Harper; this will be fun to watch ! (Canadian)

[The Flying Dutchman]

I woke up this morning and reality finally hit me. Canada is in for change ! But how successful can the conservatives be if they insist on implementing their platform. All the other parties are to the left. Thats right folks, the country voted left and got a conservative government for their efforts. Chaulk one up for the two party system.

So Harper has to be very careful. Remember Joe Who? Any bills in the house being voted on will require a majority of votes (I think it goes that way or at least I'm close) or the government falls. Harper will have to carefully craft his proposed legislation to appease the opposition while handing out bones to government members. Conservative patience will no doubt wane over the next 12 months. Those conservatives with their social agenda will find that their efforts will have been totally useless. At that point, within 18 months I predict, Harper will have to decide to go for broke.

Harper needs to be very smart. He needs to buy time so the country has an opportunity to respect and trust him as a national leader. He needs to show some results. And if he succeeds, he will have formed a majority government when that hidden agenda can be fully unleased.

The fun begins. Harper's first move is to appoint ]Derek Burney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Burney) as chief of staff.

Read this (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/01/24/1410069-cp.html)

What a brilliant appointment. Harper's first major test has been passed. A+ It isn't easy to form a cabinet and act like a competent government without any experience whatsoever. It's like if for some weird reason the new government headed by Matt-mcl was made up solely by dopers. Who here knows how to be a Minister of Defense ? Anyone willing to give it a try? Burney will put that magic Mulroney(only conservative prime minister to win a majority, two, since Diefenbaker) touch on the freshman Harper and we are off to the races.


I'll bet quite a few of those old conservative geezers are gonna forgive the young ones for their treachery in destroying the Progressive Conservative Party. Now that Burney's got on board there will definitely be others of the old guard willing to consult. If there is one thing conservatives can unite on is their desire to crush the Liberals. Even Mulroney himself who can't stop talking and reveal his innermost secrets of success and who to watch out for will help I'm sure.

My prediction? Harper will gain a majority in the next election.

[Raygun99]

Any bills in the house being voted on will require a majority of votes (I think it goes that way or at least I'm close) or the government falls.

No, only bills dealing with a matter of confidence, i.e. money bills.

[Bryan Ekers]

My prediction? Harper will gain a majority in the next election.
Sure, if he doesn't screw up.

[ElvisL1ves]

Thats right folks, the country voted left and got a conservative government for their efforts. Chaulk one up for the two party system.Um, maybe you heard about the 2000 US election?

Let me get this straight - there will be no coalition government, the PM will have to deal with a Parliament in which a majority opposes him, right? So either he gets nothing done, he essentially follows Liberal/Green/NDP policies, or you'll be holding another election real soon, right?

If US precedent means anything, even a brief period of actual responsibility will destroy your Conservatives. Good luck, eh?

[drm]

I don't know a great deal about The Bloc (except for the obvious things) but it's pretty clear that they are in a really powerful position right now. Frankly I think they determine whether the Conservatives get a majority next time.

My political viewpoint is fundamentally different than the Conservative party so I am encouraged by the fact that he will need the okay of another party to do anything serious. I have a reasonable amount of repsect for Mr. Harper as well. He did run a pretty good campaign (although I could have done without the Attack ads but they came from all sides) and appears to be intelligent and also seems to want to do what's best for the country. So despite the fact that I don't agree with the direction he plans to take the country, I'm sure I'll survive well enough for the next few years.

My prediction? Harper will gain a majority in the next election.

I think it partially depends on who the Liberals run now that Martin's out. If they get someone with some actual charisma and they run a better campaign than the gong show they ran this time I'm not sure it'll matter what happens until the next election.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Conservatives will ever get a majority. I just think there are too many people on the Left half of the spectrum. He may win the next election handily but I think enough seats will be spread accross the other parties that he won't get the 154 or 5 or whatever he needs.

The only way I see it happening at all is if they do next to nothing socially (by that I mean, abortion, same sex marriage, etc.). If he stays relatively close to the center and the country performs well financially this term he may just pull it off but even still, I'm not so sure. I just think there are too many people who will always naturally vote left (or bloc).

[Canadjun]

If CTV's Leadership Race (http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060124/libs_leadership_race_060124/20060124?s_name=election2006&no_ads=) article is correct, the Liberals won't have much interest in bringing down the government for 18 months or so, to provide some breathing room to find a new Liberal leader. So, it should be an interesting time watching the Liberals "play nice" with the Conservatives for the next little while.

[Sam Stone]

Um, maybe you heard about the 2000 US election?

Let me get this straight - there will be no coalition government, the PM will have to deal with a Parliament in which a majority opposes him, right? So either he gets nothing done, he essentially follows Liberal/Green/NDP policies, or you'll be holding another election real soon, right?

If US precedent means anything, even a brief period of actual responsibility will destroy your Conservatives. Good luck, eh?

That's my greatest fear. If he does what his natural constituents want, there will be a vote of non-confidence and the Conservatives will fall. If he goes with what the Liberals/NDP want, he'll face a revolt from within his own party. He's definitely in a tough position.

There are, however, some bright spots. For one, Harper is a fiscal conservative, and the Liberals pretty much are as well. So he may not get as much opposition on some of his fiscal reforms as he'd like.

Another is that a big part of the Conservative platform centers around reforming the system - more openness in our government, better financial controls, etc. There's widespread support for that, especially from the Bloc and NDP.

Third, the other parties know that Canadians are really tired of having to go to the polls every year or two, and so it's a very dangerous game to bring down the government over an essentially partisan issue.

Another platform of the Tories is law and order, and it's probably their most politically popular stance.

They also want to get rid of the gun registry, which will be very popular. Hell, I think the Liberals would have liked to get rid of it, since it's a huge white elephant. They just couldn't, because it was their idea in the first place. I suspect there will be an attitude of 'good riddance' over that one.

What the Conservatives won't be able to do is implement their social conservative policies - which suits me just fine.

Harper's got a difficult road ahead of him, but it's not impossible. And if he pulls off a good job and becomes more popular with the people, it will be that much more dangerous for the opposition to bring down the government.

