The Official Canadian PS Politics Thread

[lynxamania]

Since the US PS Forums have it I decided we should start a thread discussing politics here in Canada and abroad. Let me know if we can keep this thread going!

[shoplineca]

Rob
Harris wouldnt win because he was an Eastern Canadian Premiere. Its like an albatros around your neck. He wouldnt get the Western Canada vote nor would he get the Quebec vote.

Peter MacKay would have been much better than Harper but those are the mistakes that are made.

I have leaned of so much corruption and incompetance that it just sickens me. I finished a 4-year contract that involved a partner in a huge business who has been laundering money offshore for years.

When I got involved and started producing documents and developing a paper trail that was to be used in evidence in court, the partner made a voluntary declaration claiming they were his wife's offshore investments and income that they forgot to report.

Anyway, they bamboozled the government because there really isnt anyone in Revenue Canada with an in depth background into offshore trust vehicles and they paid a minimum fine and kept all the interest earned over the last 15+ years without paying tax which was well into the millions of dollars. Why does Revenue Canada let off big players like that and go after the little guys?

The Hospital fiasco is just that. Throwing money out will not help the system. Take the Queensway Carleton as an example.

After years and years, they just ad their grand opining of the new emergency wing with 12 beds instead of 6 that they had however the government will only fund 6 beds. That means only enough doctors and nurses for 6 patients at a time.

The result is a hsopital paying more in maintenance and overhead (heating, water etc) and has no more capacity to take in patients than it did 3 years ago.

We need a 2 tier system, plain and simple. I have no problem having all the people with additional health coverage going to a private hospital and getting whatever treatment they need with the basics paid by OHIP and the balance by their health care provider.

At the same time, that will reduce the number of people using the public system and will mean that they can receive better and faster treatment than they are presently getting.

Its no different from the public school system and the Catholic school system except we are now looking at the government making the minimum contributions to a private system, equal to what they would spend on the child if they were in the public system.

It is the only way the health care sytem can work in Canada otherwise it wiull be nothing more than a bottomless pit eating the majority of our tax contributions.

Same thing with the us. They need to adopt a system similar to ours in conjunction with their private care system. The best of both worlds.

Malcolm

[ospreylinks]

Malcolm,

I disagree, I think Mike Harris would have had a good opportunity to win because:

a) he had the support of Ralph Klein and with it the western vote, something no Eastern candidate has had for some time. (do you think Klein would have unveiled his western health plan a few days before the end of the campaign if Mike Harris were running? I think not.)
b) he is an autocratic leader, the demise of Harper in the latter part of the campaign was that he had no control over his candidates and the comments from some of the fringe did nothing but unravel the campaign
c) unlike Harper, Harris has run two successful campaigns as leader and countless other campaigns as a successful MPP.
d) unlike Harper, Mike Harris came from no-where in Northern Ontario and built a huge following both within and outside of the party. Harper has had the limelight both on and off and then on again for years and done very little with it.

I speak from knowledge. I worked for Mike Harris for 8 years here in North Bay and he is a tremendously focused man.

Every year at my golf course, we run a golf tournament to raise money for the new hospital to be built here in North Bay as announced by Mike's government, but very much in peril since the arrival of the Fiberals (oh did I say that). To date we have raised in excess of $230,000. towards the public campaign, in anyways I digress...

Mike Harris is the honourary Chair of our fundraising Tournament. In 2003 when the leader of the Conservatives / Reform Party was very much up in the air (as was the amalgamation of the two parties), much speculation was in the air if Mike would seek the leadership. At that time he decided to work towards unifying the two parties and would consider leadership at a later date. It was interesting how much media attention this brought to our golf tournament as the first tee scrum with Harris saw every local and national media imaginable. (probably more attention than the similar scrums of years earlier when he was Premier)

A year later, having dinner with Mike, and knowing that hindsight is 20/20, asked if he were disappointed that he had not sought the Conservative Leadership and in all probability could have been the PM of Canada and he stated not at all..... 20 years of public life was enough and it was time to move on outside of the lime-light.

Sorry to wade into this discussion so late, just my points.

