# Liberal Spin Doctors Never Miss A Trick- Do They?



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2005)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113826483306_55?hub=topstories
Ottawa to streamline Canada's immigration system 
CTV.ca News Staff

The government is expected to announce changes to the immigration system today that will make it easier for immigrants to be reunited with their parents and grandparents.
Immigration Minister Joe Volpe is also expected to loosen rules on international college and university students, making it easier for them to work while they're in this country, sources told The Canadian Press. 
Volpe will announce the changes to the system at news conferences in Toronto and Montreal today. 
Currently, citizenship applicants can face up to a two-year wait for a decision. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada hopes to dramatically reduce the backlog of cases and cut the waiting period in half.

On family reunification, the department's goal is to cut down on the massive list of about 100,000 cases they have on file and process three times the number of applications per year -- from the current 6,000 to about 18,000. 
Foreign students now can only get on-campus jobs while they attend school in Canada. Under the relaxed rules, they'll be able to find employment off-campus. 
"The international students have been a net asset to the country so we are going to find some ways of improving access to international students for Canadian universities," Volpe's communications director Stephen Heckbert told The Globe and Mail. 

Heckbert also spoke of incentives for foreign students to work outside of large urban centres. 
International students can now work in the country for only up to a year after graduation. But if they take jobs outside Canada's three big cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, they'll be able to work for up to two years after graduating under the new rules.
Colleges and universities have been lobbying for the changes, in hopes to attract more international students.

Volpe's announcement isn't the only major initiative introduced by the Liberals recently. Last Friday, Martin made a high-profile visit to Vancouver to sign a gas tax deal that allows the city to share federal gasoline tax revenue. 
This comes as the Liberals are being hammered with fallout from Justice Gomery's inquiry into the sponsorship scandal and are facing the possibility of a summer election.

But federal officials said the recent announcements aren't part of a public relations campaign to take voters' minds off the scandal that's shaken Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government.
One cabinet official told The Canadian Press that Volpe was making the move because it's sound public policy and that it's not an effort to buy votes and curry favour in ethnic communities.A Toronto-area Liberal MP who's been lobbying Volpe for months to overhaul the immigration system said, "I'm ecstatic."

"People can say it's opportunistic, but it's the right thing for the people of Canada, it's the right thing for the families of Canada,'' Jim Karygiannis told The Canadian Press.

Volpe is also expected to announce more money and personnel to fast-track the admission of about 110,000 immigrant wage earners with badly needed skills.

"We have to turn ourselves from a risk-management system into a recruitment system,'' Volpe told the Edmonton Journal."We have to rethink how we do business and attract people."

With files from The Canadian Press

This is vote-buying with our money again, bringing over parents and grand-parents?.....yea, just when they are at the age that they need health care the most.........without spending a lifetime paying into it.


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

Wow!!! Bruce Monkhouse starting a thread slamming "Liberal Spin D_oo_ctors", whoda thunkit? Cause we all know them them good, honest conservative types never put a spin on any of their ideas  :

Sure, that's one way to look at this announcement, and I won't argue with it. When did politicians do anything that wasn't to their benefit? 

But, speaking as someone who is currently an immigrant in the US (oh, that's right, Bruce doesn't think I should be living here), doing something to make it easier for lawful immigrants to have their families join them isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Apr 2005)

Sigpig, you have to agree the timing of this is suspicious. It is also a well kinown fact that breeding fear within the immigrant community is an established pattern of behaviour of the liberals, and indeed the left, in Canada. I think Bruce brings up a good point ... why should we permit people to simply show up out of the blue and have access to our social safety net without contributing a dime or any effort at building the country? 

I find this immigration policy particularly revolting when governments here consistently oppose offering proper health care and education services to disabled children and support for their parents and caregivers, yet can somehow find millions of dollars to assist and aide foreigners with the very same services. The answer is simple - disabled children don't vote and their caregivers are not a large enough group to influence any election. But immigrants, that is a whole other ball game, particularly in large urban centres.


