How Trudeau may lose the next election?

There is a poll out today by Forum Poll that actually has the Conservative Party of Canada ahead of the Trudeau Liberals - this despite the unknown entity of Andrew Scheer as the CPC leader.

It shows many Canadians moving back to the Conservatives. After the Stephen Harper debacle - that's not a desirable prospect.

The Trudeau Liberals are defining themselves as ultra-tolerant socially while moving themselves to fiscal conservatives with policies regarding trade deals, pipelines, and big (foreign) corporations. They have also taken a page out of Harper's book - by ignoring their promise to end the First Past the Post system.

This combination will probably fail in the next election if not corrected - quickly.

Canadians on majority are a very tolerant lot and we do live in a multi-cultural country. But there are feelings of angst within the population - and feelings that we are being too tolerant.

Some of this is coming from the diametrically opposed positions of protecting human rights socially - while continuing to deal with Saudi Arabia and other religious states for business purposes.

In Canada our government is not run on a religious platform. In fact Trudeau comes from a perspective that religion is a personal choice and is a freedom.

The story regarding Saudi Arabia funding schools in Canada though presents a real problem. It is a foreign government which is run on the basis that Sunni-Islam is the state religion. Their laws are dictated by religion. When money from that country is being used to expand and run an Islamic private school in Ottawa - people begin to question what the outcome of that may be. Schools in Canada should be funded within Canada.

There are already disputes in Canada regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of religious beliefs. For instance will Sharia Law be allowed in circumstances regarding that faith (marriage, divorce, ans infidelity as an example) and if that will replace in those circumstances Canadian Law. This is true of other religions as well.

Then there are situations like the one witnessed in Quebec where a woman was denied a day in court because she was wearing a Hijab. Although a Superior Court found the Judge erred - the Court would not grant that all cases would end up with the same result.

What of -  equality for women? This becomes very complex even on the global level. In all cultures and most religions there is room for complaint regarding the inequality of women.

In Canada - Trudeau has made it a very public cause to ensure that women are equally represented in Parliament and all Canadian institutions - yet at the same time feeling very comfortable with religious leaders/heads of State who do not practice or believe in the same.

For as far back as history takes us - women defined by religions - have not been equal. The cause of equality for women has been and continues to be a struggle. The same is not true of men. Men are not fighting backwards all the time - religion always places them ahead of women in some way or another.

It used to be that Canada had ongoing debates on equalization, transfer payments to provinces, universal healthcare, democratic reform, debts and deficits, indigenous peoples, and the woes of Confederation. Nowadays much of parliament is tied up with the rights of one religious group or another, immigration from Muslim countries, the Hijab, freedom of speech versus what is hate, and how to balance the rights of women versus the cultural rights of women.

On the fiscal side - all is wide open. If it's good for Canadian business - we will deal, trade, and cooperate with countries that continue to execute based on sexual preference, countries that continue to treat women as property, countries that restrict freedom of speech and the press, countries that have and do fund terrorist organizations, and countries that continue to run under a dictatorship.

This is causing Canadians to rethink - this is driving Canadians back to an extreme on the social far-right.

We have just witnessed an insurgence of support for the extreme-right party in Germany and we all know what happened in the USA.

When Capitalist countries are attracted to wealth - and a dictatorship offers them an ability to increase wealth - potential social consequences may not be that attractive. 

Canada is a tolerant nation - but now our people are worried that it might become intolerant if religious views and practices of other religious states become too influential in our society.

Pierre Trudeau once said: 
‘There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’
likewise
Religious states have no place in the Parliament of Canada.

The younger Trudeau must deal with this sooner rather than later. If not the next election may already be lost.

The younger Trudeau must focus on real democratic reform, a balanced economic agenda, equalization, healthcare for an aging population, federal/provincial relations, problems with trade deals that put corporations ahead of people, the environment, employment and manufacturing, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, Muskrat Falls, the fishery, Search and Rescue, and Federal jobs and establishing a Crown Corporation in our province.