Jeff

[shoplineca]

Jeff
You gave an almost totally biased position. I also liked Mike Harris and 90% of what he did. I voted for him when he ran and looked forward to his government continuing with new stategies and repairing where some of their initiatives went a ltiile too far. Reluctantly, I even voted for Ernie Eves despite the fact that I cant stand him and wouldnt have wanted him to be Premiere.

This was definately the case of the lesser of 2 evils between McGuinty who I would never support and Eves who I almost despise.

On your points:
a) I dont believe Klien's support would get him any more Western votes than Harper got. Those voting have always been Conservative, but he would have lost those sitting on the fence because of being an Ontario Premiere. More over, he would have not gotten as many Ontario votes and I guaranty none form Quebec for certain. The Provincial election showed the majority of Ontario wanted the Conservatives out and that would have been voiced Federally had he ran. no ifs ands or buts.
b) I wholeheartedly agree that he would have made a better leader than Harper who is far too weak to lead his party let alone the Federal government. I dont know so much about being autocratic as catalytic. I feel Chretien was autocratic, doing things totally at his will even contrary to his party however always with their support or else...
Harris was leader whose party followed however he listened to them and the people of the Province and gave everyone what they asked for in terms of a government set out to control the deficit and put and end to the welfare system and other social industries that are nothing more than self-perpetuating.
c) He is unlike Harper. No arguments from me and would make a better leader of the Federal Conservative party, however I still think that had he run in the last election, it may have been closer to having a Liberal majority. Timing is everything and he was smart enough to hold off.
d) Again, I support the comparison between Harris and Harper.

I wasnt knocking Harris. I was simply giving my opinion about the timing of his being involved federally. Had he been running the Federal Conservatives and lost with a larger Liberal government, his political days would be over.

The timing was not right and I think the Provincial votes in Ontario putting in a massive Liberal government under dimwit from Ottawa clearly showed him that it was not the time to test Ontario voters again.

Maybe now is the time for him to step up to the plate.

Just my opinion.

Malcolm

[shoplineca]

Jeff
I almost forgot to mention that Klein, even though he won a majority, lost several more seats in last year's Provincial election which I also see as reflective of those fence sitters that would not have voted for Harris but possibly voted for Harper.

Malcolm

[ospreylinks]

Malcolm, biased, of course I am. No arguement here.

And of course Klein lost seats in the last provincial election. He ran the election from his rec room in his slippers..... and still won a majority. Fourth majority, and it is felt he will not complete this term before stepping down allowing a successor to rebuild on his past success before an election is required.

I disagree with your analysis of how Harris would have fared had he run. I think people were anxiously looking for an alternative to the Liberals and up to a couple of events that concluded that Harper couldn't lead (read control) his troops, the bottom dropped out of his support. This loss of control would have never happened under Harris and I think the political landscape would have been much different.

I also find it hard to fathom people would find Harper a more palatable leader than Harris and vote otherwise. The conservative/reform movement has had no effective representation in Ontario or Quebec for years and this again held true in the past general election. Harper made no gains in either of these two regions, so saying he did better than possibly Harris is questionable.

Will Harris return to lead the Conservatives in the future? At this juncture, I would be surprised.

I agree with your assessment of Mr. Eves. I supported him because of my belief in the Conservative movement, but as a leader he lacked general direction and conviction.

The jury is still out on John Tory. Hopefully he will win the bi-election (if contested) replacing Eves in the legislature and will begin to develop some profile so we in Ontario can learn what he is about.

Jeff

PS - Don't ya just luv Political Threads?

[shoplineca]

Jeff
What is interesting is that the differences in our opinions is what leads us to vote, perhaps sometimes for the same party, perhaps sometimes not, although I suspect that you consistently vote Conservative.

The frustrating part of politics for me is that I have only one vote, as I stated before and that is not right.

In the last riding that I resided, a 26 y/o Conservative was elected Federally, who had lived in Ontario for less than a year (let alone the riding), no political or business experience what-so-ever. Voted out was a former Cabinet Minister (2 cabinets including Defense) who lived in the riding for over 20 years and who could bring more to the riding than the new Conservative candidate ever could.

In that riding, the vote was made to throw out the Liberals at the expense of not having strong, local representation.