[Sam Stone]

So he may not get as much opposition on some of his fiscal reforms as he'd like.


I meant, he may not get as much opposition as you might think. I have no idea how I mangled that.

[BrainGlutton]

Just how conservative is this Conservative Party? For instance, does it want to abolish the single-payer health care system?

[Martin Hyde]

Um, maybe you heard about the 2000 US election?

Let me get this straight - there will be no coalition government, the PM will have to deal with a Parliament in which a majority opposes him, right? So either he gets nothing done, he essentially follows Liberal/Green/NDP policies, or you'll be holding another election real soon, right?

If US precedent means anything, even a brief period of actual responsibility will destroy your Conservatives. Good luck, eh?

Actually in 2000 the country voted right in congress and got right in congress (at least in the house, I can't remember the composition of the Senate but I think it may have been 50-50 then 50-49-1 when that Vermont guy went independent and let the dems take over.)

In the 2000 presidential election the country voted moderate and got right-moderate. At least at the time, Bush has moved to the right since then and Gore may have moved to the left now that he never has to stand for election again.

[The Tooth]

Just how conservative is this Conservative Party? For instance, does it want to abolish the single-payer health care system?

No, but it does want to open Canada to private health care paid for with the public dime.

[BrainGlutton]

No, but it does want to open Canada to private health care paid for with the public dime.

Isn't that what you've got now? (As distinct from the British system where doctors are state employees.)

[Sam Stone]

Just how conservative is this Conservative Party? For instance, does it want to abolish the single-payer health care system?

It depends - how Conservative would they be if they could get everyone to go along with them? Pretty darned Conservative. Stephen Harper is an almost-Libertarian who made a name for himself as part of a group of free-market economists at the University of Calgary. He'd be right at home at the American Enterprise Institute or even Cato. Other founders of the party are religious Conservatives from the old Reform party and would be right at home in the Republican right. The core of the Conservative Party is really the heart of Alberta Conservatism, and Alberta is pretty darned conservative.

However, within the context of a viable Canadian political party, they have toned that way, way down. Harper is smart enough to understand that Canadians do not believe in the kind of free-market philosophy that he would like, and for that matter there is a bit of split on that regard within the Conservative party itself between the social and economic conservatives. So the party's official platform is really much more incrementalist and modest in what they want to achieve. For example, here's some of their 2004 platform goals:


Elimination of the gun registry
A 2% cut in the GST (Goods and Services Tax)
Tougher sentencing for violent offenders and criminals who use guns
Ending taxpayer subsidies of political parties and forced corporate/union political donations
Fixed-date elections (right now, the sitting government gets to call the election, which gives them a tremendous incumbency advantage)
Freer trade, both within Canada and with other countries
Middle-class tax cuts, and new deductions for children to help families
Cutting corporate taxes, to be paid for by cutting corporate subsidies an equal amount, to level the playing field
Transferring more gasoline taxes back to the provinces for infrastructure improvement, rather than putting the money into federal general revenues
Improving retirement savings programs for low-income Canadians
legislated debt-to-GDP ratio debt repayment
Deregulating farming
Inreasing funding of Canada's public health care system, and instituting maximum waiting list guarantees.
Strengthening Canada's student loan program
Improving relations with the United States
Increasing Canada's military funding to match the European NATO average as a percentage of GDP
Balanced budgets


As you can see, there's nothing particularly radical in there. Most of their platform is 'good government' reforms and policy-wonk tweaking to make us more competitive. They actually want to increase public health care funding, funding for R&D and post-secondary education, etc. It's actually a very sound platform, and I think it will go over well with most of Canada. For example, Canadians show a strong desire to increase our military strength, whereas Martin's Liberals raided military funds repeatedly to pay for their own pet projects.

Now, if Harper could get all that done, would he push for further free-market reforms and more conservative policies? Undoubtedly. But he'll only go as far as the Canadian people are willing to follow.

[The Tooth]

No. As it stands today, there's no private hospital I can go to to receive, say, a heart transplant. It's not far wrong to think of doctors not as state employees, but as self-employed contractors who've contracted themselves out to the government. It's government, not corporate, policy that ultimately determines how a hospital runs.

[RickJay]

Um, maybe you heard about the 2000 US election?

Let me get this straight - there will be no coalition government, the PM will have to deal with a Parliament in which a majority opposes him, right?
Same as every minority government. If they govern like the last one, they'll be supported by the other parties on a case by case basis.

The opposition would not dare force another election just yet; the potential backlash could increase the Conservative share. And in any case, the Liberal Party cannot fight an election until they have a new leader.

Then BrianGlutton asks:

Just how conservative is this Conservative Party? For instance, does it want to abolish the single-payer health care system?
I think this a good question to illustrate why "Conservative" and "Liberal" are not easy terms to describe people with.

If the Conservatives were to abolish the single payer health care system in June of this year - which they couldn't, but suppose they somehow fooled another party into voting Yes when they meant to vote No - the Conservative Party would cease to exist. I mean, literally cease to be a party of significance; their support would drop from 35% to maybe 4, 5 percent within 48 hours of the story hitting the papers, and the party as it stands would effectively dissolve. I would guess that within five years there would be no more party by that name. If somehow a very determned person kept the party alive and funded, they would not win another election for at least fifty, and possibly more than a hundred years.

The Canadian health care system is the single most popular, most widely supported government program in the history of Canada; it is a program that literally defines Canada, the thing that many Canadians will identify as the greatest thing about their country. Asked to vote on who the greatest Canadian to ever live was, they picked the guy who came up with the idea of the health care system. The Conservatives would no more get rid of it than they would cut off their own nuts. It's considered controversial that they have suggested that maybe you shouldn't be punished for just entering into a private contract with a doctor to have a medical procedure done on Canadian soil; when a court in Quebec ruled that such a thing should be allowed, rather than forcing the patient to die on a waiting list (I am not making this up) people were up in arms that the public system was "under attack."

