverage, kind of like dental care, or potentially for particular drugs for rare disease or expensive drugs like diabetes, where people really need it. And just, Rosie, not to get too far down the policy rabbit hole here, but what would be the argument for by the federal government, largely think about vaccines. The COVID vaccine would be one. But otherwise, it's done sort of in different ways across the country. If you had one person going to pharmaceutical companies, one entity, and saying, we're going to buy this much insulin, this much contraception, whatever the drug is, you could definitely lower the price with that kind of bulk purchasing. You could get a much bigger deal and you could put lower the price with that kind of bulk purchasing. You could get a

much bigger deal and you could put some pressure on pharmaceutical companies. So that's, I think, the driving idea behind it. And it would make it more even across the country. And it would mean that, you know, the government would kind of have the upper hand when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. The problem again there is the cost. Does it outweigh the cost of the program overall, the savings that you would get from that kind of bulk buying? No, it doesn't. But that is sort of the biggest argument that you will hear on that side. Okay. And just to state the obvious here, the price tag a couple of reasons. They don't have any money. I mean, we know that. They have a deficit and we are in a very tight fiscal time. But I also think that politically, it might be better for them to show the start of something rather than the end of something, because they have to convince people to keep them around in the next election. people to keep them around in the next election. So sometimes if you show a commitment or a desire to do something, rather than just put it all on the table, that might also help them politically. But I do genuinely think that they think that a mixed system makes more sense, a system where

we fill in the gaps for people, as opposed to opening up something entirely new and different and very pricey. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix.

I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together.

To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups. So as this March 1st deadline approaches, what do we think is going to happen here between the Liberals and the NDP, who are not on the same page here? They're not on the same page, but I don't think they're in different books, if you get my drift. I think they are at least operating within the same book. The NDP agreed

to give the government a little bit more time till March 1st in exchange, although they didn't say this overtly, in exchange for a little bit more. What is the more going to be? I'm not sure. But they are now at a point where they are talking about, OK, if we can offer some kind of commitment to this starting, the NDP would see that as a win. And if we can offer some sort of commitment to full coverage for certain drugs, and again, we've mentioned some drugs of really serious disease might be covered. Yeah, I know diabetes is on the table, right? Yeah, diabetes is on the table, contraception. Yeah, some kind of, I'm not sure if it would be all kinds or some kinds, but those are the kinds of things that they're talking about right now.

Okay. And so I've been listening to Jagmeet Singh talk about this as the deadline looms, and he's saying he's going to break up from this marriage deal with the liberals if this doesn't happen. And so I just want to talk to you about the political considerations on both sides here. Well, I'll let you take it. Yeah, I don't know who you want to do first. I'll start. I'll start with the NDP because I'm just going to correct your language a little bit because I do think it is important. Actually, Jagmeet Singh never says he's going to walk away from the deal. He always says if they break the agreement, they are walking away from the agreement.

They'll have to answer to Canadians why they chose Big Pharma over Canadians, why they're walking away from this, why they're choosing to break their commitment. They would have to answer that to Canadians. But if they do so and they walk away from the agreement, then we will not we will no longer support them in the House. They can no longer count on our votes. And I think that's important because there's a lot going on here politically for Jagmeet Singh. The first and I think foremost, most pressing issue for him is managing his own party and managing what's happening in caucus. If you remember, there was an NDP convention last year where Pharmacare was again top of the list for regular NDP supporters. And at the time, they said, if you can't get this from the liberals, that's a red line in the sand. That has to happen. And as much as that was a conversation within sort of regular NDP members

brains, it is also a conversation inside NDP caucus where there are some people who are starting to question how long this deal should go. So if they don't start to see something big like this, the beginning of something big like this, they, I think, are going to put increasing pressure on Singh to start to explain why he's continuing to stay in the deal. So the kind of rhetoric that you're hearing from Singh is a lot more about what's happening to him and with his own party than what's happening around the table with the liberals. And I think that that's important to remember here. It's not that he doesn't believe in what he's saying and doesn't want this big policy commitment, but he needs to show his own

members that he can get things from the liberals and that he can effectively take credit for them. You mentioned people within the party. I know before he passed away last month, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent was on your show. And just talk to me a bit about what he said about this deal. Yeah, I mean, the reason I asked Ed Broadbent about it, not only because he was sort of, you know, the elder statesman of the party, but also because he was involved in those very controversial 2008 coalition talks when Stephen Harper was prime minister and Mr. Broadbent was negotiating

with Mr. Chrétien to see if they could broker something between the Liberals and the NDP then. So I did ask him about whether he thought that this was still the right play for Jagmeet Singh, someone that he has counseled and advised and supported. And he said that he was concerned about that issue, about getting credit. I wonder how you think it is working and whether the NDP is getting enough out of it. Never gets enough out of it. Never. I mean, the other guys always get the credit. Most of the credit.