Therein lies the problem with our system. I dont disagree with the choice of the people however our choice is far too limited. The US system appears to be something that I would like to see adopted, without the 14 months of campaigning, that is.

Malcolm

[ospreylinks]

I agree with you there. Here in our riding a good friend of mine who I served under in the local Chamber of Commerce as VP and then he cast the deciding vote in my favour as President the next year recently ran as a Federal Candidate.

This guy is aces.... smart, speaks four languages, has alot of common sense on his side, is an entrepreneur and a member of one of the most respected business families in the city, is educated with an MBA and a Liberal....

As a person, he was an outstanding candidate and a good friend, however I couldn't support what he stood for given the history of the Liberal Party.

Jeff

[shoplineca]

Jeff
I am still waiting to hear what the New Conservative Party stands for.

Malcolm

[ospreylinks]

Evidently it is opposed to same-sex marriage, but no other platform yet.....

Jeff

[rd1000]

I agree with you about the health care. I don't see any problem with a two teir system. I could never afford operations from my pocket, but I certainly don't begrudge people who can. Actually I encourage it. More room for the rest of us.

I can't understand the desperate movement to hang on to an all public system. THousands of people without doctors, waiting times in the years for operations, and months for tests. For nothing more than ideology. What is the sense of having a "free" system that you cannot access.

I am all for private and public heath care. I don't see a problem with a private clinic offering services as long as I can use my health card to get it. They can even offer "extra" services that you can pay an additional cost for if you want. We have that now in the hospitals.

The opponents (read unions) scream that we don't want US style health care where people are dying in the streets. Well, I don't think anybody has proposed that. They say that private health care is too expensive and less efficient than a public system. Well, if want an eye exam, dental work, chiropractor, or any other private care I can find a practitioner and have the service within days. If I want an MRI at a private clinic I can have the test within 24 hours and the results 24 hours after that.

THe fact is the unions are killing us. You cannot give them enough. This includes schooling too. We now homeschool our children because I couldn't stand it anymore. MAlcolm, you mentioned that the gov was looking at funding private schools with the same money as public schools. I knew Eves talked about a tax credit, and I think they do it in Alberta, but I didn't think McGinty has ever mentioned it. Can you remember where you heard that?

I hear the teachers are looking at a strike vote for more prep time. Here we go again. I thought the unions were happy that McGinty got in.

Rob

[shoplineca]

Rob
Right on the money.

When I lived in Atlanta, I had an excellent health plan through my employer where I paid about $120 per month and the company paid the rest (I owned the company and it was a large company).

When I sold out to my partners I started a small business in Marietta, Georgia and secured a health plan for any of my employees that wanted to join.

I paid $380 per month for a family of 4. I could go to any Doctor I chose and pay $10 per visit and no deductibles. Or I could go to assigned doctors and not pay anything.

I could go to any dentist at $10 per visit and no deductables. Or I could go to one of the dentists on their list and not pay anything.

Pharmaceuticals cost me $5 per perscription. Or I could go to one of their clinics and not pay anything.

The plan include $25,000 life insurance on each of the family members and partial lump sum payments for serious accidents. It also provided 75% of my salary should I become ill nd unable to work for a period.

I would gladly pay $380 per month and lower my taxes.

Now if a private insurer can put together a plan like that and make money, why cant the Canadian government pay $380 per family per month from our taxes (or even $500 or $600) to a private insurer and GET THE HECK OUT OF the Insurance business.

Health care costs are total BS. There is more money going into health care than ever before but poorer service.

When ambulance attendants have to wait with their patients until a hospital bed is available before they can leave to help other people, the inefficiency of these damn rules only cripple the system and add to the costs.

You are right about the unions doing so much damage but I understand how easy it is for people to want to join. My wife works in a place funded by the Ministry of Health and because of typically bad management within government agancies, it appears that the union is makeing great headway into signing up those people who have never been part of a union but are experiencing so many problems with stupid management decisions, each of which could have been easily avoided.

I believe that they used Britain as the model for a failed 2-tier health system however they did this during Thatcher's rule when the biggest battles with the unions were underway and things were definately not working smoothly.