Democracy is about what people want - what they want their country to be - priorities regarding social programs and economic development - advancing human rights - and positively reinforcing democratic principles and enhancing them. It is not about the promotion of any religion, the contortions required to being seen as tolerant (we are tolerant), the hypocritical business dealings with countries that are not democratic and do not protect basic human rights, the attraction of bloodsucking multinational companies at all costs and not about the personal agendas of politicians.

The fact that any scientific poll puts Andrew Scheer and the CPC close - let alone ahead of the Liberals is something that should open some Parliamentarian eyes. Please reflect and do not place us right back with Stephen Harper and his buddies.

"Seal"ing the CETA

and so the utter ignorance and giveaways continue...Just last week the Premier and provincial Fisheries ad Aquaculture Minister, Keith Hutchings were praising the great tentative trade deal between Canada and the European Union. What a fabulous day for our fishery they claimed with a few federal bucks in our pockets - we should be grateful for their superior negotiation skills.

Newfoundland and Labrador was SO happy - sure who needs the feds to come to our province +for hearings and discussions?

and so for "public moral" reasons the EU ban on our seal products was upheld by the World Trade Organization.

Oh and so now it's our morality - we immoral lot here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So will we watch Kathy Princess Warrior Dunderdale pull support from CETA or will she continue on the road of giveaways and gross compromise?

Let's hear the news Premier - you gonna yell and scream? Are you going to say the predictable " we are appealing"?

The giveaways continue - the unfair treatment of Newfoundland and Labrador continues - the weakness of our Premier in negotiations continues; yet she has no problem beating the financial crap out of longstanding local small businesses.

Please let this madness end before 2015 - please quit Premier Dunderdale - our future can't survive another day of your DEALS.

Dunderdale gives up fishery for loan guarantee on Muskrat?

In my opinion the Premier traded the fishery for a loan guarantee on Muskrat in November of 2012 - something she said she would not do.

The media - did a fine job talking about Dunderdale's fine negotiating skills. Really?

Where's the journalism now?

Now it's a win for Newfoundland and Labrador - when in November of 2012 it was extortion?

Kathy Dunderdale quote from NTV news story in May 2013:

The premier and the prime minister signed the terms for the loan guarantee in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on Nov. 30, but the deal almost fell apart the night before. Dunderdale says at the last minute Harper demanded concessions in the fishery to get the loan guarantee. He wanted the province to give up minimum processing requirements at local fish plants as part of a free trade deal with the European Union, known as CETA.
“The prime minister wanted a quid pro quo for the loan guarantee, and you know what I told him to do with the loan guarantee: no quid pro quos,” Dunderdale said. “You (Harper) promised it to the people of the province, you said that the only requirement was that it have a sound business plan.
“Well, we’ve produced it, you give us the loan guarantee, and don’t talk to me about the fishery at the 11th hour.”
Dunderdale says Ottawa continued to push for the concession until the Victoria Day long weekend when International Trade Minister Ed Fast came to the province. Again, she said no, making it clear there would be no trade-off between Muskrat Falls and the fishery.
“There is no linkage between those two things,” she told reporters after her speech. “That has been a point we’ve been making since November. The loan guarantee stands on its own.”

The caveat was:  But the fishery issue isn’t quite off the table yet. Dunderdale said she would consider giving up the minimum processing requirements if the public and industry want that, and if the province gets something in return, such as better access to the European market or an early retirement program. But for now, her position is to keep the rules as they are.

_________________________________________________________

What Ottawa was looking to have tariffs lifted for the fishery it would be in return for lifting minimum processing requirements. In my opinion Dunderdale was trying to make herself look tough - saying that there would be no quid pro quo and the loan guarantee stood on its own. The more likely truth is that Harper won the day in November and gave the Premier time to make it palatable. Time to get the message and spin right - and time to get people on side who could back her position. The EU was not expecting a lift on processing without a lift on tariffs - give me a break. I choose to use my mind - not to have it spun like a web.

In my opinion - the fishery did get traded for the muskrat loan guarantee - and the Premier did nothing to make sure that the "public" wanted in - she just bagged McCurdey and the seafood processors. 

Dunderdale is - in my opinion - either a participant or pawn.