The idea that the CPC would dump public health care is, frankly, completely fucking insane. Not that I'm flaming BrainGlutton, he doesn't live here; people who DO live here were stupid enough to believe this. It has nothing to do with thier beliefs, really, of Stephen Harper's beliefs, or of what Conservatives should or should not believe; it has to do with the beliefs of the Canadian people. Canadians want public health care, and it is electorally impossible to do otherwise. You'd be out of a job just as soon as the election could be held.

[Gorsnak]

Stephen Harper is an almost-Libertarian
You keep saying this, and it just isn't true. Harper is a committed social conservative. No, he's not a social conservative in the mold of the American religious right. He's not even a social conservative of the sort that Stockwell Day and Vic Toews are. But he is a committed social conservative nonetheless, of the old-fashioned Burkean variety. Describing him as libertarian is just inaccurate.

[BrainGlutton]

Asked to vote on who the greatest Canadian to ever live was, they picked the guy who came up with the idea of the health care system.

That would be Tommy Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas) of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (now the New Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party)).

[Sam Stone]

You keep saying this, and it just isn't true. Harper is a committed social conservative. No, he's not a social conservative in the mold of the American religious right. He's not even a social conservative of the sort that Stockwell Day and Vic Toews are. But he is a committed social conservative nonetheless, of the old-fashioned Burkean variety. Describing him as libertarian is just inaccurate.

Yeah, I screwed up the description again. He's certainly more socially conservative than a libertarian. I tried to characterize him as someone who would be comfortable at AEI or (almost) Cato. Lots of social conservatives at AEI. Not so much at Cato.

[Gorsnak]

Yeah, I screwed up the description again. He's certainly more socially conservative than a libertarian. I tried to characterize him as someone who would be comfortable at AEI or (almost) Cato. Lots of social conservatives at AEI. Not so much at Cato.
I think it's easy to be misled because his views on social issues are rather different from the religious social conservatives that make up most of the social conservatives around. I also think he realizes more than many of his colleagues that social conservatism is not a winning proposition in Canada and so has been downplaying that side of the Tory platform, partly to make the Tories less "scary", and partly to avoid raising the expectations of his socially conservative constituents.

[Polycarp]

That would be Tommy Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas) of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (now the New Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party)).

Close but no cigar, as Ms. Lewinsky might say.

CCF was the Canadian equivalent of "Prairie populism" and had a strong presence in Manitoba. It merged with the political arm of trade unionism and a couple of minor Leftist elements to create the NDP.

[Balduran]

For example, here's some of their 2004 platform goals:


Elimination of the gun registry
...



Here's an interesting article on the gun registry from CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/registry.html

"But referring to Bill C-68 as the long-gun registry legislation is also misleading. Repealing this law would also mean eliminating the licensing requirements it contains, which include an extensive background check and safety course for anyone acquiring a gun ..."

Thus if C-68 is scrapped, Harper will have to craft from new legislation to cover the liscensing part of the bill.

"But since most of the guns in Canada are now accounted for, and the registration is a one-time-only requirement, this portion of the costs should decline to about $10-15 million a year, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. Licences, on the other hand, need to be renewed every five years, meaning that they will make up the vast majority of the Firearms Centre's costs in the future."

There are still lots of areas in Canada that support the gun registry, especially in Quebec. It makes me wonder if the conservatives will decide it is worth it to go to the trouble of creating and enacting new legislation (with it's own possible opposition in the house and cost overruns) and annoying Quebec and other regions for just 10-15M savings a year.

[ElvisL1ves]

Same as every minority government. If they govern like the last one, they'll be supported by the other parties on a case by case basis.

The opposition would not dare force another election just yet; the potential backlash could increase the Conservative share.Got it. I had been under the impression that anyone who wants to be PM has to make enough deals to get >50% of the PM's to support him just to hold the job, no matter who the GG anoints. Thanks.

But apparently he still has to take an essentially centrist (by Canadian standards) line, I take it, even if that means occasional lip service to his base, just like US Republican pols publicly opposing abortion while not actually doing anything about it.

BrainGlutton, as I understand it, the UK has a thriving privately-financed health care system alongside the National Health, which can be opted out of, but Canada does not.

[RickJay]

Got it. I had been under the impression that anyone who wants to be PM has to make enough deals to get >50% of the PM's to support him just to hold the job, no matter who the GG anoints. Thanks.

But apparently he still has to take an essentially centrist (by Canadian standards) line, I take it, even if that means occasional lip service to his base, just like US Republican pols publicly opposing abortion while not actually doing anything about it.
Yep. In Canada, you can campaign from the right, you can campaign from the left, but you have to govern from the centre.

Any attempt to reverse abortion rights or same sex marriage rights would be instant political suicide. Harper is not an idiot. He won't allow those things to happen in a zillion skillion years, even if, as you say, he mumbles some sop words to the religious conservative constituency every now and then.

Much was made of the fact that the Conservatives kept the lid on their more religious candidates in 2006. The truth is, the Liberals have been doing the same for years; their caucus includes more than a few anti-abortion and anti-SSM members, such as the repulsive Tom Wappel. (Not that everyone who takes those two views is repulsive. Tom Wappel, in particular, is repulsive.)

Every year that passes puts those issues further in the rear view mirror. Harper is simply working, carefully, to get his party to give them up.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

There are still lots of areas in Canada that support the gun registry, especially in Quebec. It makes me wonder if the conservatives will decide it is worth it to go to the trouble of creating and enacting new legislation (with it's own possible opposition in the house and cost overruns) and annoying Quebec and other regions for just 10-15M savings a year.
As far as I know, the gun registry is a non-issue here. I haven't heard about it for many years, except here. I don't think most people care whether the government abolishes it or not. Of course, there would be opposition from a few groups, but nothing major, I believe.

[Balduran]

As far as I know, the gun registry is a non-issue here. I haven't heard about it for many years, except here. I don't think most people care whether the government abolishes it or not. Of course, there would be opposition from a few groups, but nothing major, I believe.

Just saw a poll last night that showed 60% of those polled in Quebec do not want the registry scrapped.

[kingpengvin]

But apparently he still has to take an essentially centrist (by Canadian standards) line, I take it, even if that means occasional lip service to his base, just like US Republican pols publicly opposing abortion while not actually doing anything about it.