On the private school funding, Harris put through the proposal to allow Ontario people a $5,000 tax credit towards private schools. Ernie was bringing it forward around the election time and then McGuinty overturned it as soon as he got into power (something along those lines).

The US is proposing the same. When I lived there I paid for my son to attend a private school for a couple of years (a Catholic school, as they are not funded by the government and considered to be private).

I was not allowed any tax deduction for the tuition fees paid however a portion of our weekly contributions to the church went towards education so if you maximized your contributions to the church you got a tax receipt and then paid the minimum amount in tuition fees.

As an example, assuming that tuition was $7,500 per year. Give $5,000 to the Church and get a tax receipt for $5,000 and pay $2,500 to the school for tuition.

Otherwise, you would pay $7,500 in tuition and not get any tax receipt, which was the case for those that didnt go to the Catholic Church but still had their children attend the private school.

Malcolm

[rd1000]

I can't see a downside to having choices and options. Except for the unions.

If I choose to drive a neon, not travel, not smoke, work hard and save my money, why should I not be able to spend my money on health care? It is all about choices.

I want the Utopian system whre we get totally "free" care, a doctor when we want, surgeries when we need it, medicine for all. WOuldn't that be wonderful. But the reality is that it is unsustainable. And while we are desperately clinging to an unworkable system, people are living in pain that is unnecessary. And now we are starting to see poeple die in emergency waiting rooms.

On another note, I guess we can say goodby to the only thing worth watching on TV - the Gomery inquiry. Jean Chretien has made it clear he is appealing to the Federal court. And why wouldn't he? He personally appointed 24 of the 32 judges in the court. Three more were appointed by Trudeau. Chretian OWNS the federal court.

I hope if I ever have a trial by jury, I get to choose 10 close friends to sit on the jury.

Rob

[shoplineca]

Chretien doesnt have friends, he has people that are obligated or idebted to him. In Sicily they call it the Mafia and having a debt to the Godfather.

The funny thing is the rich are the ones who get the most benefits. Even with our one tier system, they never wait in an emergency room, they get their mediical procedures and test done immediately, they seldom have to pay for a meal, personal or otherwise when they go out, either their poorer guests pay, it is paid as a business expense or the restaurant picks up the tab for having the honour of their presence.

The guy I recently completed a contract for in Sudbury made the Canadian press about 15 years ago. Threatened by a strike at one of his ompanies with over 300 employees, he just shut down the company and paid off all his creditors on the first day of the strike.

Nothing left of the company on day two for anyone to picket. They were all out of work. He owned all the assets free and clear and moved them to one of his non-union companies and continued completing most of the bigger jobs the former company had.

Now thats what I call Union negotiations.

I must say I take personal pride in owning and operating a 265 person company with plants in Atlanta, Dallas and LA and those plants remained non-union despite putting through some major changes to the employee benefits package that could have been seen as giving them less than what they had before.

The fact remains that we improved the benefits even though the employees now bore some of the costs. It just took communication and listening.

... and if all else fails, shut the damn place down and lay everyone off.

Malcolm

[barriemetals]

I agree with you there Malcolm. Unions have worn out their usefulness. There are Gov't run systems set up to do the same things that Unions do (Ex/ WHIMIS). In my opinion all the union is now, is a system to protect the worker from the untimely event that a business does not make enough to cover employee expenses it also protects those who use company policy irresponsibly. This is a terrible system as far as I am concerned because it hold no responsibility to those who responsibility is given. Such a shame what they have become.
Just look at the NHL for an example of what happens when unions have to much control. Do you think the players union would take a pay cut if the NHL suddenly was in debt and needed to slash salaries?
This is just my opinion I know very well how deep the union debate goes. I hate to open a can of worms (but it is fun to see them squirm).

Steve

[shoplineca]

I was trained in arbitration. I have also been trained in mediation and negotiation. I had specific employer training on unions so that I understood employee rights and benefits under unions and outside of unions.

Fortunately, I have never run a business where I had to deal with union employees. Fortunately, I knew how to deal with staff so that the prospect of unions never came up.

You are right Steve when you talk about what unions are today.

I would call them just another industry where its members have less opinion and say about how the union is run than even the companies they work for.