----------



## Trinity (18 Apr 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> doing something to make it easier for lawful immigrants to have their families join them isn't necessarily a bad thing.



Ok.. i'll bite...

Why and how..  just curious...


----------



## Thirstyson (18 Apr 2005)

> doing something to make it easier for lawful immigrants to have their families join them isn't necessarily a bad thing.





			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> Ok.. i'll bite...
> 
> Why and how..  just curious...



I'd be more intersted in the opposite: why would it be a bad thing?


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Sigpig, you have to agree the timing of this is suspicious.



I thought I did


			
				Sigpig]Sure said:
			
		

> It is also a well kinown fact that breeding fear within the immigrant community is an established pattern of behaviour of the liberals, and indeed the left, in Canada.



True. Can not the opposite be said of the right? Raising fear _*of*_ the immigrant community?



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I find this immigration policy particularly revolting when governments here consistently oppose offering proper health care and education services to disabled children and support for their parents and caregivers, yet can somehow find millions of dollars to assist and aide foreigners with the very same services. The answer is simple - disabled children don't vote and their caregivers are not a large enough group to influence any election. But immigrants, that is a whole other ball game, particularly in large urban centres.



Politics and politicians suck on both sides of the spectrum. Yes, immigrantion is always a 'comfort' issue for the left, as much as guns and superior morality are for the right.


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Ok.. i'll bite...
> 
> Why and how..  just curious...



Well, I'm looney left-leaning softie, but I always thought keeping families together was a good thing. If a lawful, law abiding immigrant has reached a certain status, citizenship being an obvious level, then why shouldn't that person be able to bring their family to be with them using a timely and reasonable process?

I can't speak to these policies in any detail because I don't know what they are and have no intentions of finding out. I have a hard enough time keeping track of the US policies that relate to me and my family. I was just wondering why this is such a bad thing, timing and politics aside.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2005)

Quote from Sigpig,
_But, speaking as someone who is currently an immigrant in the US (oh, that's right, Bruce doesn't think I should be living here), _ 

...no, I'm glad you're there, I just find it a bit hypercritical that you slam the US the way you do.....and as for your point about the"liberal spin doctors" and myself, I would post the same thing for the Bloc, Torys, NDP, even Mr. Bush in the same " perfect timing" circumstances.
[ though I admit its easier this way ]
But one question that you avoided like the plague, why should the parents of "legal" immigrants be able to slide right in to the social safety net when it can't even substain itself now?
We have a guy at work who is going to wait almost a year for knee surgery, a year! If you moved your parents down there also would you expect the State of Florida to provide them health care?    So, maybe some kind of "contract" , where the sponsor is responsible for certain things would alleviate some peoples fear.


----------



## Guardian (18 Apr 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Well, I'm looney left-leaning softie, but I always thought keeping families together was a good thing. If a lawful, law abiding immigrant has reached a certain status, citizenship being an obvious level, then why shouldn't that person be able to bring their family to be with them using a timely and reasonable process?



While reuniting families is certainly a laudable goal, I fail to agree that that in itself is a safe basis for an immigration policy. A further point - just because the immigrant in question is law-abiding, does that necessarily mean that his/her family would be similarly law-abiding? I could see all sorts of Al-Qaeda types just jumping on this (or to be ethnically fair, IRA, Tamil Tigers, or any other terrorist outfits?)


----------



## rw4th (18 Apr 2005)

If immigrants want so desperately to be reunited with their family, can they just not go back their country of origin? This may sound harsh, but no one asked them to move to Canada, they came here all on their own seeking a new life, so I don't see why I should flip the bill for bringing their parents over. That responsibility falls squarely on the immigrant's shoulders.

Ok, that said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing and their really aren't any details in the article about how it will be implemented. If all it involves is more efficiently processing immigration applications, then I have no problems with it as long as family member meet the same requirements for immigration as anybody else. Bringing the sick grandma and grandpa over so they can get free health care should NOT be an option.


