turningrite

There was a good column today in the Toronto Star ('An American questions Canada's democratic chops'), in which an American observer ponders the question of whether Canada is a functioning democracy at all. While the column doesn't specifically address official and media silence about the Danforth investigation, it does address the deferential and often docile approach implicit in the Canadian model, noting the stifling impact of party-enforced conformity in relation to controversial issues and the ability of courts (and it might have added, public authorities in general, if Danforth is an example) to limit public access to information about important matters. The column notes that Canadian political philosophy is restricted to a range covering from "just left of centre to just left of Stalin" and all other voices are shut out. Ouch! I couldn't help but think of the official silence about the Danforth investigation while reading the column. As I've mentioned in other posts in this string, the situation reinforces for me concerns about the vitality and viability of Canadian democracy itself. We are told what the political and media elites want us to hear. We are only permitted to publicly discuss what those elites want us to discuss. And all views not officially sanctioned are portrayed as fringe perspectives, or, worse, as reflecting impure or scurrilous motives. We vote without much actual choice where issues important to society are at stake and we defer to our betters because, well, that's so much more civil. As has often been noted, democracy is a messy business. We should both relish and enjoy the mess. Too many Canadians, however, appear to be satisfied with deference. Is this a democracy? https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/08/07/an-american-questions-canadas-democratic-chops.html

I used to believe in the the welfare state, and even at times voted for NDP candidates, until I realized that the welfare state model has in this country been transformed into a dependency sustaining monolith rather than the social safety net originally intended. If you're not in the dependency class you're left to fall so far and so fast in the event of personal and/or financial crisis that your head will spin in disbelief. Meanwhile, the dependency class largely avoids this disadvantage, notching up access to an ever-growing panoply of subsidies and handouts. As a friend of mine who got a subsidized housing unit years ago due to illness, when social housing was more readily available to the disabled than is now the case, told me, there was/is no point in moving toward self-sufficiency as one risks giving up benefits that have become increasingly difficult for anyone else to access. And the subsidy class and its champions merely lobby for ever more support, largely for the same beneficiaries. These demands, however, eventually run up against the interests of working taxpayers who understand that eventually governments, as Thatcher might have put it, run out of taxpayer's money to spend. Personally, I think you agree with my analysis based on your statement in a previous post in this string that "IT got killed by off shoring in the late 1990s and the people you were describing were unable to adapt from the sounds of it." So, you too seem to believe in the survival of the fittest model I now favor. There is no equity in our system. Access is not based on objective need but too often on self-selection and habit. If we are to build a rational support system we'll need to substantially alter the subsidy-focused model that's currently in place and build a completely new system premised on objective eligibility criteria and personal responsibility. I think the contributory model, which is rooted in social contract philosophy, is the one that could best serve us. Ordinary working people in this country are for the most part on their own. They're paying for services many won't be able to access if and when they really need them. They have a right to expect that if and when in real need they might get something in return for their own money.

Of course there is. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist regime is walking a tightrope between recent openness to reform on the one side and entrenched hard-line Islamism on the other. This was never going to be easy. The regime has to satisfy two opposing constituencies but in opting for the hard-line position it's reverting to form. I think it's sending the message that while reform may be possible, it will be very minimal and very gradual and the old rules will remain in place. And I read this morning that other Arab nations are joining the chorus on behalf of the Saudi regime, basically warning the West to shut up about human rights in the region. We have to remember that these countries don't recognize the legitimacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (at least within their own borders) and have in fact put in place a substitute doctrine called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Only daydreamers and naifs, like our PM and apparently many in his cabinet, believe these two ideologically opposed philosophies are somehow reconcilable.

