Visionseeker

First question is to you Greg: why the "Hon" honorarium? As far as I know, he hasn’t been made a member of the privy council. Otherwise, while he is entitled to be called honourable in the House, outside of it he’s just plain Jack Layton. But the question I'd like you to present to my fellow Hudsonite is the following: Should the Conservatives win either a minority or majority in the next election, would you consider merging your party with the Liberals to counter the right of centre vote in Canada?

Couple of things I’d like to point-out: - first, this was a survey of 1504 Canadian doctors in the US, but there’s no mention of how many Canadian doctors are actually in the US. 13% of 1504 is quite small, but 13% of the actual number of Canadian physicians in the US is what exactly? - second, if a number of Canadian physicians are warm to coming back, what number of American or foreign trained physicians in the US might also be warmed to the idea? - third, have equivalent studies been performed to measure how many Canadian nurses would come back? For few might recognize that one of the reasons for surgical backlog stems from a shortage of surgical nurses. New Brunswick recently announced a new incentive to attract physicians that could really pay-off. After already guaranteeing a first year salary of $175,000, NB went a step further by offering $50,000 to physicians willing to practice in outlying regions (at least 40 kilometers outside of St-John, Fredericton or Moncton). I, for one, can assure you that if the province were to invite interested US physicians on a tour of the Northumberland coast, they’d have so many applicants that they could turn the program around and ask for a $25,000 deposit as insurance that the physician stays for a minimum of 5 years. As a cardiologist émigré from John Hopkins said to me recently, “if I knew about this gig, I’d have come here as soon as I’d finished my residency.” Life style and security. These are BIG selling points to many US physicians. We need to start selling this south of the border and elsewhere.

It would not. The limiting of federal spending powers argument is a vacuous as the "fiscal imbalance" nonsense. In terms of the latter, provinces have always had their own taxation powers to address their fiscal needs; as for the former, if a province is so opposed to the intervention, they can simply refuse the money. Quebec's financial nationalism is nothing more than empty bluster. Give in to it and you solve nothing in terms of Quebec's self-inflicted difficulties and find yourself only creating tension elsewhere in the country.

Though I don’t share ScottSA’s tact, I have to agree that attributing this man’s suicide to a re-zoning issue is wrong. While it may very well have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, one needs to look at the load that the camel was bearing to really understand what happened here.

With health expenditures accounting for 10% of GDP (15% in the US) and representing the ultimate ever-growing area of provincial spending (e.g. 42% of the Ontario budget 2007), there is tremendous reason to be concerned that our system is becoming unsustainable. Within 5 to 10 years, the largest bulk of baby-boomers will enter the acute care demand window (i.e. the age group that exhibits the largest growth in acute care demand). Systems across the country are already under significant strain. While some localities have made great strides in reducing wait-times for both urgent and less-urgent procedures, the general consensus within the medical community is that much more needs to be done. Doctors are in short supply, necessary tests are the subject of long queues, and both critical and elective surgeries remain plagued by almost inhumane waiting lists. And while these dragons have yet to be slain, our population’s demographics move ever more towards placing unprecedented demand on a system that is almost defined by its scarcity. Taking the Ontario example where 42 cents of ever tax dollar is consumed by health care, it is clear that Ontario is running out of fiscal room to boost health spending while continuing to meet its other obligations. The system, as it stands, is bound to collapse. What can be done to avoid this collapse or, more importantly, to address the wider challenges facing our health care infrastructure? Furthermore, what are the potential social implications?

If one looks at constitutional talks as occurring in a Quebec-Ottawa vacuum, it might be easy to think that such “demands” can be satisfied. However history shows that the enterprise is not confined to those two actors and necessarily involves all other provinces. If we held such discussions today, I would strongly suspect that BC, SK, MB, ON, NB, PEI, NS and NL would not be warm to capping federal spending powers if they were to accurately represent the wishes of their own populations. Polls consistently show that these provinces hold strong majorities in favour of Ottawa retaining such power. I also think geoffrey accurately expresses the difficulty with the whole judges question. The perception that one province has an ability to influence a third of the national High-Court’s composition is simply untenable. But more importantly, it undermines the concept of judicial independence by creating an implicitly subservient relationship of provincial political pleasure serving as the mechanism whereby a Quebec judge can ascend to the Court. As for a Quebec veto, good luck with that. It was possible 40 years ago, but not anymore. But this only speaks to what we would expect to be on the table based on the history of Meech. And while these alone present grounds for disagreement, we must readily expect that other provincial actors might have their own demands. Alberta could demand that Ottawa surrender its role in environmental regulation. NL & BC could call for Ottawa’s exit in controlling the fisheries and offshore resources. Ontario might advance that a single federal financial markets regulator be entrenched and “appropriately” located in Toronto. Then there’s the matter of senate reform. In fact, the list of provincially advanced issues would be mind-numbing. Beyond this, non-provincial actors are sure to weigh-in. Aboriginal groups will advance a series of demands; Women’s groups will have their own; and community interests groups in both the pro and con camps in the reasonable accommodation debate will seek their own aims. If anarchy is what Harper wants, then by all means let him entertain constitutional reforms.

