Leaderboard

If Canada would go more capitalist like America rather than more socialist like Venezuela or Cuba this country would be better off today as socialism discourages people rather than excite them into creating new jobs and making plenty of money. Making money is good and not bad.The liberal/socialists believe that taking from the rich or middle class and giving to the poor is the way to go. No way, Jose. The way to go is the way immigrants did centuries ago who came to North America with nothing but the clothes on their backs and had to find work right away if they wanted to make it in Canada or America. There was no welfare or unemployment benefits like we have today. There is just too much money being blown on too many socialist programs and agendas that is bankrupting this country. Canada should be in the credit column and not in the debit column. We need politicians who are ready to open up Canada plenty more than what we are seeing them do today. Too many jobs and big projects get shut down before they can get to started because thanks to a minority of foolish talking and thinking environmentalists and native Indians who are clueless as to how the world really turns and who are to blame for the massive unemployment and welfare rolls we have today in Canada. There are just too many rules and regulations that are killing people in business or who want to start a business. One has to envy those who do try to create work for themselves and others and go give it a try. We have marketing boards that keep prices high to benefit a few. This does not work for me.

He's a terrible actor.

So why does the USA favour one Islamic dictatorship over others? Like Saudi Arabia? The hypocrisy astounds me. The red carpet gets rolled out for the Saudi Royals quite often. Best dictatorship in all of Islamic world! Right?

Bad Pooh Bear!

Just to put that figure in perspective.......$270 million could provide a $5000 housing subsidy for over 50,000 Canadians who might be living on the edge. The Left constantly whines about poverty - yet thinks nothing of wasting huge amounts of money on Illegal border-crossers - economic migrants who jump the queue ahead of those who are genuinely fleeing terror and persecution.

That is pretty much rhetorical. Obviously, Canadians ARE stupid - we elected Trudeau and his band of politically correct morons.

Please... the politically correct term is "irregular migrants".

Thanks for this. Until I became seriously disabled I had no idea how threadbare our health care and support systems really are. It's actually made me question the value of publicly subsidized services, which simply aren't accessible to most people, including those with relatively modest incomes and resources. Most of us are or will be on our own in the event of serious disability. I now tend to think we'd be better paying lower taxes and funding our own future medical care needs by directing our tax savings to dedicated tax sheltered products or good insurance. Public funding doesn't work, particularly where complex and chronic diseases are concerned. We might as well admit this and limit the public health system to basic medical services and work toward a system that lets people save enough or buy sufficient insurance to make their own decisions and fund their own treatment. Although the situation faced by Mr. Foley is stark and morally unacceptable, we all bear some responsibility for this. I have some sympathy for the staff at the London hospital. I listened to the recordings on a news program this weekend. Their job is to manage hospital funding in an environment of scarcity where increasing demand makes it impossible to meet the needs and expectations of all patients. This is where we are right now, sad to say. We need to take a long, hard look at the whole system, which simply isn't designed to cope with an ageing population.

And now back to the topic here. According to a poll reported today, more than two-thirds of Canadians think the migrant issue has become a crisis and almost two-thirds think the numbers entering are higher than Canada can handle. (Link to article about the poll is below.) And Canadians are also upset about the costs associated with the influx, with 58 percent indicating they feel the benefits provided the migrants are too generous. Most also believe that funding should be directed to border security rather than to assisting the migrants. Perhaps most interesting is the news that while the number of illegal/irregular migrants appears to be declining some arrivals are now utilizing other recently arrived illegal/irregular migrants as "anchor relatives" to enter the country legally at official border crossings. Wow! This whole thing is becoming a complete mess and is generating significant political friction for the Trudeau government. I think the only thing the federal government can do at this point is create a fast-track assessment and removal system and shield this from Charter challenges by invoking the notwithstanding clause. Business as usual is no longer possible. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/influx-of-irregular-refugees-has-reached-crisis-level-for-most-canadians-poll-suggests

Saudi Arabia too don't forget.

No, but the Trudeau family does (Cuba).

This morning, in a call-in radio show one woman on the cancelled pilot project called to complain she didn't know how she would be able to pay her mortgage. The poor dear.

We should give illegals one of two choices: 1. a student, work, and business visa. 2. A ticket back home. If you can't support yourself, tough. OK, a third option: 3. A private sponsor. Taxes shouldn't be paying for anything other than a ticket home.

We have a lazy national media. Why aren't the media going into ERs in France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, or wherever, to compare? Why aren't they talking about how long trials take in other countries? Why aren't they showing us how things work in other countries? Without a basis of comparison it's hard for Canadians to really understand how much of a problem there is.

I've read and seen television reports about Mr. Foley's case, which for personal reasons I've followed with great interest. It's problematic, to be sure, but it does raise some vital questions about what we expect our public health care system to do. Many who've had extensive contact with the health care system, as I have, come to realize how limited the available resources actually are. I believe that Mr. Foley had access to publicly-funded chronic care but was unhappy with the quality of that care. Now he's lying in a hospital bed for which administrators argue he should be paying more than $1K a day as he doesn't require acute care and has apparently rejected other options.But do we get a say on our quality of care, particularly where chronic illness is concerned? In an ideal world, one would think we should but in a system paid for by others (i.e. taxpayers), where resources are essentially rationed, is it realistic to allow patients who can't pay for their own care to be able to get from the system (and taxpayers) exactly the quality of care they demand? As a person living with a serious chronic illness myself, I've thought about this problem a lot. As I too live with a degenerative illness, I'm aware that when I can no longer live independently I can afford to direct and pay for my own care only to a certain extent - perhaps a couple or three years, after which I too will either have to accept what I believe to be the generally mediocre care offered by our public system or make other arrangements. I tend to look at the situation from a "quality of life" perspective. When that quality of life becomes insufficient to justify remaining alive mainly for the sake of so doing, I've resigned myself to making a choice that will definitively put an end to the situation. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Foley can succeed in his battle. I wish him luck but am not optimistic at this point that he will be successful. He might be offered a resolution that addresses his individual concerns, but I suspect he won't be able to achieve systemic change. And given an aging population, the situation is likely to get worse, and likely much worse, which is why I believe assisted death should be an option that's easily accessible for a broad range of patients. The potential for abuse exists, of course, but that shouldn't serve to negate the ability of seriously ill patients to rationally decide to end their own suffering.

Worse. If you complain....... .....................they say you are "un-Canadian."