The question the media should get an answer to now - was the EU expecting to have minimum processing requirements lifted without also agreeing to lifting tariffs? My belief and logic says no. This was a straight exchange. Dunderdale needed more time to get the necessary people on side.

What irony that Sullivan's man in Dunderdale's Cabinet just got put into the Department of Fisheries.

Timing is everything...

Gus Etchegary responds to Fisheries Broadcast Host John Furlong

The following is a response from Gus Etchegary 

to the Host of the Fisheries Broadcast - John Furlong 

John, Reading your diatribe on the present state of the fishery finally confirms what we suspected from the early days you came on the scene as host of Fisheries Broadcast. The Ottawa fishery bureaucracy of DFO convinced the hierarchy of CBC to put someone in charge of the broadcast who could discover and make the most inane and stupid comments on the N&L fishery since we joined Confederation. Having heard you occasionally on the Broadcast and being assured by White Hills Communications Branch, those experts in remote Ottawa were certain you would come through in "flying colors".

 Pretending, and somehow believing, you are somewhat of an expert in the fishery of this Province you somehow or other got really confused between the cause of closure of Marystown and Port Union fish plants and the loss of a supermarket in Churchill Square and the narrow-gauged railway that used to operate across NFLD many years ago. On the basis of the statements made on the CBC website today it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about and considering the importance of our fisheries to the survival of N&L, CBC officials had better wake up and replace you with some competent individual as soon as possible. Maybe you did everyone a favor today by exposing your serious deficiencies in performing the job as host of Fisheries Broadcast.

The fact is our the renewable fishery is all important to the survival of rural N&L at the present time and will be just as important to the survival of St. John's when the non- renewable oil and minerals are exhausted. It's so important, during this crucial period, for our present N&L Government to provide the real leadership needed to forcefully persuade the federal Government to rebuild the resource. Your confused outburst today on our CBC website illustrates conclusively that you are not the person to convey to the public or anyone else the urgency of rebuilding and sustainably managing our vital fisheries. John, a moratorium on our groundfisheries was declared in 1992. For your information there is no sign whatever of its recovery to date. In your position you should have been using every opportunity on the Broadcast to make Canadians aware of the contrast between the well-managed fisheries of Norway, Iceland and other countries and those in N&L in particular where fisheries mismanagement by Ottawa has caused its collapse. Wake up John, its 2012.

Anyone with real knowledge of our fisheries is aware of the continuing overfishing on a diminishing groundfish resource, the declining crab and shrimp stocks and the fact that DFO have abandoned their fisheries management responsibility. Our science capability has been gutted and further financial cuts are due along with serious reductions in the number of fishery scientists and other technology personnel, research survey vessels and the important annual surveys that are so essential. Foreign NAFO members and EU Free Trade negotiators have exchanged documentation to facilitate expanding foreign activity inside 200 miles. These Free Trade negotiations regarding fisheries, now taking place, are a major issue and should be publicized. Seismic blasting , pollution of valuable fishing grounds and the loss of important fishing areas on the Grand Banks are also issues that must be dealt with along with contents of the MOU.

Surely, John those matters should be of more concern to the  host of Fisheries Broadcast, than the loss of the railway fifty years ago and the closure of the Churchill Park supermarket. CBC, you have received a strong signal for a change in delivering  Fisheries Broadcast. Unless Mr. Harper's directive to CBC takes precedence.

So is Jerome Kennedy going to stand up for lower Drug Costs? Will we find out too late?

Please read the excerpts below from a Globe and Mail article today: 

Later this month, inside a stylish Ottawa office complex overlooking the Rideau River, a marathon session of trade talks is set to take place between representatives from Canada and the European Union.

While previous negotiations have roused little interest from ordinary Canadians, this round promises to be different. At stake: the future cost of health care. Also at stake: high-end research jobs.

EU negotiators are asking for big changes to Canadian laws that govern intellectual property and patent protection for brand-name prescription drugs. They argue that Canada's legal regime for intellectual property is lax and out- of-step with European norms.

Critics, however, argue the proposals will heave billions of dollars in added costs on public and private drug plans at a time when an aging population is already causing health-care spending to spike.