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...no, I'm glad you're there, I just find it a bit hypercritical that you slam the US the way you do....



Is hypercritical really, really, really hypocritical?   



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But one question that you avoided like the plague, why should the parents of "legal" immigrants be able to slide right in to the social safety net when it can't even substain itself now?
> We have a guy at work who is going to wait almost a year for knee surgery, a year! If you moved your parents down there also would you expect the State of Florida to provide them health care?    So, maybe some kind of "contract" , where the sponsor is responsible for certain things would alleviate some peoples fear.



I have no problem with some kind of 'contract' or agreement about paying for the care of your relatives. I had to fill out forms for my wife and kids indicating what my resources were and promising that they wouldn't become burdens in the US. I agree with that. I didn't answer because, as I stated elsewhere, I'm quite unfamiliar with the existing Canadian rules and didn't want to answer and look stupid - well, more than I ususally do  ;D


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> While reuniting families is certainly a laudable goal, I fail to agree that that in itself is a safe basis for an immigration policy. A further point - just because the immigrant in question is law-abiding, does that necessarily mean that his/her family would be similarly law-abiding? I could see all sorts of Al-Qaeda types just jumping on this (or to be ethnically fair, IRA, Tamil Tigers, or any other terrorist outfits?)




Again, I don't know the details of Canadian immigration procedures but it would make sense to conduct some kind of security check on any kind of potential immigrant. Did I say fling the doors open? 

As someone who has endured the process here in the US I'm the last person who wants someone to get off easy in their own process.


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> If immigrants want so desperately to be reunited with their family, can they just not go back their country of origin? This may sound harsh, but no one asked them to move to Canada, they came here all on their own seeking a new life, so I don't see why I should flip the bill for bringing their parents over. That responsibility falls squarely on the immigrant's shoulders.
> 
> Ok, that said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing and their really aren't any details in the article about how it will be implemented. If all it involves is more efficiently processing immigration applications, then I have no problems with it as long as family member meet the same requirements for immigration as anybody else. Bringing the sick grandma and grandpa over so they can get free health care should NOT be an option.



Agreed on all points, except for the go back where you came from stuff. I see no reason for the Canadian system to provide the same level of service to newcomers as it does for citizens or the Canadian equivalent of permanent residents (told you I wasn't up on my Canadian regulations). 

Some kind of guarantee from the sponsoring family about payment for medical (non-emergency) or other services could be part of the process.


----------



## Steel Badger (18 Apr 2005)

I have to agree with RW and Bruce

I have no issue with new Canadians bringing over their spouse and children, but parents and grandparents are another matter....

At least until such time as the Government can take care of some of its most pressing responsibilities: ie the health care of current citizens or the care of our veterans who safeguarded the country our politicians mismanage......
( Cliff Chadderton could certainly use help convince the goverment to safe-guard our Veteran's)


----------



## rw4th (18 Apr 2005)

> Agreed on all points, except for the go back where you came from stuff



â Å“Go back where you came fromâ ? is not quite how I meant it. What I meant is if an immigrant really misses his/her family then the burden of being reunited with them is on him/her and not on the Canadian government. They made the choice to come here and to separate themselves from their loved ones, nobody forced them. If they can't bear the separation, and don't have the financial means to bring their family here, then they should seriously consider going back. At no point however should the government even entertain the possibility of saying â Å“awww, you poor lonely immigrant, here's a few thousand bucks to bring your family overâ ?. Is that clearer?


----------



## sigpig (18 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> â Å“Go back where you came fromâ ? is not quite how I meant it. What I meant is if an immigrant really misses his/her family then the burden of being reunited with them is on him/her and not on the Canadian government. They made the choice to come here and to separate themselves from their loved ones, nobody forced them. If they can't bear the separation, and don't have the financial means to bring their family here, then they should seriously consider going back. At no point however should the government even entertain the possibility of saying â Å“awww, you poor lonely immigrant, here's a few thousand bucks to bring your family overâ ?. Is that clearer?