Centerist is the safest and most dangerous place in Canadian politics. The Liberals dominated the Center for 13 years but when they became tainted by scandal they lost ridings to the split on the left and right. They could have come out much worse if it wasn't for the three major cities that failed to vote Conservative.

Also I don't think any lip service to his core will cut it right now. Harper is trying to avoid the "Scary" label.

Besides all the Canadian people are really looking for is clean decent governement. That means Harper must do what he says to gain confidence in his leadership by running his government honestly.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Just saw a poll last night that showed 60% of those polled in Quebec do not want the registry scrapped.
Maybe, but how much of these people really care if it is scrapped or not? Did the survey ask anything about how strongly they feel about it? People may find the idea of a gun registry good and interesting, but if it's not something that affects them or even something they usually think about, they probably won't do anything if there is a movement to abolish it. Personally, I don't care either way.

There are more important and more sensitive issues.

[Lemur866]

It's like if for some weird reason the new government headed by Matt-mcl was made up solely by dopers. Who here knows how to be a Minister of Defense ? Anyone willing to give it a try? .
Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I call dibs!

[ElvisL1ves]

Who here knows how to be a Minister of Defense ?Isn't that strictly a ceremonial position? :)

[Barbarian]

I think the Conservatives will be willing and able to scrap the gun registry, because when you get right down to it, keeping track of firearms is an urban issue -- and the Conservatives don't have any representation in Canada's three largest cities.

I believe this extreme urban-rural split is unprecedented in Canadian politics, and could spell trouble for urbanites in the next several years, especially if Harper comes up with more policies to deal with rural Quebecers (many of whom voted PC before 1993).

As for the other issues they'll deal with, please shoot and kill anyone who proposes fixed election dates. That's the worst and stupidest idea ever. All it does is jam up your TV and newspaper with political advertising for 9 months of the year before the election actually happens. I'm talking three ads per commercial break people! It's frigging insane!.

Of course, since I work in TV, it means I'll have a steady income, and you'll never read an editorial speaking out against it. Can't bite the hand that feeds you, and all that. But shoot that notion DOWN.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I call dibs!

I can't see why the PM would pick you. first of all how the hell did you ever get elected if you are not current with the populace ? No one uses the term "dibs" any more. My 14 year old daughter tells me people nowadays call "shoddy" instead. :)

[RickJay]

I think the Conservatives will be willing and able to scrap the gun registry, because when you get right down to it, keeping track of firearms is an urban issue -- and the Conservatives don't have any representation in Canada's three largest cities.
First of all, they're not "Able" to do it without the support of one of the other three parties, which they will not get. All the other parties are for it.

Secondly, why would the Conservatives do something that would alienate the people they most need to impress in the next election? I don't think you notice they've been playing the game a lot smarter lately.

[Jotun]

Just how conservative is this Conservative Party? For instance, does it want to abolish the single-payer health care system?

The official line is that they want to keep healthcare public. Stephen Harper (in the past) has been very "pro-private health-care". He says his views have changed, though.

I don't particularly believe it, but that's just me.
I figure when/if he ever gives the provinces more power (it was part of his party's platform) that provincial control over healthcare will inevitably result.
For example, Ralph Klein (Conservative Premier of Alberta) makes no bones about wanting a two-tier system.
The cynical side of me thinks they conceded the privatization of healthcare issue to grab more votes from the middle and lower class. :p

[Jotun]

The official line is that they want to keep healthcare public. Stephen Harper (in the past) has been very "pro-private health-care". He says his views have changed, though.

I don't particularly believe it, but that's just me.
I figure when/if he ever gives the provinces more power (it was part of his party's platform) that provincial control over healthcare will inevitably result.

Just to clarify (I'm tired sorry), I don't believe that the Conservative's would even whisper the words "private health care".

What is more likely to happen (under a Harper majority, mind you) would be "two-tier health care". Public health care, alongside private health care. Which is an idea that has been thrown around quite a bit. Which is also a terrible idea that the majority of Canadians would likely reject.

[Grey]

I'm not completely convinced of this seismic urban/rural divide.

Atlantic Canada (Rural) went almost completely Liberal/NDP.
Ottawa (pop. ~ 1 million) a government town, went heavily Conservative
Calgary (pop. ~ 1 million) went Conservative.
Northern Ontario (Rural) went heavily Liberal

So it's more than a simple farmers vs. progressive urbanites split going on here. Though I'm not sure what.

[Sam Stone]

Edmonton (pop ~1 million) also went heavily Conservative. So yeah, it's not quite that simple.

[RickJay]

The official line is that they want to keep healthcare public. Stephen Harper (in the past) has been very "pro-private health-care". He says his views have changed, though.

I don't particularly believe it, but that's just me.
I figure when/if he ever gives the provinces more power (it was part of his party's platform) that provincial control over healthcare will inevitably result.
Provinces control health care now. What's the punch line?

For example, Ralph Klein (Conservative Premier of Alberta) makes no bones about wanting a two-tier system.
In point of fact, the province with the most private health care is Quebec.

No government in Canada could get rid of the single payer health care system. It would result in the immediate fall of the government and the complete destruction of that political party.

[Gorsnak]

No government in Canada could get rid of the single payer health care system. It would result in the immediate fall of the government and the complete destruction of that political party.
I'm pretty sure Ralph could get away with it. There is only one party in Alberta.

[Sam Stone]

No, he couldn't. Even in Alberta, public health care remains very popular.

There is more support for a two-tier system, however, and Klein could get away with that. And I'm sure that Harper would love to implement one if he could.

What could possibly happen is that now that Klein has a 'friendly' government in Ottawa to deal with, he could move towards a two-tier system in Alberta again, and the Harper government would be more willing to amend the Canada Health Act or whatever it is that technically prevents this, just for the case of Alberta. This might be palatable, because Albertans would like it and other provinces wouldn't much care what Alberta does (unless they use a 'slippery slope' argument).