Some experts warn the issue could make or break the entire trade pact.

"If you are looking at this negotiation, [a trade deal] is something that Canada wants and needs more than the Europeans do," said Peter Clark, a former Canadian trade negotiator who is now president of Grey, Clark, Shih and Associates, Ltd., an Ottawa-based trade consultancy. The Europeans "are going to play their cards as hard as they can and they are doing that in a number of areas and this is one of them."

With that backdrop, EU negotiators are looking for three key changes to Canada's intellectual property regime.

First, they want Canada to provide brand-name pharmaceutical companies with a robust appeals process against
generic manufacturers.

Second, they want Canada to extend how long Big Pharma can protect the data from its clinical drug trials. It is currently eight years in Canada versus 10 years in the EU.

Third, they want Canada to provide "
patent term restoration" - a measure that exists in Europe and the United States and gives big pharmaceutical companies up to five years of extra market exclusivity for their drugs to credit them for time lost when obtaining regulatory approval.

"They are going to need at least two of three, is my guess, for it to be acceptable to the Europeans," said Jason Langrish, executive director of The Canada Europe Roundtable for Business.

Still, achieving that balance is no easy feat. Provinces and territories, which are sending envoys to attend this round of trade talks, are already struggling to contain health care spending. Businesses, meanwhile, are paring benefits to keep their own costs in check.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, for one, estimates the European proposals will add $2.8-billion a year in extra costs to Canadian drug plans - mostly by delaying the sale of
generic drugs by an average of 3.5 years.

In some cases, generic drugs can cost up to 75 per cent less than the corresponding brand-name medication. Mario Deschamps, president and chief operating officer of generic firm Pharmascience, argues that such savings could free up funds to hire more doctors, nurses or enable hospitals to purchase equipment.

Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, the industry organization for brand-name drug companies, argues that patent protection gives companies incentives to fund Canadian-based research and development.

Hugh O'Neill, president and chief executive officer of Sanofi Canada, said Canada's current intellectual property and patent rules make it hard for him to convince head office in France to earmark more funds for Canadian-based research "

It's a constant battle to be able to bring an appropriate level of resources and investment into Canada when the IP regime is at such a disconnect between the European market and the U.S.," he said.

Will Minister Tom Marshall lie? Yes! Will he mislead? Yes!

Minister Tom Marshall appeared on Open-Line Friday of last week. The purpose of the call was to attack through innuendo, misrepresentations, threats, and misinformation - the independent pharmacy owners in the province.

The irony was that he called to correct something Randy Simms (host) said in his preamble.

Quote by Marshall:

Randy, we're negotiating now. There's a chair at the table for CICPO. CICPO refused to show up. Randy, Premier Dunderdale wants lower electricity costs for the people in this province. She wants lower drug costs for the people of this province. People have no choice. If the doctor says they got to have drugs, they got to have them, Randy. And the cost of generic drugs in this country are higher than they are in the US and higher than they are in other OECD countries. And there's got to be a reason for that. And we've looked into it and other provinces have looked into it. And British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec and Nova Scotia have all taken an approach to reduce the cost of generic drugs to their citizens, to their taxpayers.

First - if the Premier wants to lower drug costs in the province - the first line of attack would be the brand drugs that are increasing in cost every year. The fact is brand name drugs which represent over 70% of the costs of all drugs prescribed and dispensed are going up in costs year over year. The generic drugs which are currently the target of this PC government are going down every year. Further the generic partnership with pharmacy has what has been keeping dispensing fees low and allowing pharmacies particularly small independent rural dispensaries to offer essential extra services.

Making matters worse is that the Dunderdale government is hiding its intent relative to a trade deal between the EU and Canada which would see our province have to pay an additional 50 million dollars for essential medications - by agreeing to extend the patent protection for the brand drug companies. Canada and the EU are set to go back to the table just after our provincial election and this term forms part of what a proposed deal will include.

