Smallc

Actually, he was away about 4 months a year, before that. And believe me, I'm not really a big fan of his - I just see this as a real non issue.

There are a lot more small farming areas here. Why do you feel you need to deny the reality of our geography?

Hence my point that it increases cost.

I think this is different because he owns a home there. That's a large investment to just leave sit for four years (hopefully not more).

The situation is far worse in smaller centres, because people don't want to live there.

It's a troubling development to be sure.

I would agree with amending the act, but not doing away with it. And of course geography matters. Manitoba now owns a plane just to get people to regular appointments in Winnipeg when they're in hospital elsewhere, not to mention the need for many more road ambulances than population would dictate (and by extension paramedics) as well as propeller, jet, and rotary ambulances that wouldn't be necessary in the multiples they are. I live near a city of 10K. It has a regional health centre - they have trouble attracting full time technicians (ultrasound especially) without offering bonuses, and often have to settle paying someone to come intermittently from another facility to provide services. It's even worse when you're talking about remote cities and towns in the north. Most of our population is urban in Canada, but our money is less able to be used effectively because of having to cover small populations in large geographical areas.

I agree with that, which is why I said we need to do things smarter. I'm not opposed to user fees either, but you and I both know that people on social assistance and low income programs (that's not necessarily and indictment of them, but a realty - I realize there are a multitude of reasons why things are thus) who overuse the system now won't have to pay any, and will still overuse the system. It also doesn't help the problems of geography or the American system and its upward pressure on wages, something we'll always have.

There's nothing wrong with that act in my opinion. People should all be provided with the same medically necessary services. We need to find better and less expensive ways to do that. The problems with this file will always be our geography, and our proximity to the US. Those things inflate costs, especially salaries.

That vision has to come from the provinces - this is their ball game.

I think there was a reason that the escalator was only designed to run for 10 years (it ended up being 12-13). I don't think Paul Martin intended it to go on forever.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/manitoba/pallister-costa-rica-1.3902366 So, I supported this government in the election campaign (I was somewhat happy with the NDP, but it was time for a change). I haven't been all that happy with this government since. I feel like they aren't really doing much, other than trying not to spend money (important right now, I'll admit) and they cut infrastructure funding, which makes me unhappy. All of that said, I see this as the worst kind of politics. Democracy watch is up in arms about this, saying he needs to be more transparent with what he's doing there. Who really cares? Is the premier not entitled to his life? Do things like the internet and telephones not work in Costa Rica? I see no reason that Pallister should be criticized for this.

I can read my own post just fine. Bryan explained it perfectly already anyway.

An decrease in the increase is not a decrease though.

No, it's not a decrease. It's a decrease in the increase. Nothing more nothing less.

I support that wholeheartedly.

Everyone understands that the electoral college representatives are picked by their reapective party, right? There was no chance of a defection.

I've never yet seen evidence that the formula will vary by province. As far as I understand, it's based on Canada's overall nominal GDP growth.

I thought that Ottawa would want to meet them in the middle - that would have meant another $5B over 10 years, but, I guess not.

Putin - right wing hero.

Actually, what Paul Martin set out ended in 2014 or 2015. Harper extended the 6% increase until 2017, and then the escalator comes down. The provinces are actually growing their own spending at 3% or less every year. In affect, Ottawa is rewarding them for a lack of investment.

The way you phrase that makes it untrue. He proposed to cut the escalator. Transfers would continue to grow every year.

Actually, his proposal was a firm 3.5% (the current is a minimum of 3% that can go up more with nominal GDP growth of about 3%). Harper in fact extended the 6% increases for 2 (or was it 3?) more years. No one decreased the transfers, and saying so is completely dishonest.

Probably Jewish.

No - that isn't true.