That's the problem. That the longer these things go on, the closer you seem to be tied to the government, the harder it is also to criticize them. It folds right into an election. The good things that are there, and there are many good things, liberals, of course, will be taking credit. And it's a matter of having time for us, for the NDP, to make its voice known.

And yes, it's still happening. And Mr. Singh is still putting pressure on the government on other issues. But he is sort of, I mean, you hear it in the conservatives every day, right? The NDP liberal government. You will have a costly coalition of Justin Trudeau and the NDP. The new NDP liberal coalition. The new NDP liberal government. The liberal NDP cabal. So what Mr. Broadbent was warning about, what he was saying there in that interview to me, was that he thought it would have been better if the agreement was a little bit shorter, if it didn't take the NDP right up until June of 2025.

That way, it would have allowed them a little space to explain what they got and how it was really only because of the NDP that those things were even done. Yeah. And so what do you think Jagmeet Singh is thinking right now? Like, is it going to get so bad over Pharmacare? Are they not going to be able to reach an agreement here that we could actually see this deal fall apart in the coming weeks? You know, I've been here long enough that I would never say it's impossible. I think things can always go sideways. But everything that I've been told, people say different things, as you know, Jamie, in front of a camera versus after when the camera's not there. Everything I've been told is that the negotiations are going fairly well, that the talks are closing in on something acceptable, that both sides feel it's constructive and that they want

to get there. However, it is important to remind people here that even if they were to fall apart, and it could be the NDP or the Liberals, the Liberals say, no, you're trying to get too much from us. We're fed up with you blackmailing us. We're not going to do it anymore. That doesn't mean we're having an election in the next two weeks or anything, because elections are obviously based on confidence votes in the House. So the next confidence vote would probably be the budget. And the NDP would be able to make a decision on a case by case basis, just like they did in the past in past iterations of Parliament.

Is this something we can support? Is this something we can't? And of course, the other option is, is that the government seeks support somewhere else. The Bloc Québécois is the third biggest party in the House. Could they go to them and get support on some issues? They probably could. And of course, just to state the obvious again, the Liberals probably do not want to go to an election right now. No, I think things are not looking so up for them. No, this would be a terrible time for the Liberals to go. You know, they are double digits down from the Conservatives, sometimes in sort of the mid to low 20s compared to the Conservatives who are in the 40s in terms of broad based national polling. That would be disastrous for the Liberals to find themselves in an election right now.

So, no, it would not be in their interest for this deal to fall apart. It would not be in their interest to have that kind of pressure on them every time a confidence vote came up. I think they will work very, very hard to keep this agreement as long as they can. And I also think, and this is based on lots of conversations I've had, I also think they don't really care if the NDP walks around threatening them or taking credit for things. They fundamentally believe that when the rubber hits the road, people are going to say, understand it was the government that did it, not the NDP. And that's what they're counting on. You know, it's been interesting for me to see, though,

that even though these have been wins for the NDP, they still they don't seem to be even getting any credit for it. I think they get credit for some things. I think they get credit for the anti-scab legislation because that's sort of a traditional NDP territory. I think they're getting, you know, a decent amount of credit for the denticare. I don't know whether they're getting the credit for every other thing I listed off there or how they would even campaign on those things, to be clear. I think you're you're right to ask some real questions about whether this has been worth it for the NDP. You know, if we're going to talk about bad polling numbers, we also have to talk about not great polling numbers for the NDP. They sort of sit anywhere between 17 to 20 percent support

in the country. That is kind of traditional territory for them. And of course, there's no election. Maybe it would go up if they were able to hammer home the point that they were behind these things. But right now, it is not making Canadians consider them as a viable alternative or a party that would be able to do any of these things on its own. I think that should be a real question to the NDP right now about whether this has been worth it. It's probably too soon to answer that. And let's be honest, you know, on your other point, the NDP doesn't want an election right now either. Yeah. Rosie, thank you. This is a pleasure. Oh, I'll come back anytime, especially now that you're back. Amazing. Thank you.

All right, that's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.