This might be a good thing. Alberta can be a test-bed of other health-delivery models. If it works out well here, perhaps opposition to it will fade elsewhere. If it doesn't, well hey those crazy Albertans just shot themselves in the foot.

[Grey]

Actually I suppose Harper could tie Federal funding levels to Provincial autonomy with respect to the percentage of private care available. Ties in nicely with the asymmetrical federalism the Liberals tried to introduce and would play well in both Alberta and Quebec. He would absolutely have to maintain a single payer system though; I think that's the key point for most people worried about two tier health care.

[Squink]

It's War, and over the Northwest Passage, no less: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/ap_on_re_ca/canada_us) "The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper said. "It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

[Jotun]

Provinces control health care now. What's the punch line?

My OHIP card would agree with you. :smack: What I meant was that Harper is more likely to turn towards a two-tier health care. Which again has way too many of it's own problems to be a health-care cure-all.

In point of fact, the province with the most private health care is Quebec.

Oh, I know, in fact a friend told me that "PAUL MARTIN GOES TO A PRIVATE CLINIC!!!" ;)

[Jotun]

Actually I suppose Harper could tie Federal funding levels to Provincial autonomy with respect to the percentage of private care available. Ties in nicely with the asymmetrical federalism the Liberals tried to introduce and would play well in both Alberta and Quebec. He would absolutely have to maintain a single payer system though; I think that's the key point for most people worried about two tier health care.

The trouble with the rise of private hospitals is this:
Where will all the doctors come from?

I think a lot of people will worry that most doctors currently working in public health care would jump ship for higher paying jobs at a private hospital. Essentially gutting the public system.

Has anyone found a way around this yet? (I'm genuinely curious.)

[Sam Stone]

The trouble with the rise of private hospitals is this:
Where will all the doctors come from?

I think a lot of people will worry that most doctors currently working in public health care would jump ship for higher paying jobs at a private hospital. Essentially gutting the public system.

Has anyone found a way around this yet? (I'm genuinely curious.)

If they want out of the public health care system, what's stopping them from just leaving the country and going to the U.S.? (answer: nothing. And plenty of them do). If a two-tier system keeps them here, isn't that a good thing?

[Barbarian]

Plenty don't. It's kinda tough moving to a new country with a fistful of debt and being told you can't get a credit card...
But it looks like Stephen Harper is making his own examination of the public health care system.
from Reuters
Canadian Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper was briefly taken to hospital late Thursday night after suffering an asthma attack, his spokesman said Friday.
William Stairs told Reuters that Harper had been in hospital for less than an hour before being released and returning home. Harper, 46, is due to be sworn in as prime minister on Feb. 6.

[Grey]

The trouble with the rise of private hospitals is this:
Where will all the doctors come from?

I think a lot of people will worry that most doctors currently working in public health care would jump ship for higher paying jobs at a private hospital. Essentially gutting the public system.

Has anyone found a way around this yet? (I'm genuinely curious.)And there's the problem with a Government run, rather than insured, health care system. Ontario is currently suffering from a lack of doctors due to a number of issues but a major one is restricted enrollment levels set by the province. Why are there not enough Drs.? Because government projections years back led them to believe that they wouldn't need as many as they do right now. I would say that the universities and the college of physicians should be the ones setting enrollment and licensing requirements not the party of the day. There's an interesting paper here (pdf) (http://www.cpso.on.ca/Info_physicians/Pre-BugetSubmission.pdf) from the College of Physicians that is basically a pre-budget submission that makes some recommendations to the point you raised.

And then there's the issue of what do people mean when they say "Two Tier"

a) Is it private clinics performing tests/procedures covered by your OHIP card (e.g. blood work/abortions)?
b) Is it private clinics performing test/procedures not covered by you OHIP card (e.g. Dentistry)?
c) Is it private clinics performing tests/procedures that are charged directly to the patient with no recourse to government coverage?
c) Is it government coverage of tests/procedures at independently operated facilities?

[RickJay]

My OHIP card would agree with you. :smack: What I meant was that Harper is more likely to turn towards a two-tier health care. Which again has way too many of it's own problems to be a health-care cure-all.
You're never going to create a perfect system, but pretty much every country in the Western world has "Two-tiered" health care. Most decent European nations have a universal system without banning private care. Their systems seem to work as well, and sometimes better, than ours.

The Canadian obsession with banning private care is A) kind of silly, and B) sort of offensive. In my home town we had a situation where - I am not making this up - the city's only MRI machine was being used after hours to perform MRIs on cats and dogs at $500-$1000 a pop, while human beings were on long waiting lists for MRI tests. So if you wanted Fido to get an MRI, you could pony up $1000 or whatever and at 5:01 PM they kicked all the humans out and Fido could get an MRI. But you could not pay $1000 to get an MRI for your sick child, because that's PRIVATE HEALTH CARE, oooh, eeeeevil!

If I and a doctor voluntarily, of our own accord, agree that I should pay him some money in return for his services as a doctor, why is that a bad thing?

[The Flying Dutchman]

If I and a doctor voluntarily, of our own accord, agree that I should pay him some money in return for his services as a doctor, why is that a bad thing?

Because that will become the norm. Doctors are human too, and will respond for the money, resulting in preferred health care for the rich and the upper middle class. Just doesn't seem right that I might have to wait six weeks for an MRI because I don't have a thousand bucks to spare while Rickjay and his like jumps in to the front of the line, pushing my health care even further back.

If the wealthy Rickjay and his influential friend's only option for quicker MRI's was the same as mine, Then I would certainly welcome him and his friends to participate in the political debate to twist the arm of provincial and federal governments to make more MRI's available. Then we ALL win.

I can easily accept the airlines providing more comfortable seats and services for those who are willing to pay the extra. I can easily accept the preferred guaranteed loading on B.C. ferries to those who are willing to pay the extra. These services however are luxuries that we don't need. Health care is a necessity for all of us however, and I don't want to see it compromised.

[RickJay]

Because that will become the norm. Doctors are human too, and will respond for the money, resulting in preferred health care for the rich and the upper middle class. Just doesn't seem right that I might have to wait six weeks for an MRI because I don't have a thousand bucks to spare while Rickjay and his like jumps in to the front of the line, pushing my health care even further back.
As opposed to the current system where you would either wait six weeks anyway, or was six weeks plus a day because I was already on the list ahead of you.