A couple thoughts: 1) The drinking supply issue is very complex and not difficult to resolve. As you note, scaling down solutions is problematic and it's likely true that federal bureaucrats favor certain providers and solutions over excluding others. Also, I recently read an article about one reserve in Quebec which was seeking a groundwater solution only to find the groundwater supply contaminated by naturally occurring uranium. A lot of northern reserves don't necessarily have access to easily treatable water supplies. It may seem counterintuitive that this would be a problem in Canada but apparently it is the case. 2) Did Freeland have a clue as to what she was doing when she tweeted her critique of Saudi misbehavior? Did she have any sense of the potential extent of the blowback? I think her criticism was mainly intended for domestic consumption and that she's probably surprised at the backlash. Were the Trudeau government to go after all the countries in the world that violate gender and/or LGBTQ rights we'd probably be boycotted by many regimes. Usually Trudeau prefers to characterize these regimes/countries as "evolving" rather than backward. It seems odd, then, that Freeland chose to attack a single country if this is really about principle.

There might be an upside here as reportedly hundreds of Saudis are medical residents in this country. If the Saudi government forces them to go elsewhere, perhaps space will open up for some of the Canadian medical grads who can't get residency positions in this country. https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/17/official-data-confirms-more-canadian-medical-grads-are-without-residency-positions-than-ever-before.html

And we'll continue to do it because we won't allow Eastern Canada to be supplied by Western Canadian oil. What a country! It's almost too funny that Quebec could be negatively impacted if the supply of Saudi oil dries up due to political stance taken by a Quebec-based PM. Oh, and there are reports that Saudis are trying to stir up separatist discontent in Quebec as well. https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/why-it-wont-be-easy-for-quebec-and-atlantic-canadian-refineries-to-replace-saudi-oil https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/saudi-trolls-support-quebecs-independence-amidst-conflict-with-canada

The system is so broken and inadequate that I believe higher taxes and greater public support can't and won't fix it. I think we should simply permit private insurance to be sold in this country and otherwise permit people to save in tax protected plans for their own future health care needs. Many will argue this will lead to two-tier health care. But that's what we have now. Those who have the cash can pay for private chronic care (and many who don't have the cash are forced to do so anyway) and those who need access to specialized and/or expedited care outside the country can access it if they can afford to. Those who are forced to deal entirely with the Canadian system must in many cases simply accept inferior care, long wait lists and sometimes, as I experienced, literally no access to necessary care and/or treatment at all. I sympathize with Mr. Foley's plight, as it appears he's being afforded a stark and unacceptable choice between mediocre care or death, but in actuality his situation is indicative of a much broader reality applicable to the current system. "One size fits all" health care, which is the premise of the Canadian system, translates into mediocre care for most and no care for some. My plan is to make the ultimate choice, assisted death, when my quality of life is sufficiently compromised as to render any other option unacceptable to me. I think assisted death should be seen as the last, logical, stage in the Canadian health care model.

The Conservatives seem to be adopting a much harder stance than the governing Liberals. The NDP is of course hopeless, but why would we expect more from it? Polling suggests that the public is not happy about the current situation with a large majority believing Trudeau's government has fumbled this issue. And I believe a poll released last week indicated that migration/immigration is the number two issue on voters' minds with not much more than a year to go before the next federal election.

Those who disagree with your positions aren't, as you often appear to believe, morally deficient or intolerant. The fact that more people are fed up with the status quo is reflected in many polls, studies and other measurements, if you care to look. The reality that our political system doesn't reflect such discontent suggests to me that the oligarchy that controls Canadian politics doesn't adequately accommodate the concerns of the electorate and blocks out voices it doesn't want heard. The feckless Trudeau more or less admitted this when he stopped electoral reform at least in part on grounds that it would allow "fringe" groups a platform. Oh my, such a democrat is our Justin, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth! Migration is probably the premier issue in modern-day Western societies as workers are told, essentially, that they must compete against the world both on their own turf and as a result of wage-targeted globalization. I don't know if the situation in other Western countries is as bad as here but I suspect governments in most of them can't get away with this kind of thing to nearly the same extent. As for getting rid of the social safety net, it's long past time to acknowledge that it no longer exists. It's been transformed into a targeted subsidy system that as time goes on affords fewer and smaller benefits to taxpayers who fund it. What entitlements, by the way, do most Canadians get in return for their taxes? Public health care, such as it is (and, based on my own experiences, it's quite inferior) and a minimal old age pension, which even the NDP leader wants to scrap. We self-fund the CPP/QPP program through designated contributions so it's not technically funded out of general tax revenues. I think we should move to this model for all publicly funded programs, with benefits related to contributions. It would be much more equitable than the current system.

