The Argus Party

[Argus]

I find myself bored with many of the topics at hand so decided to throw out policies the Argus Party wants to see implimented in Canada.

Health Care

Health care taken away from the provinces and made a federal responsibility, with one national health care program. This would ensure portability, and that the same measure of care is available from coast to coast - neither of which is currently the case. It would also save money on administrative costs. Commensurate with this would be a large increase in the number of seats made available in medical schools for doctors, nurses and medical technicians, and increased financial aid to prospective students. There would also be greatly increased funding and incentives for urgent care clinics (privately run but part of the public health care system) which provide an efficient alternative to emergency rooms to encourage twenty four hour service, and to aid them in purchasing medical diagnostic equipment. Greatly increased funding for home care for the elderly would help relieve hospital overcrowding, and save money in the long run. There would also be the introduction of small user fees for non emergency visits to hospitals, and the introduction of private, for profit clinics.

Immigration.

Immigration would be halted for a period of five years to allow Canada the chance to assimilate the massive numbers of immigrants who have come here over the past twenty years. Thereafter, immigration would resume at levels calculated to ensure the stability of Canada's population - and no more. That would probably be about one quarter of what it is presently. New immigrants would require ten years landed in Canada before applying for citizenship, and any felony conviction during that period would result in deportation without appeal. Landed immigrants would not be permitted to go on welfare. After five years they would be permitted to go on pogey but for a much more limited period than Canadians. Repeated applications would see their request for citizenship rejected.

Justice

The removal of the jury system. We would instead have a three "judge" panel, composed of one legal expert and two laymen, the latter of whom would be elected by the community at large, and guided by the former. The legal experts would be selected by their fellow lawyers (who, unlike the government, at least know who among them is more capable) and those selected would have their names put forward to the government for final approval. All decisions rendered by the courts would be required to defer to the basic elements of justice with regard to any case before the court in the same way all laws now are trumped by the Constitution. If a man is guilty then he is guilty and that would be that - with any extraneous issues involved in the apprehension of prosecution dealt with externally to the issue at hand.

Feel free to comment intelligently about any or all of the above.

[sharkman]

You've got some good thoughts here, one thing I'd also like to see is the retaining of trained people. Too many nurses/doctors go elsewhere. Maybe we need some kind of strings on financial aid forcing complete pay back of debt if the student accepts a job in another country.

[Remiel]

I do not think you can halt immigration entirely for practical reasons, Argus, though I will leave you your point on how many people you want afterwards. We already have a problem with the baby boomer retirement bump, and your plan would introduce a second such time bomb, I think. No matter how much you might like it, I do not think it is feasible at all.

As for your panel system, I do not think that having two thirds of the panel elected at random would be a good idea. There is nothing stopping them from electing two similarly minded yahoos who could outvote the expert. You claim that they would have to defer to the basic elements of justice, but there is a lot of wiggle room in how that can be interpreted. You need to outline a more comprehensive plan of checks and balances for this most important insitution, I think.

[August1991]

Cripes.

Health Care

Health care taken away from the provinces and made a federal responsibility, with one national health care program.

So, that would kind of turn our current health scare system into the Canadian postal service, circa 1975.

Immigration.

Immigration would be halted for a period of five years to allow Canada the chance to assimilate the massive numbers of immigrants who have come here over the past twenty years.

You can't just "halt" immigration. So-called refugees arrive everyday at our airports and land crossings. What do we do with them? Every day, people in Canada on a visitor's visa decide to stay permanently. Every day, Canadians marry foreigners or adopt foreigners. Many people now in Canada want to have their children join them.

You might be able to freeze the entry of skilled workers to Canada for five years but that doesn't make any sense at all.

Justice

The removal of the jury system. We would instead have a three "judge" panel, composed of one legal expert and two laymen, the latter of whom would be elected by the community at large, and guided by the former.

I think Joseph Stalin had a judicial system similar to what you propose.

Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

-----

Argus, your proposals are not only intrinsically dumb but they would also probably compound the problems they purport to solve. It doesn't really matter though because even if the Argus Party formed a majority, Prime Minister Argus would never be able to implement these hare-brained schemes. In short, your three ideas are unfeasible.

Nevertheless, you may like this article (note the spin in the title): Tories stock parole board with former cops, jail personnel

[sharkman]

Whatever Stalin had, what we have today in Canada is not justice. It's broken. Judges are appointed in Canada, and it isn't working.

[Wilber]

Healthcare

I agree that portability should be improved but give over total control of the health care needs of my community to another mega bureaucracy in Ottawa that will cater to regions according to a particular federal goverment's political advantage? No thanks.

Immigration

Impossible unless we start having a lot more kids of our own just to replace our existing population.

Justice

On the contrary, I would like to see all trials involve juries but unfortunately it isn't practical

[Argus]

You've got some good thoughts here, one thing I'd also like to see is the retaining of trained people. Too many nurses/doctors go elsewhere. Maybe we need some kind of strings on financial aid forcing complete pay back of debt if the student accepts a job in another country.

So far as I can see the main problem is that the lack of doctors/nurses mean they're being worked too hard. If we have more doctors and nurses they can have more regular hours and that should solve most of the problems with retention.