If the wealthy Rickjay and his influential friend's only option for quicker MRI's was the same as mine, Then I would certainly welcome him and his friends to participate in the political debate to twist the arm of provincial and federal governments to make more MRI's available. Then we ALL win.
First of all, there's no end to that.

Secondly, you;re asusming in the first quote above that the existence of private health care will necessarily bite into the public system. That A) isn't consistent with the reality in countries that do it this way and B) as we have very clearly seen, cutting off private care in fact reduces the total amount of health care available. Canada loses doctors and nurses every year because of the restrictions placed on them by the government.

Third, you simply don't have the moral right to tell a human being "You may not engage in trade to get health care." It's just wrong, a violation of the most basic sort of freedom, as a Quebec court has already ruled. If the public system has its warts, fix them. Don't use force to coerce people into finding alternatives to further your agenda. Would you ban private schools so as to better support public education? That's a necessity for all of us. Should private wells and septic tanks be banned so as to force people to use public water supplies and sewers? You could make a pretty good argument that fresh water and sewers do as much for health as hospitals.

I can easily accept the airlines providing more comfortable seats and services for those who are willing to pay the extra. I can easily accept the preferred guaranteed loading on B.C. ferries to those who are willing to pay the extra. These services however are luxuries that we don't need. Health care is a necessity for all of us however, and I don't want to see it compromised.
So don't compromise it. It's possible to have both. France - frequently cited as having one of the best systems in the world - has private clinics. So do Australia, Italy, and Germany. Their public systems have not vanished.

[Rysto]

Look, the rationing argument is silly, because private systems ration services just as public ones do. The difference is that in the private system, rationing is based on ability to pay while in the public system, rationing is on a first-come, first-served basis.

[Sam Stone]

Rickjay: Amen.

Canada already has a 'two-tier' health care system. The second tier is the United States. Every year, thousands of Canadians travel to the U.S. to get treatment they can't get here, or to bypass waiting lists. And they're not all rich people. If you're a 65 year old person with a bad hip, and you need a hip replacement to be mobile again, how much of your life savings would you spend to avoid a 2-year wait for an artificial hip? At 65, you might not have too many years of active lifestyle ahead of you, and you probably don't want to spend 2 years in a wheelchair. So people cash in their RRSPs or take mortgages on their houses to go to the U.S. for surgery.

If we allowed private clinics here, the two-tier option would be cheaper, and it would keep doctors and health care money in Canada.

As for all the doctors moving into the 'for-profit' tier, as Rickjay has said, in countries that have two-tier systems this just doesn't happen. There are plenty of doctors who like working in the public sphere. If there weren't, all our doctors would be in the U.S. now, since there is still big demand for doctors there.

The net effect of a two-tier system could easily benefit low income people, by injecting more money into the health care system. A private clinic with their own MRI machine offloads patients from the public machines. Taking all the rich people off of surgery waiting lists moves everyone else up on the queue. And we might find that this isn't just available to rich people - supplemental insurance plans will no doubt spring up that will allow people to choose the case they want, if they are willing to pay the premium.

[Bryan Ekers]

Canada already has a 'two-tier' health care system. The second tier is the United States. Every year, thousands of Canadians travel to the U.S. to get treatment they can't get here, or to bypass waiting lists.

Ironically, they view us the same way when it comes to prescription drugs.

[RickJay]

Ironically, they view us the same way when it comes to prescription drugs.
In that case, Canada is more like Wal*Mart.

Like Walmart, Canadian drug stores can sell you the goods at a lower price (in some cases) because they represent, through the Canadian feds, a monopsony - a purchaser so big and powerful it can dictate lower prices to the supplier. (Of course, you don't buy your drugs from the Canadian government - you buy them from a drug store, like Shoppers or Pharma Plus - but it's the government doing the bargaining.) Walmart does the same thing; they can dictate lower prices to their suppliers, and so can charge ultra-competitive prices. Again, in some cases, not all.

American drug stores near the border are therefore competing with what is, in effect, a cartel of drug stores with an untouchable advantage in their ability to, indirectly, demand lower costs and therefore pass on prices to the end consumer that no U.S. drug store could dream of.

[Gorsnak]

In that case, Canada is more like Wal*Mart.

Like Walmart, Canadian drug stores can sell you the goods at a lower price (in some cases) because they represent, through the Canadian feds, a monopsony - a purchaser so big and powerful it can dictate lower prices to the supplier. (Of course, you don't buy your drugs from the Canadian government - you buy them from a drug store, like Shoppers or Pharma Plus - but it's the government doing the bargaining.) Walmart does the same thing; they can dictate lower prices to their suppliers, and so can charge ultra-competitive prices. Again, in some cases, not all.

American drug stores near the border are therefore competing with what is, in effect, a cartel of drug stores with an untouchable advantage in their ability to, indirectly, demand lower costs and therefore pass on prices to the end consumer that no U.S. drug store could dream of.
Errr....Canadian drug prices have nothing to do with any monopsony, since there isn't one. It's straight up price regulation by the government.
cite (http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=272)

[RickJay]

Errr....Canadian drug prices have nothing to do with any monopsony, since there isn't one. It's straight up price regulation by the government.
cite (http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=272)
That price regulation, however - as with the regulation of any price to points below its market-clearing price - effectively makes the Canadian government the de facto purchasing negotiator of the drug retail industry, at least with regards to newer, patented drugs (I assume everyone understands we're not talking about Aspirin.) Bear in mind that the PMPRB can't just willy nilly lower the price of a patented drug to absurdly low levels or else the manufacturer won't be bothered to sell it.

The PMPRB cannot prevent a drug from being sold on the basis of price; they CAN, however, order the company to pay up if they find it's been charging excessively.