Yes it is clearer. Is money actually being given to sponsors to bring over family members or is that extra money going to the department to hire more staff to clear up the backlog?


----------



## TCBF (18 Apr 2005)

Notwithstanding the fact that I am normally slightly to the right of Attila the Hun on most issues, I sorta side with SigPig on this one.

I would ask that the usual health standards be enforced, or perhaps strengthened.  We don't need a boatload of TB or Ebola powering up the St. Lawrence.

So, I vote "Yea" on principle, but on practice I would want some stringint health conditions, which, probably, caused the backlog we are about to eliminate in the first place.

As for the skilled workers, I do not believe we should rob Doctors from Elbownia so we can employ them as cab drivers in Kapuskasing.

Companies wanting outsider skills should first prove it is impossible to train a Canadian.

Tom


----------



## LowRider (18 Apr 2005)

Can't really say i'm surprised by this move.Immigration/multicultisim is the Liberal solution to every problem,or so they would have us believe anyway.They are currently trying a subsidized immigration scheme here in order to solve our population and econmic problems in the Maritimes.
Really the only thing the Liberals hope to accomplish with all this,is to increase their loyal electorate and maintain their deathgrip on Canadian politics.


----------



## TCBF (18 Apr 2005)

There is a population problem in the Maritimes:  too many people.  You solve it by moving people out to where the jobs are, not bringing them in to where the jobs aren't.

Tom


----------



## LowRider (18 Apr 2005)

> There is a population problem in the Maritimes:  too many people


.
According to the government it's quite the opposite.





   





> You solve it by moving people out to where the jobs are, not bringing them in to where the jobs aren't


.
That would be a sensible solution to a problem.liberals aren't capable of that type of reasoning unless it benefits them somehow.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Apr 2005)

How does the gov't define family?


----------



## TCBF (18 Apr 2005)

"How does the gov't define family?"

Two adult males holding hands in bed, smoking.

(You guys should know better than to give me an opening like that).

Tom


----------



## Andyboy (18 Apr 2005)

ZING!


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2005)

Wes will need to answer this for certain, but I believe the Australian system works like this:

1. You can't get in the door unless you have certain skills which are in short supply (Liberal Arts Major is not on the list)

2. You have to post a bond of about $5000 AU (the figure I heard)

3. If you need social services, it comes out of that bond, NOT Australian tax revenues 

4. If you or any member of your family is in trouble with the law (real trouble, not parking tickets), you are all deported

5. The bond and deportation conditions are good for five years.

If we instituted and enforced such a system, there would be a lot less hanky panky in the immigration system. As a bonus, I propose ALL people getting off the boat/plane be photographed and fingerprinted, to cut down on the "overstaying the Visa" trick.


----------



## spenco (19 Apr 2005)

That system is good, its a pity we dont have something like it here.  However, if we did do something like that the bleeding hearts would be crying how this is a head tax and that the prospective immigrants rights under the charter would be violated and yada, yada, yada so even though it looks good I doubt it will ever come to Canada.

a_majoor, what happens if the social services the person needs goes beyond their bond? are they deported?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Apr 2005)

I think I started this thread off wrong, in the sence of where I wanted to go with it.

I think what irks me about this whole thing is when and how did we let ourselves be "bought" with OUR money and not even bat an eye anymore?
This bill is not even on the rader four weeks ago and all of a sudden ...BAMN!....its the second coming!,...and we go ZZZZZZZZZ! 
No matter what political stripe you are, this is simple spending the money of those live here now to get votes from those who live in another country right now,...and, it seems, no one cares.


----------



## Island Ryhno (19 Apr 2005)

Diversionary Politics I believe it would be called. Sponsorship scandal, what sponsorship scandal, we're good immigrant loving Liberal goodies, we would never waste the money of the taxpayers. The constant flow of wasted money is sickening and there is no patch in sight. When the election is all said and done, what are the odds that the Liberals will not still be in charge, this is depressing.  :-\


----------



## Zipper (19 Apr 2005)

Tom! I'm shocked you actually agreed with this...         ...in principle even!? Wow. 