This is particularly problematic. Those who reach Canada in this fashion should be fairly easily turned back as they have to hold U.S. issued visitor visas to reach this continent and should therefore have the right to reenter that country. And as Canada shares information with the U.S. it should be fairly easy for our officials to access details concerning the circumstances of those entering Canada from U.S., including their immigration and/or visa status in that country. I agree that utilizing the notwithstanding clause to address this problem might be both necessary and justifiable. But this would take political will and at least a little bit of courage as progressives would no doubt be outraged.

I think you're making a fool of yourself and apparently trying to dig even deeper. Maybe you should quit while you're falling even further behind.

You seem to believe that irrational governance is and always will be the norm. I guess that's honest.

I think we have a legal obligation to at least assess the basic validity of their claims. But we should be able to do this expeditiously via a triaging system of sorts that assesses whether the circumstances of individual migrants provide 'prima facie' justification for full consideration of their claims. Those who come from countries that are not at present considered to be experiencing civil war or who don't demonstrably belong to groups considered to be persecuted within their own countries should be quickly rejected and told to leave. Initial assessment and categorization should be completed within 30 days. Further consideration must be afforded to those who are definitionally members of persecuted minorities in their homelands and to those who are otherwise very likely meet the U.N.'s Convention Refugee definition provided they can also demonstrate that they made efforts to file and pursue claims in the first safe countries reached, including, if applicable, the United States.

None of what you say here makes much, if any, sense. As for the U.S Fed pumping money into foreign banks, even the CBC article doesn't suggest that any of this went to sustain domestic liquidity within Canada. As stated before, many Canadian banks now have operations in the U.S., which presumably availed themselves of supports available to banks operations in that country. And there's nothing in anything you've provided that suggests that Canada's central bank received any support at all from the US. Fed. Based on my understanding, the CBC article you link mainly notes that Canadian banks received much more liquidity support from the Canadian CMHC than Canadians were previously led to believe to be the case. But this is nothing surprising in Canada, where we're very used to public risk sustainng private gain where our corporate sector is concerned. And many of us don't always agree with this, by the way.

Well, I was reading the Economist on the weekend and its conclusions about the downstream impacts of Trump's economic and tax policies seem consistent with Stiglitz's, particularly where it believes that after a brief boom aided by the Trump/Republican tax cuts, American growth will quickly tail off mainly due to the negative effects of growing budgets deficits that will result from those same tax policies. The article argues that while the U.S. economy is currently growing and performing well this likely can't be sustained. Perhaps you might reconsider your position by listening to those who don't have a vested interest in promoting the administration? https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/04/what-americas-latest-gdp-figures-reveal

That's an idiotic comment. Did you even read my post? If you had, maybe you'd have come up with a more thoughtful and/or respectful response. My comment is based on my own experience, plain and simple. If you can refute it with a rational argument, you're free to do so. Otherwise, direct your frustrations with those who don't comply with your world view elsewhere. I started this topic hoping for serious and respectful discussion.

Huh? It's fine for those who post on here to veer into tangential discussions, as had/has recently happened. I merely sought to bring the discussion back to the original issue based on a very relevant link relating to polling about the very matter addressed at the beginning of the discussion. You can continue to discuss whatever you wish - and maybe start a new topic if you want - but I think there's nothing wrong in posting information intended to refocus the discussion.

Based on personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that many of these problems are related to conditions progressives have imposed on the system. The notion that we enjoy "universal" healthcare coverage is laughable. I was approved by the provincial health ministry to obtain health services in the U.S. due to suffering a rare illness for which there's no specialized expertise in Canada. But when I contacted the U.S. institution to which I was being referred I was informed that even with provincial funding approval the coverage is so minimal that in the U.S. system I'm considered an uninsured patient and have to assume full responsibility for all costs above the provincial coverage with no cap on my personal liability, which could amount to tens of thousands of (U.S.) dollars. So I called the company that administers my work benefits and asked whether my plan offers any coverage for out-of-country medical services under its "extended benefits" program. The administrator was very nice and clearly sympathetic but told me that insurance coverage in Canada cannot be sold or obtained for medical services, whether provided inside or outside of Canada, that are theoretically covered under provincial health programs, except for temporary travel coverage, which doesn't generally cover preexisting conditions. So, if you've got a condition that can't be treated in Canada, you're effectively both uninsured and uninsurable. You're up a creek without a paddle. That's where decades of progressive health care policy premised on a false and misleading ideology of single-payer universal coverage has landed us.