[Gorsnak]

That price regulation, however - as with the regulation of any price to points below its market-clearing price - effectively makes the Canadian government the de facto purchasing negotiator of the drug retail industry, at least with regards to newer, patented drugs (I assume everyone understands we're not talking about Aspirin.) Bear in mind that the PMPRB can't just willy nilly lower the price of a patented drug to absurdly low levels or else the manufacturer won't be bothered to sell it.

The PMPRB cannot prevent a drug from being sold on the basis of price; they CAN, however, order the company to pay up if they find it's been charging excessively.
Well, that's fine as far as it goes. But it is simply not the case that patent drug prices are what they are in Canada because of a monopsony. The PMPRB does not negotiate prices with the drug companies, or try to get as good a deal as it can. It follows a formula intended to establish a "fair" price. This is unlike the market effects of an actual monopsony in fundamental ways.

[BrainGlutton]

Question: Does the Conservative Party favor Canadian military involvement in Iraq, or with the GWAT? I ask because I just came across this pre-election editorial on the website of SF writer Spider Robinson (an American expatriate and naturalized Canuck) -- http://www.spiderrobinson.com/election2006.htm:

Argue all you want about health care or marijuana or corruption or money for oil or any of the other crap: if we elect a majority Conservative government, Canadian boys and girls will die bloody.

Canadian troops will die in a foreign land, to help Americans protect themselves against the dread specter of 19 fanatics who have been dead for nearly five years, and whose living friends (if any) have in all the time since then failed to so much as injure a single American on American soil.

Canadian parents, too, will get to have their children come home in a bag, just like Americans. We’ll be helping that process to continue, for parents in both countries. Not to mention for parents in Iraq, who are just as deserving of kindness.

Not all soldiers’ parents, no. The rest will get back children who have killed people. People who were trying to kill them, for reasons neither side could articulate. Our own generation of shattered Vietnam vets—with no Canada to flee to.

[Gorsnak]

At the time, the Conservatives were sharply critical of the Liberal government's refusal to support the US-led attack on Iraq. Their position on the issue was similar to that of Blair or Howard.

The current platform, as put forth during the recent campaign, includes a pledge not to join the Iraq misadventure. In any event, the question is largely moot. With the Liberal party leadership vacant, and the general mood of the public, there are only a very few issues that the Opposition would bring down the government over. Sending troops to Iraq is one of those few.

As for the greater war on terror, Canadian troops have been and will continue to operate in Afghanistan.

[Sam Stone]

In fact, we're sending 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, and the soldiers that have already been there have been in combat regularly. Canada participated in the war against the Taliban, and 3 Canadian snipers working with three U.S. Special Forces spotters rescued an entire company of 101st Airborne who were trapped by Taliban forces. The Canadians were awarded Bronze Stars by the U.S. military.

Also, at least until the end of Operation Anaconda, Canadians had the highest kill ratio of any combatants in Afghanistan. They are doing serious work there. It's not a token force.

It's interesting that one of Harper's first statements after being elected was to threaten the United States over Canadian territorial rights. The Conservatives have argued for a long time that one of the primary responsibilities of a government is to protect its sovereignity, and the Liberals have downsized our military so much that we can't defend Canada's territorial waters. As a result, U.S. warships have moved back and forth through what Canada claims is their territory, without permission or notice. Harper plans to add several armed warships to patrol Canada's northen sea lanes to keep the Americans out.

It's a smart move. It quiets those critics who claim that Harper will be George Bush's laptop, while keeping the Conservative pledge to increase Canada's military strength.

[BrainGlutton]

In fact, we're sending 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, and the soldiers that have already been there have been in combat regularly. Canada participated in the war against the Taliban, and 3 Canadian snipers working with three U.S. Special Forces spotters rescued an entire company of 101st Airborne who were trapped by Taliban forces. The Canadians were awarded Bronze Stars by the U.S. military.

Also, at least until the end of Operation Anaconda, Canadians had the highest kill ratio of any combatants in Afghanistan. They are doing serious work there. It's not a token force.

So, under a Harper government, will Canada's military commitment abroad expand or contract?

It's interesting that one of Harper's first statements after being elected was to threaten the United States over Canadian territorial rights. The Conservatives have argued for a long time that one of the primary responsibilities of a government is to protect its sovereignity, and the Liberals have downsized our military so much that we can't defend Canada's territorial waters. As a result, U.S. warships have moved back and forth through what Canada claims is their territory, without permission or notice. Harper plans to add several armed warships to patrol Canada's northen sea lanes to keep the Americans out.

It's a smart move. It quiets those critics who claim that Harper will be George Bush's laptop, while keeping the Conservative pledge to increase Canada's military strength.

:p :p :p Rattling your saber over a place even the Inuit won't go is a "smart move" by Canadian standards?

[Sam Stone]

So, under a Harper government, will Canada's military commitment abroad expand or contract?

Our ability to meet our commitments will expand. For example, currently Canada has no heavy airlift, so we are entirely dependent on the U.S. to move us around. A Harper government promised to, among other things, restore Canada's heavy airlift capability.

Whether we become involved in more situations really depends. The Liberals were not shy about committing Canadian troops, you know. They just committed them without proper equipment.


:p :p :p Rattling your saber over a place even the Inuit won't go is a "smart move" by Canadian standards?

The Sovereignty of the Northwest Passage is a big deal for Canada. The U.S. has rejected Canada's claim, calling them 'neutral waters'. Harper plans on defending that territory, which is the right thing to do, IMO.

[RickJay]

So, under a Harper government, will Canada's military commitment abroad expand or contract?
It will stay the same. All major political parties approve of Canada's assisting in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, but realistically, we do not have the capacity to do much more than we are right now. Sending troops to Iraq would be politically impossible.

Rattling your saber over a place even the Inuit won't go is a "smart move" by Canadian standards?
It's a smart move by anyone's standards, on a number of levels. As Sam points out, it deflects criticism that Harper will be Bush's lapdog.

It also defends our sovereignty; with all due respect, the Arctic archapelago belongs to us, and neither the USA nor any other country has the right to send military forces into our territory without our permission. A state that does not protect its sovereignty doesn't deserve it.

And with the globe apparently warming up, that land may soon become more valuable.