[Argus]

I do not think you can halt immigration entirely for practical reasons, Argus, though I will leave you your point on how many people you want afterwards. We already have a problem with the baby boomer retirement bump, and your plan would introduce a second such time bomb, I think. No matter how much you might like it, I do not think it is feasible at all.

As for your panel system, I do not think that having two thirds of the panel elected at random would be a good idea. There is nothing stopping them from electing two similarly minded yahoos who could outvote the expert. You claim that they would have to defer to the basic elements of justice, but there is a lot of wiggle room in how that can be interpreted. You need to outline a more comprehensive plan of checks and balances for this most important insitution, I think.

Oh I agree completely. The thing is that we are wedded to this concept of juries even as inefficient a system as it is. It was once considered an important check against state power, but no longer really serves that function. And the increasing complexity of trials has made it difficult, in many cases, to even gather a jury, especially in light of the need to avoid anyone on the jury being prejudiced against the accused. A number of western nations get by without them, though, such as Germany.

I would imagine someone presenting themselves to the voters as a potential layman judge would have to first demonstrate his wisdom and good judgment. It would be a unique sort of election, in that there would be no platform or particular policy for the candidate to be running on - only his history as a solid citizen of good judgment.

The concept of justice would have to also be more clearly enunciated in order to guide judges.

As to immigration, I think you will find that the data on demographics would support a very sharp decrease in immigration. Our numbers are simply not that bad, and demographic experts have logn stated that we need nowhere near as many immigrants in order to retain our current population. A poll taken a few years ago asked this very question, and the majority of respondents believed that immigration should be cut for five years.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Cripes.

So, that would kind of turn our current health scare system into the Canadian postal service, circa 1975.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, August, but it is clear that different jurisdictions - including Quebec, are having serious difficulties living up to the current Canada Health Act. In particular, health care in western Quebec is abysmally bad, and is causing problems in Eastern Ontario as Quebecers cross the border desperate for decent health care.

You can't just "halt" immigration. So-called refugees arrive everyday at our airports and land crossings. What do we do with them? Every day, people in Canada on a visitor's visa decide to stay permanently. Every day, Canadians marry foreigners or adopt foreigners. Many people now in Canada want to have their children join them.

You might be able to freeze the entry of skilled workers to Canada for five years but that doesn't make any sense at all.

Most of our refugees are economic refugees no other nation would recognize. The rest are mostly also economic migrants, many of whom have few skills. There is no pressing need for us to import skilled workers. The market has always been able to solve such problems by itself. When the pool of workers with a given skill set shrinks below what society wants, the price those workers can command rises. The rising price then draws in more people to that field. We have short-circuited this market mechanism to no real benefit for Canada.

I think Joseph Stalin had a judicial system similar to what you propose.

Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

I'm sorry, was I speaking a foreign language? Did you temporarily lose command of English? I said nothing whatsoever about vigilante justice, although if you want to be anal (which you seem to be inclined) Vigilante Justice is still, rather clearly, justice.

The jury system grew up with common law. It is not standard everywhere. Germany doesn't have it and gets by rather well, as do other European nations. If you can find me a place where Joseph Stalin had judges elected by the people then by all means do so. Otherwise I'll consider your objection hysterical knee-jerk hyperbole.

Argus, your proposals are not only intrinsically dumb but they would also probably compound the problems they purport to solve.

How odd, then, that you have nothing intelligent to counter them. Your arguments seems to consist of - we have to keep health care as it is otherwise it'll be like Canada Post. We need to have the present justice system because otherwise Joseph Stalin will rule us. And we need to have immigration because - well just because.

Have I got that? I mean, I wouldn't want to be misstating what you clearly intended to be an intelligent response. I mean, you didn't mean to sound like a brainless ass, did you?

[Argus]

Healthcare

I agree that portability should be improved but give over total control of the health care needs of my community to another mega bureaucracy in Ottawa that will cater to regions according to a particular federal goverment's political advantage? No thanks.

What makes you think the mega bureacracy in Ottawa would be worse than the eleven mega bureaucracies in the provinces? And why do you think they would cater to regions for political advantage? I'm cynical about government myself but I don't see that happening an awful lot. Though it is true at the provincial level certain high population areas get treated better. Toronto gets better health care than Ottawa, for example. Montreal gets better health care than western Quebec. So what would be different under a one payer system?

Immigration

Impossible unless we start having a lot more kids of our own just to replace our existing population.

The demographic data says otherwise. If we want to retain our population then we do indeed need to have some immigration, but not nearly as many as we are now taking in. Why do you think our population keeps going up? It's because we're bringing in more immigrants than we need. We could retain our present population base with far fewer newcomers.

Justice

On the contrary, I would like to see all trials involve juries but unfortunately it isn't practical

What advantages do you see to the jury system over a proposed panel of judges?

[bk59]

Health Care

Your healthcare proposals all seem to involve "greatly increased funding". Where exactly is this money coming from? Or is this just a wish list? Let's assume it's a wish list so that we don't have to debate how to get from our current system to your proposed system.

So... "small user fees" for "non emergency" visits? If a parent is legitimately worried that their child is sick, and it turns out to be a "non emergency" do we really want to slap a fine on them? This could have a chilling effect on people, particularly if they are poor. I'm not sure we want to discourage people from seeking healthcare when they are doing so in good faith.

I am similarly skeptical about how a privately run clinic will be part of the public healthcare system.

I am also curious to see how you think a national healthcare system should be set up to deal with local healthcare issues without essentially duplicating much of the system we have now.

Immigration.

As to immigration, I think you will find that the data on demographics would support a very sharp decrease in immigration. Our numbers are simply not that bad, and demographic experts have logn stated that we need nowhere near as many immigrants in order to retain our current population. A poll taken a few years ago asked this very question, and the majority of respondents believed that immigration should be cut for five years.

The demographic data says otherwise. If we want to retain our population then we do indeed need to have some immigration, but not nearly as many as we are now taking in. Why do you think our population keeps going up? It's because we're bringing in more immigrants than we need. We could retain our present population base with far fewer newcomers.

Could you please link to this demographic data you are referring to?

Was the poll mentioned above a poll of the general population? If so, then people believing that immigration should be cut does not count as "proof" that immigration is too high. It just tells you what people believe, not what the actual situation is.

A lot of what I have seen contradicts what you are saying. As one example, please read this article. It looks like the data shows we are not bringing in enough people (or having enough babies).

Justice

The removal of the jury system. We would instead have a three "judge" panel, composed of one legal expert and two laymen, the latter of whom would be elected by the community at large, and guided by the former.

I would imagine someone presenting themselves to the voters as a potential layman judge would have to first demonstrate his wisdom and good judgment. It would be a unique sort of election, in that there would be no platform or particular policy for the candidate to be running on - only his history as a solid citizen of good judgment.

This election idea really does not sound like a good plan. It would create the temptation to give popular decisions in order to get re-elected rather than good decisions. Wisdom and good judgment are so subjective and a person's history in this regard cannot be separated from a platform or particular policy. As one example, some people would say that supporting mandatory minimums is good judgment, others would say this is simply supporting a particular policy.

The legal experts would be selected by their fellow lawyers (who, unlike the government, at least know who among them is more capable) and those selected would have their names put forward to the government for final approval.

Isn't this extremely similar to what we already have now (if not identical)? Where a committee reviews applications from lawyers who want to be judges and then passes on the recommended names to the government who has the final approval?

All decisions rendered by the courts would be required to defer to the basic elements of justice with regard to any case before the court in the same way all laws now are trumped by the Constitution. If a man is guilty then he is guilty and that would be that - with any extraneous issues involved in the apprehension of prosecution dealt with externally to the issue at hand.

The Constitution applies to the judiciary as much as it applies to the Parliament. So how exactly would judges "defer to the basic elements of justice" if we are not talking about the Constitution (also see my last question below)?

What do you mean with that last part of the quote (issues of "apprehension of prosecution")? Are you saying that police should do whatever they want in order to get an alleged criminal behind bars and that we shouldn't care about that? My apologies if that is not what you are saying.

The concept of justice would have to also be more clearly enunciated in order to guide judges.

How would you suggest doing that? As in, how would you define justice? I think you might find that once you try this, you may come to realize that the system we have right now is pretty good. Even when you include the judicial decisions that you don't like.

[Argus]

Health Care

Your healthcare proposals all seem to involve "greatly increased funding". Where exactly is this money coming from?

You know what, and I recognize this is odd for a conservative to say, but I don't care. If we have to raise taxes, then we do - although we continue to have strong surpluses so that should not be necessary. Eldercare is an underfunded mess and has been for some time. It needs revamping, even aside from the fact its causing a great deal of problems for hospitals who have nowhere to send elderly people in need to nursing care. I think that economically this makes sense in that it's cheaper to treat people at home anyway, but if it costs more than it costs more. I regard it as a necessity.

So... "small user fees" for "non emergency" visits?

I have seen and heard studies which show that a large percentage of hospital and medical visits are by a very small group of fairly healthy individuals who will see a doctor about the slightest thing. A few years back the Ontario government decided that, barring emergencies or serious medical conditions, people could only go to see an opthomologist once every two years, unless they wanted to pay for the visit. Why can we not set up something similar? Granted, exceptions can be made for people with conditions, as for small children, I'd kind of like to see specialists set up in local clinics here and there for consultation so mothers worried about the sniffles could drop by.

I am similarly skeptical about how a privately run clinic will be part of the public healthcare system.

That's not really a new thing. Most walk in and family clinics are privately run now. But they get their fees through the provincial plans. The only suggestion I'm making in this regard is government help for them to obtain diagnostic equipment and to operate 24hrs to keep people away from hospitals.

I am also curious to see how you think a national healthcare system should be set up to deal with local healthcare issues without essentially duplicating much of the system we have now.

You'll have to clarify, as I intend the national system to replace the 11 provincial ones.

Immigration.

Could you please link to this demographic data you are referring to?

I can later, if you need, but I've posted it several times before. If you simply search this sight on "argus demographics" you should find it readily enough.

Was the poll mentioned above a poll of the general population? If so, then people believing that immigration should be cut does not count as "proof" that immigration is too high. It just tells you what people believe, not what the actual situation is.

It was of the general population, not posted with any other reasoning than that support for such a measure would be high - indicating discomfort with the number of immigrants.

A lot of what I have seen contradicts what you are saying. As one example, please read this article. It looks like the data shows we are not bringing in enough people (or having enough babies).

The numbers here seem pretty superficial and pointless, frankly. Ontario will need half a million new workers by 2013! Why? A growth rate of 11% is bad? Why? Why do we need any growth? There is this concept that the bigger we get the richer we are, but that's not born out with real economic data. Sure, our GDP increases and such, but that's not increasing wealth on a per citizen level. Are we better off with 30+ million than we were with 20 million? Not according to the data on family wealth and disposable incomes.

Justice

This election idea really does not sound like a good plan. It would create the temptation to give popular decisions in order to get re-elected rather than good decisions.

How do you know good decisions won't be popular? Isn't the ultimate job of the judicial system to punish malfeance according to the will of the people, by the standards the people believe are proper and just? Are you saying you simply don't trust the people to decide what is a just and proper punishment?

Wisdom and good judgment are so subjective and a person's history in this regard cannot be separated from a platform or particular policy. As one example, some people would say that supporting mandatory minimums is good judgment, others would say this is simply supporting a particular policy.

Wel that's what democracy is all about, isn't it? Let them vote on it.

Isn't this extremely similar to what we already have now (if not identical)? Where a committee reviews applications from lawyers who want to be judges and then passes on the recommended names to the government who has the final approval?

Not quite. The only thing the commitee decides is whether the lawyer in question is "qualified" and essentially all lawyers are qualified. Unless the guy has failed to pay his tab to the bar association or been imprisoned for fraud he's "qualified". No, judges are largely partisan appointments by the government.

The Constitution applies to the judiciary as much as it applies to the Parliament. So how exactly would judges "defer to the basic elements of justice" if we are not talking about the Constitution (also see my last question below)?

What do you mean with that last part of the quote (issues of "apprehension of prosecution")? Are you saying that police should do whatever they want in order to get an alleged criminal behind bars and that we shouldn't care about that? My apologies if that is not what you are saying.

Actually, I'm okay with police doing whatever they want - bearing in mind they will be punished for any violation of the rules, regulations and laws. In other words, a cop who beats information out of a suspect as to the location of drugs will result in the evidence being accepted and the suspect going to jail, then the cop charged with assault and also going to jail - and being fired of course.

How would you suggest doing that? As in, how would you define justice? I think you might find that once you try this, you may come to realize that the system we have right now is pretty good. Even when you include the judicial decisions that you don't like.

I fully recognize that defining "justice" is a difficult thing. It's like art, or pornography - everyone knows what it is but can't agree on how to describe it. I believe we could do it, though.

[guyser]

Health Care

Health care taken away from the provinces and made a federal responsibility, with one national health care program. This would ensure portability, and that the same measure of care is available from coast to coast - neither of which is currently the case. It would also save money on administrative costs.

While I see some merits in this, I dont think it would be wise since Ottawa does not have a clue what some areas of this country need. Provincial boards would have a better handle on this.

As for admin costs , I dont see a saving since each province would still have a need for a central "command" as it were.

Immigration.

I see no evidence that the numbers coming are a problem. Skilled labour is badly needed so perhaps a modification of who gets in is warranted, but apart from that, this country is growing and we need them.

Justice

Feel free to comment intelligently about any or all of the above.

The justice system imo works. The vast majority of sentences are just and carried out efficiently and with care.

Having elections for justice ensures miscarraiges imo.

The AP better have a broader platform. Immigration and Justice are non-starters.

[Argus]

While I see some merits in this, I dont think it would be wise since Ottawa does not have a clue what some areas of this country need. Provincial boards would have a better handle on this.

I don't see why it would be a difficulty with one agency involved. The way guidelines are set now by the provinces has little to do with "knowledge" of individual circumstances anyway. It's all about X dollars per Y population base.

As for admin costs , I dont see a saving since each province would still have a need for a central "command" as it were.

It's not just a matter of costs, but of organization, and of making needed changes. Nothing is being done now, in part, simply because you can't get twelve governments to agree on anything (except that 11 of them want more money from the 12th), so even though everyone acknowledges there are all kinds of problems, big and small, there's little in the way of strategy for coping with them.

I see no evidence that the numbers coming are a problem. Skilled labour is badly needed so perhaps a modification of who gets in is warranted, but apart from that, this country is growing and we need them.

The justice system imo works. The vast majority of sentences are just and carried out efficiently and with care.

Having elections for justice ensures miscarraiges imo.

The AP better have a broader platform. Immigration and Justice are non-starters.

Yes, I know, the legal system is nearly perfect and immigrants are a delight. But my party isn't aimed at lifelong Liberals but people who are unsatisfied with the way things are going, and massive numbers of Canadians have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the current systems of immigration and justice.

[guyser]

Yes, I know, the legal system is nearly perfect and immigrants are a delight. But my party isn't aimed at lifelong Liberals but people who are unsatisfied with the way things are going, and massive numbers of Canadians have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the current systems of immigration and justice.

And I know how you feel about both.

"Massive numbers " and Extreme dissatisfaction" is more than stretching it. Besides, lots of people have views that are not even closely based on fact.

[bk59]

You know what, and I recognize this is odd for a conservative to say, but I don't care. If we have to raise taxes, then we do - although we continue to have strong surpluses so that should not be necessary.

At least you are honest about this. I was worried that you might come back with some odd theory about how this could all be paid for and we could get a 200% tax cut as well.

I have seen and heard studies which show that a large percentage of hospital and medical visits are by a very small group of fairly healthy individuals who will see a doctor about the slightest thing. A few years back the Ontario government decided that, barring emergencies or serious medical conditions, people could only go to see an opthomologist once every two years, unless they wanted to pay for the visit. Why can we not set up something similar? Granted, exceptions can be made for people with conditions, as for small children, I'd kind of like to see specialists set up in local clinics here and there for consultation so mothers worried about the sniffles could drop by.

Again, I'd like to see where the data comes from that shows how a "very small group" are causing huge financial problems for the system. And again, does the fee get waived for someone who goes to a hospital in good faith thinking something is wrong? Do you have to get put on a list, and the third time you show up then you get fined? I have not seen these studies of yours, but it looks like your proposed solution may cause just as many or more problems than it would solve. Particularly in the "red tape" department.

Did you mean optometrists? The problem with people seeing optometrists more than once every two years was that these were regular checkups. The problem you described above is people thinking they have a problem and then going to emergency unnecessarily. They aren't going to get yearly physicals (although that is probably a good idea for most people...). Those are two different sets of problems. You can tell someone they can only go to emergency once a year, but when there is an emergency, they aren't going to wait until next year to meet that quota. Nor should people have to.

You'll have to clarify, as I intend the national system to replace the 11 provincial ones.

Different regions have different healthcare needs. From the municipal level to the provincial level to the problems that we face nationwide. If all you are going to do is recreate the same bureaucracy to deal with these issues, but then add a federal level on top of that, then the suggestion will cost more than it saves. At some level in our system, it isn't just $X per Y people. Someone decides what priorities to focus on. And those "someones" will have to be at the provincial and municipal levels. So what does your federal level add? Or take away? I am asking just to get details. I am not necessarily opposed to a federal healthcare system, but there are many forms that this could take - not all of them desirable.

I can later, if you need, but I've posted it several times before. If you simply search this sight on "argus demographics" you should find it readily enough.

It was of the general population, not posted with any other reasoning than that support for such a measure would be high - indicating discomfort with the number of immigrants.

I searched for demographics limited to your postings. Only found one link to an Ontario government site, but the link was dead (page not found). Unless I missed other links... If you have it handy please link it. If not, well... that's OK, but please understand that it makes it harder for me to come around to your way of thinking without seeing actual data that says immigration is hurting us. A poll of people who think immigration is bad really means nothing. I'm sure someone could generate a poll that says people have "discomfort" with UFOs. That doesn't mean we need to start a multi-billion dollar anti-UFO program.

The numbers here seem pretty superficial and pointless, frankly. Ontario will need half a million new workers by 2013! Why? A growth rate of 11% is bad? Why? Why do we need any growth? There is this concept that the bigger we get the richer we are, but that's not born out with real economic data. Sure, our GDP increases and such, but that's not increasing wealth on a per citizen level. Are we better off with 30+ million than we were with 20 million? Not according to the data on family wealth and disposable incomes.

Superficial, eh? Are they superficial because you don't agree with them, or for some other reason? Because they certainly are not pointless. Ontario will need more workers for the reasons laid out in the article. Baby boomers are retiring, birth rates are not keeping up, and the economy is growing (i.e. there are more jobs available). Without those workers jobs will go unfilled, etc. Now I can agree with you on the point that we don't need to simply be focused on attaining a number for no reason (i.e. I don't support people who say that we need more than 11% growth just because they say so). But the simple fact is that when you look at industries like the construction industry in Canada, people are saying that we are short workers. And we will continue to be short skilled workers when a large chunk of the current work force retires. Is your answer simply going to be that we just stop building those houses? Slow down or stop building infrastructure projects that need to be completed?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but... you oppose the data in the article because you don't like the 200% figure (which didn't really have much to do with the numbers anyway), and you didn't like that figure because "data on family wealth and disposable incomes" show... something? But no link to that data. You don't have to cite everything, but so far the only numbers that have appeared in this thread show that stopping all immigration would be a bad thing for our economy. And responses that claim to have support in data, but that don't show that data, seem a bit weak. I'm not trying to be offensive, but even a single article would help clarify your point.

How do you know good decisions won't be popular? Isn't the ultimate job of the judicial system to punish malfeance according to the will of the people, by the standards the people believe are proper and just? Are you saying you simply don't trust the people to decide what is a just and proper punishment?

Actually I would say that the point of the justice system is to make life safer and fair for everyone, as much as such a thing is possible. Sometimes that means punishment. But sometimes that means rehabilitation. And sometimes, when people read a biased report in a paper they want punishment when what the situation really calls for is rehabilitation. And sometimes, when people read a biased report in a paper they want rehabilitation when what the situation really calls for is punishment. All I'm saying is that sometimes the right decision will not be the popular decision. Sometimes there will be pressure to appease the masses rather than do what is right for the people involved. It won't always happen, but elections increase the chance that those situations, when they do arise, will not be handled well.

Wel that's what democracy is all about, isn't it? Let them vote on it.

You claimed it would be a "unique election" with "no platform or particular policy for the candidate to be running on". Is this no longer your position? Because these types of elections would be politicized faster than you could say "go vote".

Not quite. The only thing the commitee decides is whether the lawyer in question is "qualified" and essentially all lawyers are qualified. Unless the guy has failed to pay his tab to the bar association or been imprisoned for fraud he's "qualified". No, judges are largely partisan appointments by the government.

No, all lawyers are definitely not qualified. And these committees weed out many of them. In many cases the committees will, at the very least, give a short list of only a few names to the government out of many applications. So the committees are doing more than just checking to see if a lawyer has paid his yearly dues. They have to decide who rises to the top of the batch. Which brings us back to the question, if the government has "final approval" in your system, what is the difference? Does the committee just decide on one name then? Is this the only thing you really want to change?

Actually, I'm okay with police doing whatever they want - bearing in mind they will be punished for any violation of the rules, regulations and laws. In other words, a cop who beats information out of a suspect as to the location of drugs will result in the evidence being accepted and the suspect going to jail, then the cop charged with assault and also going to jail - and being fired of course.

Well I, and many others, are not OK with police doing whatever they want. I happen to think that if a cop beats "information" out of a suspect then maybe that information isn't that reliable. After enough beatings you would confess to murdering someone just to make the officer stop. Does that mean you, in that situation, should be convicted of murder? And then the police officer fired and sent off to jail for a lesser period of time? Seems a bit odd to have a system that would allow an innocent person to go to jail for life while the person who beat the false confession out of him only gets five years. I think you may need to rethink this one.

I fully recognize that defining "justice" is a difficult thing. It's like art, or pornography - everyone knows what it is but can't agree on how to describe it. I believe we could do it, though.

Well, right there you just showed the hole in your argument. Two people can watch the same movie and one would call it art and the other would call it pornography. So I'm not sure that everyone "knows what it is". Likewise, I and many others think that people have the right to due process and that this right is essential for a fair justice system. But that right involves putting restrictions on what police can and cannot do. Something which you would do away with.

[Wild Bill]

At least you are honest about this. I was worried that you might come back with some odd theory about how this could all be paid for and we could get a 200% tax cut as well.

Again, I'd like to see where the data comes from that shows how a "very small group" are causing huge financial problems for the system. And again, does the fee get waived for someone who goes to a hospital in good faith thinking something is wrong? Do you have to get put on a list, and the third time you show up then you get fined? I have not seen these studies of yours, but it looks like your proposed solution may cause just as many or more problems than it would solve. Particularly in the "red tape" department.

Did you mean optometrists? The problem with people seeing optometrists more than once every two years was that these were regular checkups. The problem you described above is people thinking they have a problem and then going to emergency unnecessarily. They aren't going to get yearly physicals (although that is probably a good idea for most people...). Those are two different sets of problems. You can tell someone they can only go to emergency once a year, but when there is an emergency, they aren't going to wait until next year to meet that quota. Nor should people have to.

Different regions have different healthcare needs. From the municipal level to the provincial level to the problems that we face nationwide. If all you are going to do is recreate the same bureaucracy to deal with these issues, but then add a federal level on top of that, then the suggestion will cost more than it saves. At some level in our system, it isn't just $X per Y people. Someone decides what priorities to focus on. And those "someones" will have to be at the provincial and municipal levels. So what does your federal level add? Or take away? I am asking just to get details. I am not necessarily opposed to a federal healthcare system, but there are many forms that this could take - not all of them desirable.

These kinds of arguments are really just games of musical chairs. Blaming people for using emergency departments is just dodging the blame for having insufficient resources and other problems in the system.

Most people go to the emergency department because they need treatment or at least a triage decision that they themselves don't feel qualified to make. Not surprising, when we are constantly told that we should only trust in a qualified opinion and not decide for ourselves. Your GP is usually too busy or likely it's after hours anyway!

Few people plug up emergency wards for their hypochondria 'cuz just going to "emerg" is always a big pain in the ass! I have never been able to get through an emergency room visit in my town for me or my family in under 8 hours. I dread the very idea of going. Yet I still go, only because I have no choice!

What's more, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the Hamilton/Niagara area use emergency departments for a very simple reason. They can't get a family GP! There simply aren't enough available. You use the emergency department or you just sit at home and use Dr. Phil on tv. Those are your only options.

Argus' plan at least has the potential to address these problems. That's more than what's being done by the McGuinty government.

More and more, Dalton's party is looking like a Toronto-ONLY party!

Just ask the folks of Caledonia.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Army Guy]

Health care taken away from the provinces and made a federal responsibility, with one national health care program. This would ensure portability, and that the same measure of care is available from coast to coast - neither of which is currently the case. It would also save money on administrative costs. Commensurate with this would be a large increase in the number of seats made available in medical schools for doctors, nurses and medical technicians, and increased financial aid to prospective students. There would also be greatly increased funding and incentives for urgent care clinics (privately run but part of the public health care system) which provide an efficient alternative to emergency rooms to encourage twenty four hour service, and to aid them in purchasing medical diagnostic equipment. Greatly increased funding for home care for the elderly would help relieve hospital overcrowding, and save money in the long run. There would also be the introduction of small user fees for non emergency visits to hospitals, and the introduction of private, for profit clinics.

I like it, many countries around the world have a national run health care system. instead of increasing financial aid to students why not just have medical school federalized as well, Free educational to all those that qualify, after completion of training and schooling have a mandatory term of service, any where within the nation...It just might look after the shortage of medical pers, and solve issues with small towns, villages , cities not being able to attract trained medical pers to serve the community.

Just a thought.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Army Guy

[bk59]

These kinds of arguments are really just games of musical chairs. Blaming people for using emergency departments is just dodging the blame for having insufficient resources and other problems in the system.

I think this is closer to the truth. And is also another reason why putting a user fee on people going to emergency is a bad idea. It won't actually solve the problem.

Argus' plan at least has the potential to address these problems. That's more than what's being done by the McGuinty government.

More and more, Dalton's party is looking like a Toronto-ONLY party!

Just ask the folks of Caledonia.

The big difference between McGuinty and Argus is probably the fact that McGuinty has to pay for his plan. Argus does not. Remember what happened when the healthcare tax was introduced in Ontario? (Hint: people were not happy.) Now I'm not saying that McGuinty has done the best possible job ever. But it's very easy to agree with the sentiment "let's spend as much money as it takes" when you aren't the one trying to figure out how much it will actually cost and then trying to collect from a province full of people.

[bk59]

I like it, many countries around the world have a national run health care system. instead of increasing financial aid to students why not just have medical school federalized as well, Free educational to all those that qualify, after completion of training and schooling have a mandatory term of service, any where within the nation...It just might look after the shortage of medical pers, and solve issues with small towns, villages , cities not being able to attract trained medical pers to serve the community.

Just a thought.

Ontario tried a program like this back in 2000. Link here. It was meant to attract doctors to underserviced areas in Ontario. I don't know if the program is still running or not. Even if it was, it would have to be updated since the $40,000 max in 2000 will now only cover 2 or 2.5 years of medical school (I think). Even with this program though, many areas are still underserviced.

To really make it work you couldn't just say "anywhere in the nation". You would have to make people go to underserviced areas. And possibly increase the service time from 3 - 4 years to something like 5 years maybe. It would also help if provinces helped universities out a bit more.

[normanchateau]

You've got some good thoughts here, one thing I'd also like to see is the retaining of trained people. Too many nurses/doctors go elsewhere.

The data do not support your claim that Canadian physicians go elsewhere. On the contrary, more Canadian physicians return from the US than move to the US:

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth29_e.php

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/12/...rs-migrate.html

The US, renowned for luring more physicians than any other country in the world, faces a shortage of physicians in the next decade.

[Argus]

At least you are honest about this. I was worried that you might come back with some odd theory about how this could all be paid for and we could get a 200% tax cut as well.

I think the cost would be less than people think, especially as good home health care would catch many problems before they become more expensive to deal with, and help keep people out of hospital.

Again, I'd like to see where the data comes from that shows how a "very small group" are causing huge financial problems for the system. And again, does the fee get waived for someone who goes to a hospital in good faith thinking something is wrong? Do you have to get put on a list, and the third time you show up then you get fined?

I'm merely advocating broad policy. The issues of who would and would not pay would have to be decided after studying more precise data regarding who uses medical services, why, and how often, but I see no real impediment to collecting minor fees from most people for medical visits.

Different regions have different healthcare needs.

I don't understand. Do people in BC need fewer MRIs and X-rays than people in NS? Do people in Toronto have heart attacks but not people in Montreal?

At some level in our system, it isn't just $X per Y people. Someone decides what priorities to focus on. And those "someones" will have to be at the provincial and municipal levels.

Why? Someone in Ottawa can't analyse the health care data for the lower mainland in BC and realize the wait times for cancer treatment are too high, and thus have to be addressed? They can't look at the wait times for MRIs in PEI and realize we need to buy another couple of machines?

So what does your federal level add? Or take away? I am asking just to get details. I am not necessarily opposed to a federal healthcare system, but there are many forms that this could take - not all of them desirable.

It adds a measure of flexibility, for one, as you wouldn't need to get 11 provincial governments on board for every change. It also takes away one of the primary features of Canada's health care system - that those who administer it don't have the ability to fund it. Ie, provinces administer health care, but they need funding from the feds. So it can be difficult to pinpoint responsibility when things go wrong. If the feds are responsible for all funding and for the system they will have to directly answer for problems.

[Argus]

I searched for demographics limited to your postings. Only found one link to an Ontario government site, but the link was dead (page not found). Unless I missed other links... If you have it handy please link it. If not, well... that's OK, but please understand that it makes it harder for me to come around to your way of thinking without seeing actual data that says immigration is hurting us.

Yes, the old links are all dead, and while I know it was from Daniel Stoffman I haven't been able to find the actual statement any more because he's had a few new books since then and most references to him and immigration refer to that. However, it's not hard to find information which supports my statements above in a more generalized way. Information is fairly readily available showing, for example, that the average age of immigrants is not much younger than that of Canada - this is because we do not give points for youth, and we are fairly generous in allowing people to sponsor older relatives, some of them into retirement.

But it's impossible to find verifiable data which shows how immigration is HELPING us. Have a gander at the following, particularly Stoffman's article on Toronto for the CBC.

The San Paolo of the north

This site has been calling for a reduction in immigration and cites federal government studies on demographics and immigration success rates. There is certainly no question that immigrations are doing much less well than they used to, with a far higher proportion of immigrations under the poverty line than used to be the case.

Immigration Watch

And while this speaks mainly of US immigration, I found some of it to be quite pertinent to the discussion, including:

"Without immigration, the U.S. population will decline because of low native birthrates."

Immigration does not "replenish" a country's population, it replaces it. American history is instructive on this point. Between 1790 and 1830, a period in which the total number of immigrants was about 385,000, or under 10,000 per year, the U.S. population increased by an astonishing nine million (from 3.9 million in 1790 to 12.9 million in 1830). This tripling was due mainly to the natural increase of the 1790 population, not to immigration. As population expert Francis A. Walker noted in a famous essay published in 1891, this very high native birthrate dropped subsequent to the upward turn of immigration after 1830 and the even sharper increase of immigration after 1840. The reason for this, Walker argued, was that immigrants lowered living standards, wage levels, and working conditions, which resulted in reduced prospects for the native population, which made having large families less attractive. Immigration thus caused a drop in the native birthrate, replacing those lost native births with immigrants.(12) The same effect of mass immigration on wages and working conditions is clearly in operation today, along with the same effect on the native birthrate.

Exposing Open Border arguments

Superficial, eh? Are they superficial because you don't agree with them, or for some other reason? Because they certainly are not pointless. Ontario will need more workers for the reasons laid out in the article.

Superficial in that it didn't deal with obvious underlying factors. We will need more workers? Why? We have plenty of unemployed and even more underemployed. The boomers are retiring, yes, but who says we need the economy to grow? How many new people, ie, Canadian born, will enter the work force during the period they say we need another 500k workers? It doesn't say. So how many immigrants do we need? It doesn't say.

But the simple fact is that when you look at industries like the construction industry in Canada, people are saying that we are short workers.

Okay, so let's look at that. We are short workers - now, with very high immigration, and before the boomers have retired. Why? The poverty rate among immigrants who have come here over the past ten years is rising towards 50%. Shouldn't some of those people be getting involved in construction? Doesn't construction pay better than cleaning floors, driving cabs and being a security guard? Perhaps instead of mass immigration we'd do better to establish a skills training program for underemployed people which sent them into those areas they are needed?

Edited July 10, 2008 by Argus

[Rue]

IJustice

The removal of the jury system. We would instead have a three "judge" panel, composed of one legal expert and two laymen, the latter of whom would be elected by the community at large, and guided by the former. The legal experts would be selected by their fellow lawyers (who, unlike the government, at least know who among them is more capable) and those selected would have their names put forward to the government for final approval. All decisions rendered by the courts would be required to defer to the basic elements of justice with regard to any case before the court in the same way all laws now are trumped by the Constitution. If a man is guilty then he is guilty and that would be that - with any extraneous issues involved in the apprehension of prosecution dealt with externally to the issue at hand.

Feel free to comment intelligently about any or all of the above.

The problem with the no.3 is what happens if there is a stalemate. Technically whether you have 2 or 11 or 7 or 6, what you are describing is what the jury system already does and what the role of a Judge is with a jury system. Decisions are already required to meet the basic elements of justice otherwise they are appealed. Already happens. There are numerous doctrines, statutes, regulations, case decisions innunciating what constitutes justice.

I do concede the law is always in need of reform and improvement and all we lawyers are verbose creatures who cause a lot of problems often in our zeal to argue the best interests of our clients. Also we can be rude. There I added in the last two comments as you did say you wanted an intelligent comment!

Seriously the jury system is to allow peers to try people. The number of jurists is supposed to assure active discussion that will flush out all the issues during the discussion. The Judge is supposed to guide the jury as to any legal issues so they can focus on making conclusions as to the facts.

The problems with false memory, manipulated evidence, using emotion to manipulate jurors, unmotivated jurors, etc., yes these are all real problems.

Quite frankly we have problems with Judges too. Anything with a human is going to have problems. We try put checks and balances into the system. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the "truth" only comes out years later after someone suffers needlessly, sometimes the system fails, etc.

No it aint perfect.

Me personally I would like to see more laypersons involved in the disciplinary and regulatory processes of each province's Law Society.

[madmax]

I have seen alot of discussion on the populist Argus Party. But not everyone can agree.

In true historical CFL Canadian Fashion, I have arbitrarily created two new parties to contest the Argus Party.

1) Argus Party

2) Argusnaught Party

3) ArgusNOT Party

The official leader of the opposition shall have the official title of

JASON

Jack

Asses

Soley

Opposing

Nothing

Just a bit of fun