Underground prostitution still exists. But it's the "bargain barn" and you get what you pay for. They have 3 tier prostitution while we have a 2 tier system. There is much better on a harm reduction front (both for the client and provider). As for the locals being upset, it's more a question of a NIMBY movement by wealthier people moving into districts bordering the district who would like to see the drunken louts find somewhere else to play, and not an attempt to criminalize the trade.

And what do you think the war on drugs costs us? The best way to put the dealers out of business is to legalize and control. The sooner we do it, the sooner we can direct law enforcement and correction resources where they are most needed.

They must be quite giddy at the Liberal Headquarters. For Harper has handed the Liberals all the power to call the election. If Dion and the Liberals feel they can immediately win an election, they’ll bring the government down on the Speech from the Throne. If they are not so sure, they can let the speech pass and then play with the arcane rules of parliamentary democracy to buy themselves about two to three months time before any item can come up for third reading. To those who claim that Dion will look weak if he refuses to take Harper’s bait, I say you are right, he will look weak because he will be depicted as such. But jumping into an election to avoid the appearance of weakness is not only foolish, it’s stupid. And I severely doubt that such image concerns will determine when the Liberals pull the trigger. One has to ask why Harper is so determined to force an election. It may be that he believes that he can trounce the Liberals in their reported disarray, it may be that he hopes to reset a minority dynamic with a new set of priorities, or it may be that he wants to incrementally improve the national brand by winning some more Quebec seats while still presiding over a minority. But I suspect the move is prompted by fear. The Conservatives have done everything they can to impugn Dion and try to bring him to his knees. But nothing seems to work. No matter what they try or what happens within Dion’s own party, the numbers just won’t budge. Add to this that the polls tracking second choices have NDP, Green and Bloc voter’s favouring the Liberals over the Conservative by a margin of 4 to 1 (with the Conservatives largely drawing only from the Bloc), there is every reason to be concerned in the Conservative ranks. Strategic voting has the potential to cripple the Conservatives growth outside Quebec. It could easily cost them a few seats under the current environment. The Conservatives understand that the efforts to bring Dion to his knees have failed. Now they are desperate to move before Dion can rehabilitate and, more importantly, before the Director of Public Prosecutions receives the file from the Commissioner of Elections.

So you are naïve, thus, let the record show.

That is one way of looking at it. But I look at the divide as something more significant. Born from the reasonable accommodation movement, the ADQ racial mentality will eventually give rise to a progressive counter movement centres itself on both the provincial and even federal charters.

Calling some a racist or bigot when they express racist or bigoted views is no different than calling someone a conservative, liberal or socialist for having done likewise. If any such label is considered inappropriate by its recipient, they have every right to contest the accusation and defend their own arguments. They might also choose to report the supposed slander for further enquiry by the moderators. I would hope that the arbitrating body would have the capacity to recognize when a label is well-earned and caution the plaintiff instead of the accuser. And yet, by the tenor of this announcement, my confidence is somewhat shaken.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Now where did I here that before? Though I see what you are trying to get at, this is not a solid parallel IMO. Trying to quiet internal party warfare is quite different from letting elected representatives speak their minds. Though both can be extremely damaging, one at least has the legitimacy of being a public figure to justify going public. Nevertheless, some peoples’ minds are sometimes best unspoken. Tell me you are not so naïve. Every party wants power. That’s the nature of party politics. The party is a means to an end. However, the Liberal party has to put an end to such squabbles if they are ever to mount an effective campaign. The Carroll matter has actually provided them with an opportunity to do so. Carroll was extremely instrumental in helping Dion win the leadership. Problem is, those who bring you to a position of power are the least capable in helping you keep it. Such soldiers create too many enemies and stand as symbols of division rather than assets for unity. Carroll should’ve been made to go when Diebel’s book came out, but Dion stood by him and showed a strong willingness to reward loyalty by doing so. In the latest controversy, Dion again stood by his guy but obviously others in the inner circle pointed-out that Carroll needed to go for the benefit of his leader. In the end, the events have lead to Dion naming Senator Smith (the man behind Iggy) and John Rae (yes, there is a relation) to key campaign posts and has also brought back Johanne Senecal (his key aid during the Chrétien years) to advise him. In short, amateur hour is over, now it’s time for the “A” Team. The Conservatives know they are in the weaker position in terms of election timing, and the Liberals intend to take advantage of this. If I were a Conservative strategist, I'd be quite disappointed with the recent turn of events. Because I would know that I now face a formidable foe. Interesting times...