The end result of the PC government move is:

1. The price of drugs will actually go up for citizens and taxpayers.

2. Dispensing fees for most people will have to double or the pharmacies will close.

3. Delivery to seniors and those without transportation will cease or there will be a cost for such delivery.

4. Independent pharmacies will have to stop credit programs for prescription drugs - thereby causing people not to buy and take their medications in a timely manner. This non-compliance will cause the emergency rooms of hospitals to experience unsustainable traffic, re admissions to hospital, or worse.

5. The government drug card clients will have to call their MHA or social worker to have the necessary forms completed for continuity of their prescription drug cards, or to complete their annual tax returns (in order to qualify for the card).

6. It will cause independent pharmacies to cease filling "special authorization" drugs until the approval has been given by government. In that instance the patient will have to return to their doctor to have a prescription changed, go without their medication for up to one month until approval for payment has been achieved, or have to return to the hospital.

7. Prescribing errors made by physicians will have to be handled in a different manner. Currently our independent pharmacies are dealing with between 5 to 25 prescribing errors a day. When the mistake is caught by the pharmacist - the patient will then have to return to the doctor or hospital to have the correction made. If the patient wants the pharmacist to deal with the error for them - they will have to pay a fee based on the amount of time it takes for a pharmacy to contact the doctor, achieve contact with that doctor, the faxing of a new prescription, and the paper work required for the government for a change in prescription. Usually this takes the pharmacy between half an hour to 8 hours to achieve.

8. The pharmacy will have to charge for special packaging for patients who take multiple drugs for chronic illnesses.

9. The hours and availability of pharmacies will be reduced to make the necessary savings on human resources and other expenses.

10. Services such as reprinting of receipts for income tax purposes, transferring of files, supplying hospitals with drug reviews for patients (where the hospital already has the records) or communication with the drug card program for patients will have to be additionally charged.

These are but a few of the changes that will be experienced by patients under the government's plan. The most negative result will be the out and out closure of some pharmacies.

Tom Marshall is not telling the truth or he is completely incompetent on this file.

The government including Premier Dunderdale is hiding the truth from the people and the media need to call them out on the Comprehensive Economic Trade Deal (CETA) with the EU.

Marshall goes on to say the following:

We understand that in terms of the true cost of the drug that's been passed on by the pharmacy to the customer, it has markups on it running from 140 percent to 619 percent. They're very high markups. Now that's before you take their cost into, their expenses of operation into consideration. So what happened - this all started, Randy when the pharmacies announced they weren't going to honour the drug card anymore. They were going to make people pre-pay for their drugs and have to seek reimbursement from the government, which was totally unacceptable because people didn't have the money.

First the Minister talks about markups on drugs running from 140 to 619 percent. Where is the evidence of this? Pharmacy cannot change the price of drugs as the provincial government sets them under the provincial formulary. Further Minister Tom Marshall will not address the Dr. Wade Locke report completed on pharmacy - using actual financial data from pharmacies. This is a government who only a few days ago were holding Dr. Locke's opinion and study regarding Muskrat Falls as gospel - yet when it comes to a comprehensive Activity Based Costing study on pharmacy the Minister of Finance deliberately avoids it. This is a lie by omission.

This statement also points to pharmacy and says - they were going to have people unable to get their essential prescription drugs - this is absolutely false and further is exactly the opposite of what is true. It is the government everyday that prevents people from getting medications. Patients are released from hospital with prescriptions they cannot fill because the government prevents retail pharmacies from determining the validity of a special authorization - so instead it goes into government pharmacists in a bureaucratic setting. This in turn causes delays - up to one month - where people who on income assistance or fixed incomes such as seniors - cannot get their medications because the government has not approved them. In this case local independent pharmacies put it on account for the individual so that they can take their medications immediately thereby preventing re admissions into hospital or a trip to the emergency room. Our pharmacies never let patients leave without their drugs for reasons of inability to pay. This is one significant difference between the large corporate chains and our members.

Next the Minister uses this line:

They want to go to court, I think that's wonderful. Go to court and let it come out what the proper margins out, okay let it come out what the rebates are, let it come out why the true cost of the drugs are not being passed on and while the true cost of the drug to the pharmacy is not being passed on, we want to sit down with the pharmacists and we have sat down with the pharmacists and what we're trying to do is come up with an agreement. 