There was a time when they were very important and they brought about much needed changes but that was over 100 years ago. In recent years, they do little aside from trying to control politics and ruin many corporations and governments.

I simply ask my wife whose workplace is facing a decision to join a union, what does she expect to get out of it. I told her that the communication she once had with her manager over benefits, overtime, vacation, mileage, cell phones etc. will be gone. Even if my wife wants to discuss them, her boss will not want to nor would the union allow my wife to discuss these issues directly.

So what once became a 2 minute discussion and a possibility of a change being made, will now become a bargaining issue a year or two down the road. Actually it may not even become a bargaining issue should the union not feel they want to bargain that particular item.

Teachers should have no right to strike, neither should police, fire, prison guards, hospital staff, air traffic controllers, municipal, provincial or federal employees and on and on.

I guess my feeling is no public servant should have the right to strike becuase they provide essential services and the government does not know how to negotiate aside from giving in.

Why dont people appreciate what they have and if they dont like it, just leave.

Hey all you unionized people out there, why dont you try carving out a life for yourself with your own business and not relying on a regular paycheque!!! After you start making some money, then tell me how much you want to give to shelter the people on the streets in Toronto and provide them with free needles from the few bucks you make working 18 hour days 7 days per week.

Maybe you can start off small and just work in a convenience store for the midnight shift at minimum wage, you know, just so you can learn all about the people that had been paying your salary when you had that union position.

Dont get me started or I wont stop!!!!

Malcolm

[rd1000]

We have a 2 tier working class in this country. Those that work for or in some way are connected to the government, and those that are not.

How many private employers do you know that offer sick leave (whether you are sick or not), stress leave, highly subsidized pensions, highly subsidized medical and dental plans, friday afternoons off, paid junkets, annual pay increases every year, and my personal favorite - job guarantee!!

The damn teachers in Eastern Ontario are going on strike again. Why? Apparently their benefits are not as good as somebody else's. Imagine! A teachers benefits are not good enough. These people have got to be stopped. The teachers profession is rapidly losing respect in my eyes.

You know that unions have outlived their usefulness when it is not the employees that initiate the union drive, but unions themselves.

I am also pretty tired of seeing government sector unions advertising and endorsing political parties. I don't think it is right. How can a party they have endorsed negotiate in the interest of the taxpayer?

Rob

[muminlaw]

The damn teachers in Eastern Ontario are going on strike again. Why? Apparently their benefits are not as good as somebody else's. Imagine! A teachers benefits are not good enough. These people have got to be stopped. The teachers profession is rapidly losing respect in my eyes.

I sure hope you're talking unions here and not teachers!! My daughter and son-in-law are both teachers in BC and are members of the union under protest. The teachers DO NOT usually want the stuff that the unions are asking in their behalf - teachers are NOT STUPID!!!

Here's another vote for outlawing outdated, overpowered unions!!!!!

(You've hit one of my pet peeves!!

Glenda

[rd1000]

I didn't say teachers were stupid.

I am talking about the teachers unions, and all the teachers that vote for the strikes. It is nothing less than pure greed at this point. They have great benefits, pensions and working conditions. There is no need for them to be on strike any more.

My brother-in-law is a teacher and my father was a teacher. My father hated the union. My brother-in-law doesn't say to much, because he knows he has nothing to complain about.

Rob

[ospreylinks]

It may be the Teachers Union that sets the issue (ie, prep time here in ON for elementary public teachers), but isn't it the teachers who cast the strike vote? And a strike vote is what has been called.....

Jeff

[muminlaw]

Jeff, at least here in BC as I understand it (and I could be wrong), a lot of the votes are still show of hands (let's hear it for secret vote!!) rather than closed ballot. Anyhow, they wouldn't dare vote against the union if they want to keep their jobs! They have to opt against attending the meetings (until it comes time to vote in (or out) a new group).

I'm so anti-union (and so is John [DH]) that we can taste it!!! Now our daughter is forced to belong to a union to work at her chosen profession and our son is also forced to belong to a union - he's a professional musician and the musician's union is almost as powerful as the teachers' union (probably more, seeing it's international).!!!!