Poor showing in the polls eh, nothing has changed in the polls. Liberals still even with Tories despite bad news The Liberals can make Quebec a three-way battle by focusing in certain areas and sticking to principles. By doing so, the Conservatives risk becoming painted as offering Meech the Sequel (which is almost exactly what they intend to do). With Smith and John Rae, the Liberals have dropped the camp that got Dion the leadership and have now called out the "A" team. Interesting times, interesting times indeed.

Chrétien had a quad done! That outcome is urgent/emergency under any circumstances or any walk of life. You can have a bypass You can have a double bypass You can have a triple bypass and you can have a quadruple bypass beyond that, you need a new heart. If you go to any emergency complaining of chest pains in Canada, the US or any advanced medical facility outside of North America, your condition will be reviewed using almost identical protocols. If the tests come back that you're a quad, it's wheel'em in and scrub-up time.

Let me put an end to your BS parade. Cardiac Care Network of Ontario Cardiac Surgery Statistics (May-July 2007) The chart clearly indicates that the median for emergency and urgent procedures in Ontario is 3 days. Then again, I suppose you'll suggest that the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario is some kind of subversive immigrant society. You have no credibility here mikedavid00, none.

You're the one who doesn't look good here because you are trying to make a false issue out of another's misery.

A quadruple bypass is emergency surgery. There are no waiting lists for emergency surgery. Having “friends” here doesn’t place you on the top of the list, the condition does. Chrétien is lucky the condition was caught before he had a full-scale cardiac event. Even today, the mortality rate for first instance heart failure is exceptionally high. Just ask the friends of Ken Danby.

A dream Conservative candidate. Will likely be one if the election is held-back until spring. Not that that has anything to do with this mind you...

Ah yes, that 2% argument. And what, pray-tell, is our proportion of the global population? Oh, yeah, right, less than 0.5%. So we are responsible for 300% more emissions than the global average. If we were China, the planet would be dead. Regardless, you presume my citing the environment is indicative of a pre-occupation with global warming. I can assure you that my concerns are more far reaching than that. As for taxes, yes, reductions are in order on one hand (corporate and income) and increases on the other (carbon taxes and GST). Tax us when we spend our money, not when we earn it.

I really have to wonder about people's perceptual skills (particularly the media's). By reading any newspaper or watching any news on TV, you would think that Dion has been an unmitigated disaster while Harper valiantly grapples on, successfully gaining momentum with each policy statement. Facts are neither the Liberals nor Conservatives have shown any appreciable movement from the support they registered on January 23, 2006. Polls consistently show both parties in the low 30’s. The main beneficiaries of this stagnation have been the Greens and, to a lesser degree, the NDP. IMO, the Conservatives are crippled by a somewhat earned perception of being too right-wing. This leaves them with a need to widen their tent by either tempering the ideology or seeking some kind of coalition. I’ve seen little by way of overtures to accomplish the former and much in the way of the latter in their appealing to Quebec’s soft separatists. Now this may seem like good politics, but it actually creates a potentially fatal paradox. With each confidence building measure the Conservatives offer Quebec nationalists, the greater the risk they incur of losing support elsewhere (particularly in Ontario, the Maritimes and potentially in BC). Further, the alliance the Conservatives are forming in Quebec is closely tied to the camp that inspires the “debate” surrounding “reasonable accommodation”; creating a considerable wedge on matters of racial equality that could very well weaken the Conservative brand in large swatches of urban and suburban ridings. The Conservatives had every opportunity to choke the Liberals out of the middle but chose not to do so. Instead of ignoring the more reactionary segments of their base, they sufficiently pandered to it to give the non core Conservatives the heebie-jeebies. And that’s just dumb politics.

That's an excellent point.

My vote came down to whether I'd vote Liberal to block the Conservatives, vote Liberal because I preferred their platform or vote NDP because the Liberals hadn't really earned my vote (the Conservatives lost mine on a number of scores, but the GST and $100 per preschooler were detrimental policies aimed to buy votes). In the end, I voted Liberal and as I look back, I believe one of the reasons I did so was because I had become gravely suspicious about the Income Trust investigation announcement's effect on the campaign. In no particular order: Environment Taxes Defence & Foreign Policy Childcare/early childhood education Law and Justice Healthcare and Pensions

My vote is always decided on election day when I place my "X" in the desired circle. That being said, while I have voted Conservative in the past (PC), Harper & Co. have given me little reason to consider them so far.

Ahhh, the goggles, they do nothing!