One thing you guys seem to either have forgotten, or failed to hear, is the fact that bringing your family over after you being here and/or becoming a citizen yourself has been going on for quite some time. There is a back log of cases over 100 thousand deep of just this instance, and the Liberal government is just saying that they are going to throw extra money at to try and move that back-log along quicker. 

How many years is it going to take? MANY! And what does it really mean realistically to young Sahib trying to get his parents over here? Absolutly nothing as it will go to the bottem of the pile and he'll have to wait years.

So is it vote buying? You bet. Its a ploy to take some of the heat off the Liberals from the Ad scam. Nothing more.

Is it something to worry about? Not a chance. It means they add a few more bodies in the civil service and the paper work gets deeper.


----------



## Acorn (19 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As a bonus, I propose ALL people getting off the boat/plane be photographed and fingerprinted, to cut down on the "overstaying the Visa" trick.



What good is fingerprinting and photographing? Currently anyone designated for deportation goes into CPIC anyway, and even if you did issue a deportation order, how would you verify compliance without escorting every individual to the aircraft.

The issue is something else Australia has: exit controls. But whenever you mention that the word "dictatorship" gets thrown out.

Zipper has nailed the real problem, and the real cynical Liberal reason for it. Did anyone notice the bunch of ethnic/immigrant protesters against same-sex marriage at the announcement of the new immigration policy? The Liberals are losing their ability to snow people. They probably don't realise that immigrants are probably way more socially conservative than the average Bay Street banker.

Acorn


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Apr 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Zipper has nailed the real problem, and the real cynical Liberal reason for it. Did anyone notice the bunch of ethnic/immigrant protesters against same-sex marriage at the announcement of the new immigration policy? The Liberals are losing their ability to snow people. They probably don't realise that immigrants are probably way more socially conservative than the average Bay Street banker.



Which is why the Liberals are playing with fire WRT the gay-marriage issue, too.


----------



## TCBF (20 Apr 2005)

I still think that if Pushpinder and Jugdish want to bring their grandparents over, hey, why not.

My family got off the boat in 1820 or so, but I don't believe in the "nobody in after me" philosophy.

I once lived in a three bedroom apartment in Kurzell, near Lahr.  Three Cdn Sergeants - single - living in a three bedroom apartment (think of the poverty...). I was the only one born in Canada.  The others were born in Frankfurt and east-end London.  The landlady thought that was a hoot.

One of them had a rather droll saying in Canada: "My family has had trouble with immigrants since we came to this country."  Always a crack-up.

I think immigration is great - but lets not rob Elbonia of Medical Doctors so we can have them driving cabs in Kapuskasing.

Tom


----------



## Thirstyson (20 Apr 2005)

Very politically correct TCBF, but I agree in principle.


----------



## Polish Possy (20 Apr 2005)

I saw On the New VR news yesterday that the liberals also making improvements in the military they plan on adding 2 new destroyers and 1 battle ship I believe, they are also planing on making the JTF2 into a larger operation that would be more like US special forces, they also said that they are looking for hi-tech transport choppers to transport the JTF2 from place to place......But people are saying that this is just a tactic to keep the liberals in power but many people believe if the some how keep power they won't follow thu with what they promissed.


just thought that I add that.


----------



## Slim (20 Apr 2005)

I think that the Liberals are teatering on the brink and doin anything they can to avoid falling over the edge. I don't know if who comes next will be better, but I'm willing to wait and see...Personally I've had enough of a bunch of theives in positions where our government should be. 

Liberals out! 

Slim


----------



## Zipper (21 Apr 2005)

The unfortunate part is you exchange one set of thieves for another. You just change the colour of the flag they stand under.


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2005)

Better the devils yet to be charged than the devils under indictment.