So the Minister of Finance thinks its wonderful that the CICPO wants to go to court. Well that's a mouthful in and of itself. Yes anything instead of meeting, talking, collaborating, and developing a superior policy. Then Minister Marshall - a lawyer - pretends that the issue being brought to court has something to do with generic drug pricing. The court case deals with two issues: a) whether or not the government had the right to alter a provider agreement unilaterally and second whether the "object" of PANL legislatively is valid. So once again he lies to or misleads the people regarding this very serious issue. Further the information he is seeking above is already available to him from the Dr. Wade Locke report. He once again says they are negotiating with pharmacists not pharmacies. This continued misrepresentation does not negate the fact that government signs provider agreements with corporations (legal entities) not pharmacists. If that is not the case then Wal-Mart, Shopper's Drug Mart, Lawton's and Costco could not be doing business with government.


Minister Marshall then takes the public down another twisted version of the facts:

And we've looked into it and other provinces have looked into it. And British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec and Nova Scotia have all taken an approach to reduce the cost of generic drugs to their citizens, to their taxpayers.

Let's start with the fact that all provinces are using different models for remuneration and different approaches on the restructuring of generic drug costs. Ontario, which is what is law in Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to generic pricing is the worst. It has caused the most damage to rural independent pharmacies and where ATM's are replacing the community pharmacy - in some cases now it will be LPN's. In Ontario now three independent pharmacy owners are running for the PC Party of Ontario in large part because of what the Liberal Ontario government has done with pharmacy and health issues generally. And here we have the PC government adopting failed Liberal policy out of Ontario.

Further in Ontario - consultations were had with the Ontario Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores (CACDS) the Independent Pharmacists Association of Ontario and the Ontario Community Pharmacies Coalition. That is hardly a comparative for our province where the Premier and her Minister's keep saying we will only talk to PANL.


Then let's talk about British Columbia where a deal was struck between the Government, the BC Pharmacy Association and the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores. Once again broader consultation was held and a different remuneration formula was reached. Unfortunately - in BC as in Newfoundland and Labrador - the chains were pandered to while independent pharmacy was left behind. Lastly, at least the Government of BC acknowledges that no agreement reached with either the Pharmacy Association or the CACDS is binding on any individual business.

Then take the most ridiculous of Minister Marshall's comparisons - Quebec. In Quebec a pharmacy can only be owned by a pharmacist. This negates the concerns of independent owners as the government can only negotiate with them - large corporate interests are not permitted to own the dispensary. If Minister Marshall would like to entertain this idea - we would be more than happy to deal with that.

In Saskatchewan the government also reached an agreement between the Pharmacists' Association of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores - once again admitting that the strong lobby by the giant retailers and chains is unduly influencing policy development. But at least they admit it. In Newfoundland and Labrador they will not admit to the discussions with CACDS because to do so would mean the CICPO would have a rightful place to put it's arguments forward separately.

In Canada the chain drug stores and mass retailers are dictating provincial policy and it is leading to reduced and inferior services in rural communities. In our province with our geography and relatively small population - this means destruction to our rural communites and inner-city neighbourhoods. Minister Marshall and Premier Dunderdale had the chance to make a difference and derive policy based on local business and rural communities - instead they have chosen to follow the mess found in other Canadian provinces. This is not leadership - and there are not enough lies in the world to cover this up.

Finally Minister Marshall refers to the following:

Okay, they had a meeting set up with Minister Kennedy. Minister Kennedy was in the House. They walked out. They left about five minutes before Minister Kennedy came in. So don't give me that. 

The truth about this meeting will be addressed by those attending this meeting. Minister Marshall and I were not there so we cannot speak directly to it. Those who were in attendance will publicly discuss what happened to this meeting and why it did not occur. safe bet though that with pharmacy owners travelling anywhere from 1 km to 800 km's to attend the meeting did not leave under the circumstances the Minister has described. Either the Minister is misinformed or is lying.

What is Kennedy Hiding? Quite a Bit!

What Ministers Kennedy and Marshall are hiding will negatively affect health-care in rural communities and will harm those most vulnerable. PRESS HERE FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION