Are the Conservatives now in trouble?

[Kliege]

Quebec, Quebec , Quebec this is the main problem thats has troubled canada for decades. Its silly to have these programs in places like Victoria or Red Deer were few if any people speck french as a main lang..but we can't change it because it might upset Quebec.

[maplesyrup]

Maybe there is more support for bilingualism outside Quebec than you realize. Have you ever looked at the French immersion statistics?

Now Harper is making it worse and he is going to get burned with it. He should never have added:

"Unless there is an overwhelming reason to change it".

[maplesyrup]

Tory outrage: How much is gas, how much is hot air?

Speaking of credibility, Mr. Harper keeps insisting that Parliament should have a free vote on same-sex marriage, as if that would solve anything.

The same-sex marriage horse not only left the barn a long time ago, it has cantered over the hills and can't be seen any more, courtesy of Canada's courts. Twice, Parliament voted in favour of the conventional definition of marriage -- once on a Canadian Alliance motion. The superior courts of Ontario and British Columbia, very full of themselves to be sure, shrugged off those votes and declared gay marriage protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Parliament could vote unanimously in favour of the conventional definition of marriage -- which won't happen because same-sex marriage has lots of supporters -- but it wouldn't mean a thing. Mr. Harper must know that.

Unless Parliament used the notwithstanding clause to stay the lower courts' rulings, let alone a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, a parliamentary vote would be so much hot air. It sounds good to opponents of same-sex marriage to hear that the issue should be decided by Parliament, but the sad fact is that Parliament is an irrelevancy in the Age of the Charter on this issue without the notwithstanding clause.

An intellectually correct, as opposed to politically expedient, argument would be to promise to use the notwithstanding clause to vitiate the courts' rulings.

I see a cat and mouse game going on right now with the politicians and the voters. The politicians are trying to get a majority government for a four or five year period, so they won't have to bother with voters represented by other parties, and the voters want to corral the suckers and keep them on a short leash with a minority government.

I hope we have minority governments for the next 100 years. Then maybe, just maybe, the politicians will settle down. One gets the impression sometimes that elected politicians think they are members of some private club.

[Argus]

Do we want the Liberals to rule this country forever? Well they will if the opposition don't get their act together on basic Canadian values, and bilingualism is one of them. If Conservatives were smart they would promote French more than the Lberals do. Then watch the changes in voting patterns in this country.

Anyway kudos to Stephen Harper who has taken the time to learn to speak French.

People who reflexively defend Official Bilingualism usually know little or nothing about what it involves. Basic Canadian value? Phhht! It is a basic value of the Liberal Party, and the eastern media. Most Canadians could care less about it, and that includes most Quebecers.

[Argus]

I'm not sure if I understand whether you agree with Official Bilingualism as it is currently set up or not.

I believe in a policy which says people should be able to communicate with their government in either official language. I do not, of course, believe in Official Bilingualism as it is presently constituted. I live in Ottawa and work for the federal government, so unlike most who support OB I know what it involves and how much it costs and how little good it does.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe in a policy which says people should be able to communicate with their government in either official language. I do not, of course, believe in Official Bilingualism as it is presently constituted. I live in Ottawa and work for the federal government, so unlike most who support OB I know what it involves and how much it costs and how little good it does.

If you follow the axis of political ideals from idealistic to pragmatic, you'll find this issue at the idealistic end. ie. It's ideally a good thing, but won't fly politically.

Again, the Conservatives aren't trumpeting this issue as a big deal because they would like to win the election.

[maplesyrup]

Just wondering if this would make a difference. What if he was speaking for a majority of his constituents? Would it be o.k. to state thier opinion?

Goldie.......very good question.

Uunfortunately due to the party system we have here in Canada the answer is no, which is wrong of course.

I believe we would have a lot healthier democracy if we did not have political parties in Canada. I think they are actually destroying our democracy to a certain extent.

Now how do we get rid of them? A good first step is to elect a minority government for the next 100 years.

[willy]

Willy, you ask ...why go there? Because, right or wrong... good or bad, it is a major part of Canada's identity. It is a major policy area.

If the Conservative Party does not, They should not be afraid to state their position and support it during an election (or anytime for that matter).

Rob1963, I was not clear. The Conservative Party policy on official bilingualism is the status quo because they will not change it. We don't need to go there because they will not make any changes. Harper did acknowledge that if constituents made this a priority they would look at it. But it is not a priority right now. Is it your priority Rob1963 or are you just fishing for wedge issues?

I want to know not just what parties think about everything but what their priorities are.

Conservatives are clear:

Health Care

Tax reductions

Military spending

Provincial rights

Government accountability and trust

These are the areas that they plan to act on. These are the areas that they will affect my life in.

[takeanumber]

Conservatives are clear:

Health Care

Tax reductions

Military spending

Provincial rights

Government accountability and trust

1. Privatising vast swaths of Health Care.

2. Tax reductions so you can afford to pay for privatised health care.

3. Military spending: bullshit. I'll believe it when I see it.

4. Provincial rights: decentralization. Is it good? Do most people understand s.92?

5. Government accountability and trust: how? Once they're elected, there's no recall. There's no PR. There's nothing in their platform with respect to transparency.

Are the Federal Conservatives going to act like the Alberta Conservatives? Are we going to get plagerists and bullies like we do provincially.

Sorry. I've had enough of Conservative pork, corruption, greed, arrogance and lies from living in Alberta for over a decade. If the Federal Conservatives are offering what's on the menu in Alberta, I'll have to pass.

[willy]

Privatising vast swaths of Health Care.

2. Tax reductions so you can afford to pay for privatised health care.

3. Military spending: bullshit. I'll believe it when I see it.

4. Provincial rights: decentralization. Is it good? Do most people understand s.92?

5. Government accountability and trust: how? Once they're elected, there's no recall. There's no PR. There's nothing in their platform with respect to transparency.

What a pile of @#@#!

Universal healthcare is federal Conservative policy. They said they would uphold the Canada Health Act. They also said they would give the provinces more flexibility in fixing the system. You can hold the provincial governments responsible for what that looks like. (Provinces decide on delivery) Feds pay transfers that are right now only 16% of the total cost of healthcare.

Tax reductions for low and middle income earners are now a bad thing?

Need to vote them in to find out about the other issues.

Today, Harper said his first act would be to have the Auditor General review all sponsorship programs ($35billion worth).

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

takeanumber, I wont expect you to change your mind.

[Argus]

Conservatives are clear:

Health Care

Tax reductions

Military spending

Provincial rights

Government accountability and trust

1. Privatising vast swaths of Health Care.

2. Tax reductions so you can afford to pay for privatised health care.

It is this kind of reaction which has kept the major political parties in a state similar to deer caught in the headlights on the issue of health care.

Except the headlight is on a train which is headed straight at us. It's called the Boomer Express, and on the track we're on our health care system will distingrate when we meet it.

A billion extra for health care? Chump change. Ten billion? Pennies. It'll do a couple of years. A hundred billion? Not nearly enough.

We, the North Koreans, and the Cubans are the only nations on Earth which ban for-profit health care. The result is we have a pretty lousy health care system. Yet people cling to it with feverish desperation, as if the only alternative is the evil capitalist yankee running dog doctors who will let you die without money.

Odd, how no one ever thinks to look to Europe. Europe which is largely run by left wing socialist governments. Europe with, for the most part, much better health care than Canada has - at just about the same or lower cost.

Do you know that the Swedes don't pay more than us for health care? Do you know the idea of waiting in a line for 8 hours to get a broken arm treated in Sweden is virtually unheard of? Do you know we pay more than the Danes and Norwegians? You don't wait months and months for an MRI test in Norway, though, or France, or Germany either.

They all have private, for-profit health care in addition to their national health care programs. Yet despite this, or perhaps because of it, you can get better treatment in most western European hospitals than you can in Canada.

BTW, if you are an American and have health insurance you don't wait 8 hours to get a broken arm treated either.

So I guess that's another way we're like the Cubans and North Koreans.

Oh, and if you think Paul Martin, or any member of his family, or anyone who is his friend has EVER waited for hours for emergency treatment or EVER waited for months for a diagnostic test - or ever will - you're a fool.

[takeanumber]

Europe with, for the most part, much better health care than Canada has - at just about the same or lower cost.

Not true, and I've done research on comparative health policy.

As for the Boomer Express. GJ! But instead of allowing the market to decide who lives and who dies (because we must face it, all the best equipment and doctors will go to those who can afford it, leaving the poor with comparatively inferior, and thus, higher deathrates); why don't we all pitch in so that everybody gets a standard level of care.

Homecare, national pharmacare -- there are so many innovative policy solutions we should be considering to deal with the 'me' generation beast.

But, following the Klein Track record and applying it to Harper, the Conservatives won't give it a chance.

And the Liberals have been dragging their feet for a decade.

Which leaves who? lol.

[Argus]

Europe with, for the most part, much better health care than Canada has - at just about the same or lower cost.

Not true, and I've done research on comparative health policy.

That's nice. Got anything to back that up? Note the following link. It's a few years old, but its figures for Canada probably caught us at our lowest point for health care spending. Health care spending has risen drastically in Canada over the past few years.

oecd health care spending

This next link is newer, but you probably won't like the source. Nevertheless, the tables are straight from the OECD. Canada spends 11.7% of gdp on health care, which is more then most European countries. And again, this doesn't take into account the surge in spending over the last 2 years.

Health care spending in Canada

[Sully]

Please tell me you are not thinking that the NDP is the solution to this problem, please tell me you do not think they are the ones to salvage health care, hahahaha what a joke!!! Here is a little wake up call to you takeanumber, since you like draw the comparison of the Klein govt. to the federal conservatives, I'll draw on the comparison of what the NDP was like here in BC and relate it to the federal NDP.

Here is what we could expect from the NDP as far as health care.

1.) You would hear people on the left crying about how unfair it is that right leaning governments to be in the pockets of big corporations, yet it is ok for the NDP to be in the pockets of unions, i.e. health unions. Finally here in BC their ridiculous wage and benefits rates are being scaled back to modest levels that are in line with the rest of Canada.

Result: NDP would cater to unions within Health Care resulting in higher costs for all. You would see wages of these workers go up, but unlike a private business, there would not be any resulting change in the effiency or responsibilities from these workers. A wage increase of 10% would not result in 10% more work done, it would be just more cost for the same work, wow thats a great idea.

2.) You would have a federal govt. that is openly hostile towards business, especially big corporations that employ thousands of people.

Result: Since the NDP does not have a firm grasp of simple economics, they will effectively kill investment in the country. Hmmmm smart move, investment results in economic growth and jobs for Canadians. More working Canadians will result in more taxes being paid, but hey who needs more people paying taxes, when we can stagnate the economy and tax the crap out of the people that already work here, man these ideas are getting better and better eh!!

3.) Rather than fixing a problem and offending someone (i.e. Unions) , they would pump more cash into a cash eating machine.

Result: Just like in BC when the NDP was in power, the left will claim that the health care system will be funded better then it currently is under the provinicial Liberals. Yet still with all the money pumped into the system the equipment will still become outdated and wait lists will still increase under the NDP, but where did all the money go, yup you guessed it to the unions, more money into the system for the same results, wow I should join the NDP with ideas like this.

I mean the list goes on and on with how bad the NDP would screw the "average" joe over and just give the "average" joe the same fumbling health care system he had before, but one thing is different, he is now paying more for the same system that was previously available to him .

[August1991]

Somebody should really start a new thread on Health Care.

Argus: They all have private, for-profit health care in addition to their national health care programs. Yet despite this, or perhaps because of it, you can get better treatment in most western European hospitals than you can in Canada.

I don't agree about your take on western Europe health. It's two tier and sucks.

Worse, I'm confused by "private, for-profit health care in addition to their national health care". What's the idea?

Where the State has a role is in the insurance side of health care. Like most insurance schemes, it works best when people can't pick and choose. The State makes the insurance scheme universal and obligatory. But anybody should be able to provide health services.

Consider State car insurance. You pay the premium to the province but you get your car fixed wherever you want - even a private, for profit garage.

takenum: Homecare, national pharmacare -- there are so many innovative policy solutions we should be considering to deal with the 'me' generation beast.

The government by rights should barely involved in this at all. Certainly not the feds. But I agree, the delivery of health services in Canada is a business ripe for takeover.

Health care spending has risen drastically in Canada over the past few years.

Health care is a luxury good. The percentage of GDP rises with per capita income. In percentage terms, we're still well below the US. At present, I think we are shovelling about $7 billion of new money each year into the sector. If it were a private business, the stocks would be hot.

Sully: Please tell me you are not thinking that the NDP is the solution to this problem

I agree with it all. I could add points and points. But the Dippers are a kind of "social conscience". And they certainly have the right to be stupid.

[Argus]

Somebody should really start a new thread on Health Care.

Argus: They all have private, for-profit health care in addition to their national health care programs. Yet despite this, or perhaps because of it, you can get better treatment in most western European hospitals than you can in Canada.

I don't agree about your take on western Europe health. It's two tier and sucks.

I did, actually start a health care thread, sometime last week, I believe.

Would you care to explain the "it sucks" part of your message? Are you saying health care in Sweden or France is not as good as that in Canada? Because my information is that it is better, with far fewer waiting times than ours for emergency treatment, diagnostic tests and urgent but not critical surgeries (as in hip replacement, etc).

[takeanumber]

Swedish health care policy is incredibly complex and really non-comparable to Canada.

Most European states are unitary (Baltic, Benelux, France, Portugal, Ireland, Great Britain, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Italy) the two exceptions being Germany and Switzerland.

Healthcare dynamics thus are very different beasts in those countries.

Moreover, they have a different culture. Everybody chips in to help everybody out. We're also the most heavily insured country on earth. We don't like risk here in Canada and we work hard to mitigate it as much as possible.

The fact is, there shouldn't be a tax on getting sick. It's really unfair. Somebody can live their entire life living great -- swimming, drinking carrot juice, avoiding red meat etc..., and still come down with catastrophic testicular cancer at 29. To suggest that that person should get inferior care to a 60 year old boomer because the boomer has the money and income to afford the best doctors and the 29 year old does not because his income has not reached that level yet, is injust.

So, think about the WHOLE issue, not just from your narrow "What's best for my family is what's best for Canada" point of view.