The NDP is hopeless. It would have to come out against the subsidy system and the interests of an entrenched subsidy class in order to become relevant. It won't happen, which is why they have no hope of obtaining power. Instead, they're doubling down. Singh reportedly wants to get rid of the mainly universal pension system, which millions of taxpayers have funded throughout their working lives, and transform it into a 'super-GAINS' means-tested welfare-style program benefiting mainly the poorest seniors. That silly bird won't fly as most of us are sensible enough to realize that ordinary people, including taxpayers, eventually get old too and in many/most cases are counting on a program we've long paid for. Where you cast apparent aspersions relating to others who use this site, you should be aware that a lot of taxpaying voters are becoming increasingly fed up with subsidizing programs that perpetually benefit particular subsets of the population. According to polling released late last week, almost 60 percent of Canadians believe that the benefits provided the 'irregular'/illegal migrant who've recently entered Canada are too generous. I think most Canadians perceive the 'safety net' that was built in the post-WWII era to reflect a social contract model where all of us achieve a degree of security in return for paying taxes to support the system. That rationale no longer applies in Canada. And why should Canadians pay high taxes to support others when they realize that in many cases they would likely be left to fall between the cracks were they in actual need? The system is broken. Get rid of it.

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

Wow, you're difficult to please. When I cite official or published sources, you often criticize those. I rely on friends for perspective. As many of us have aged together over the past few decades we've faced many of the same problems. Some of my friends are now dying off, unfortunately, with cancer and heart disease being the biggest culprits. But experience is the best teacher. We all compare notes. I try to socialize with friends at least once a week in addition to keeping touch via phone in order to maintain direct contact with the wider world.

Being arrested under the Mental Health Act is not in and of itself proof of a mental illness diagnosis. Those so detained are held in health or medical facilities for observation and assessment by qualified professionals. Police officers aren't for the most part qualified medical or mental health professionals. As for the mental illness explanation for the shooter's motives and/or behavior, this theory becomes less tenable as each day passes given that the information necessary to reach this conclusion could easily have been obtained and analyzed by this point. Mental illness may have played some role, but it's increasingly likely that if it applies at all it's a secondary factor.

I think he's saying that there are generally two sides to every story and that not all incidents reported to police as hate crime actually amount to that. There's been a proliferation of recent media reports suggesting that hate incidents, and particularly uncivil conduct, have become rampant. (And some of it is minority on minority. Who'd have thunk it?) I think it more likely that cellphones with good cameras have become rampant. I had a discussion about this with a gay friend recently, who laughingly noted that if gay people went to the police every time they were publicly insulted or denigrated for their sexual orientation the police wouldn't be able to keep up. Maybe this is why the Stats Can data indicate that hate-related incidents reported by members of the LGBTQ community tend to be violent in nature in comparison to stats related to incidents reported by those in other targeted groups. As my friend notes, gay people learn to be resilient and separate incivility, which they're used to facing, from actual harm. Sticks and stones...

I think the point Argus is trying to make is that not all police reports are indicative of actual criminal behavior. They're simply reports that the police have investigated. The number of charges laid and convictions obtained are not reported in the Stats Can data referenced in this thread by you or others. According to the available 2015 data, of the roughly 1,300 hate related incidents reported to police that year, only 38 percent were categorized as violent - and therefore more likely to result in charges and convictions - and that figure drops even further, to 24 percent, where religiously motivated hate incidents were reported. One also has to consider that not all reports are even credible, even where they're reflected in the statistics. For instance, the highly publicized case of the hijab attack earlier this year that turned out to be a hoax is likely to be included in this year's reporting stats.