[BrainGlutton]

The Sovereignty of the Northwest Passage is a big deal for Canada. The U.S. has rejected Canada's claim, calling them 'neutral waters'. Harper plans on defending that territory, which is the right thing to do, IMO.

Even though Canada has no practical use for the Northwest Passage, and U.S. ships passing through it does not detract from Canadian interests in any conceivable respect?!

That's the silliest thing I've heard since Moammar Gaddafi proclaimed his "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sidra!

[Barbarian]

Au contraire, mon ami. The northwest passage is thousands of miles shorter than going through the Panama canal. And by controlling the ships that use those waters, Canadians also control any pollution that may be dumped, or overfishing that may occur.

And whoever controls the passage also controls whatever natural resources lie under the ocean floor, like <glug glug glug> oil.

[BrainGlutton]

The northwest passage is thousands of miles shorter than going through the Panama canal.

Hmmm? From what point A to what point B?

And by controlling the ships that use those waters, Canadians also control any pollution that may be dumped, or overfishing that may occur.

What pollution? Has there been any? And don't try to tell me Canada or the U.S. has been suffering from any shortage of Arctic fish!

And whoever controls the passage also controls whatever natural resources lie under the ocean floor, like <glug glug glug> oil.

The U.S. sending Navy ships through the Passage does not represent any claim on mineral rights. And anyway, is there any oil there? I mean, even during the Carboniferous Period, it was a wasteland, wasn't it?

[RickJay]

Even though Canada has no practical use for the Northwest Passage, and U.S. ships passing through it does not detract from Canadian interests in any conceivable respect?!

That's the silliest thing I've heard since Moammar Gaddafi proclaimed his "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sidra!
You know, the United States is not the only country in the world entitled to protect its own territory. And as I mentioned, the fact that the Northwest Passage is becoming less and less icebound makes it increasingly likely that it will, in fact, yield economic value.

One wonders how you'd react if a foreign country decided to conduct airborne troop exercises in the Mojave desert. I mean, it's not like you're using it for anything.

[BrainGlutton]

You know, the United States is not the only country in the world entitled to protect its own territory.

Bite your tongue!

[BrainGlutton]

For example, currently Canada has no heavy airlift, so we are entirely dependent on the U.S. to move us around. A Harper government promised to, among other things, restore Canada's heavy airlift capability.

What exactly is "heavy airlift capability"? Is it something more than commercial jetliners can provide?

[Barbarian]

Heavy airlift usually means flying tanks, helicopters and other combat vehicles to remote locations. Canada has a few Hercules C-130s in operation, configured for troops or cargo, but those date back to the 1960s. And we don't have enough. Canada depends on hitching rides with other military forces.

Going through the Northwest Passage is shorter for just about every route from Asia to the Atlantic - ie Europe and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. You also don't have to worry about hurricane season so much.

As for pollution, mineral rights and fishing, you can be sure those are all things which will develop as the NWP is developed, and the U.S. ambassador said Canada has no rights to anything found in northern waters.

[RickJay]

What exactly is "heavy airlift capability"? Is it something more than commercial jetliners can provide?
Well, yes, of course. Moving a given size of unit from one place to another requires carrying a lot of stuff. Soldiers do not just pack two peices of luggage and a carry-on, and the larger the unit in question, the greater the ratio of cargo weight to personnel. "Heavy airlift capability" simply means the ability to transport units complete with a minimum amount of equipment necesary to do their jobs. Canada has essentially none at all, at least on an international scale.

If war broke out somewhere and Canada wanted to deploy an entire brigade, that's four, five thousand troops. You could send the people on 757s, but you're going to have one heck of a time fitting the armored personnel carriers into the overhead luggage bin. So in effect, Canada cannot do this.

Canada's army is, on paper, a division in strength (a division consists of 10000-20000 troops, comprised of brigades or regiments, and possessing multiple support capabilities, such as its own artillery, armor, logistics, anti-air, helicopters, electronic warfare, etc; divisions are generally assumed to be the point at which a unit is entirely self-capable of sustained warfare.) But that division cannot, in any cohesive fashion, be deployed to fight as such, because we do not possess the capability to move it anywhere in less than a couple of months.

I realize Americans think Canada's sovereignty is kind of a joke, but it's not to us. It's our country. We're entitled to defend it. The Arctic may not be primo waterfront property, but it still belongs to us - if you don't believe me, look at a globe and see what colour they painted Banks Island, or just ask the Central Intelligence Agency (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html) - and certainly the potential exists for it to be valuable; who knows what minerals await discovery? If the ice clears, fisheries could spring up. Why're we not allowed to protect this?

[BrainGlutton]

Going through the Northwest Passage is shorter for just about every route from Asia to the Atlantic - ie Europe and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. You also don't have to worry about hurricane season so much.

But who actually uses it as a shipping route? I mean, don't you need a ship with ice-breaking capacity to get through it?

[Rysto]

Currently, the North is useless as a shipping route. However, it's thought that with global warming, it may well open up the North West Passage to regular shipping. If Canada is to regulate that shipping, we must have control of the North.

[Ms Macphisto]

But who actually uses it as a shipping route? I mean, don't you need a ship with ice-breaking capacity to get through it?
As Rysto said, the main point of contention here isn't the present, it's in the future. If receding Arctic ice packs open up the Northwest Passage, even for a month or two a year, it becomes a viable shipping route, and I, for one, would like to see the Canadian government able to have some level of control over the use of that route. After all, as far as I know, with the exception of Hans Island, no one is disputing Canadian sovereignty over the land up there, just the waters. So if, for example, 20 years from now you've got oil tankers going through the Northwest Passage every July and August and one of them runs aground, Canada's got a problem.

[Rysto]

Couldn't Canada also charge a toll to any ships using the NWP(assuming other nations recognize our sovereignty), like Panama does in the Canal?

[RickJay]

Couldn't Canada also charge a toll to any ships using the NWP(assuming other nations recognize our sovereignty), like Panama does in the Canal?
I guess, but if you go through the Panama Canal, people actually have to do stuff to let you through (e.g. controlling the locks.) You're paying for a service. Not so with the NWP.