"My sister's boyfriend beats her and rapes her, but I told her any new boyfriend would be just as bad, so she might as well stay with him."

Given up on elections, have we?


----------



## Polish Possy (21 Apr 2005)

that is a great metaphor for our Government

I think we should put a really small party into power ....... that way there isn't many people that can corrupt the government


I also read that the Libs are trying to lower voting age ....cus you know the Libs are tight with the teens in this country .....and they need every vote they can get .... :-\

I am 16 and I personally think that they should leave the voting age the same..... I don't think that the majority of 16 year olds are mature enough to make an educated vote that will effect them for the next 4 years ..... just my thoughts tho


----------



## jmacleod (21 Apr 2005)

PMO staff have been planning a General Election since November 2004. The Liberal Party are past
masters at "winning" elections and are focused on the constituencies where they have strength
and weakness. The Atlantic region has only two vulnerable seats, Dartmouth HRM ( a swing seat)
and Saint John NB (another swing seat with an encumbered new MP). The Liberals feel they will
retain their Quebec seats, and win virtually all the Ontario seats. The general feeling I get when
talking to party flunkies is that they have written off Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (their
attitude; "who cares") - the main Western focus is on BC where every day is Christmas Day and
they talked the Premier of BC into a provincial election. I think the Liberal flunkies may be right
-a Liberal majority government - say that to the ivory tower media, they go ballistic, but nobody
in the "natural ruling party" gives a shit about the media in any event. A thought from MacLeod.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Apr 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> they talked the Premier of BC into a provincial election.



You should tell the party flunkies that you are talking to that BC now has fixed election dates (2nd Tuesday in May, four years after the previous election = May 17, 2005), which was agreed-to by bothl of the major parties.


----------



## jmacleod (21 Apr 2005)

The fixed election date was a strategic plan by, guess who? The Liberal's would like fixed election
dates in the national and provincial sectors, particularly in Ontario and Quebec - has been talked
about in Liberal Party confrences, meetings and drunk ups for years. Liberal Federal and Provincial
Parties share the same goals, people, money and strategy - their philosophy is winning the election
period. I grew up in a Liberal family (two MP's and a Senator) - in the period 1870's, they along 
with other immigrants, unacceptable to the Tory establishment in NS, founded the Liberal Party.
To them Politics, emphasized "Politics" is not a game. Martin's real problem is that too many of
his flunkies and advisors have no roots in the Liberal party, which has cost Prime Minister Martin
dearly. He will not survive as leader, regardless of the outcome of a Federal election - the fact is
that new potential leaders are being evaluated as I write this - regards, MacLeod


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

JMacleod, BC Liberals do not have much in common with the federal Liberals, infact the provincial boys & girls cringe at the name association. BC provincial Liberals are regurgitated Social Credit supporter if you are looking for ideological association.

As for up & coming leaders of a thrashed federal Liberal party, I have heard Frank Mckenna's name throw about. He is now serving as Canadian ambassador to US, and is very unhappy after being embarrassed by Mr Dithers in regard to the BMD decision.


----------



## jmacleod (21 Apr 2005)

Former Premier Frank McKenna PC, QC, had an office in Moncton about five blocks from where I
am sitting. Know him well, absolutely outstanding politician and professional barrister. He will prove
a great asset to Canada in Washington. McKenna, in common with Premier Binns of PEI and
Williams of Newfoundland/Labrador is smart. There has been speculation of his role as a potential
leader of the Liberal Party of Canada - no one here (in Moncton NB) can say for sure. But the
original topic is focused on Liberal spin doctors - which is a correct deduction of the proposed
change in Canada Immigration rulings - this is focused on more "immigrant support" for the
Party. The previous immigration policies, focused on the 416 and 905 areas of Ontario were
created for the purpose of creating long term loyality to the Canadian politicians who opened
the doors - saw it first hand while working Toronto the Good - now the rest of Canada can see
the results. The guys that are sitting in power in Ottawa know that "winning is everything".
Regards, MacLeod


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

JMacleod, did you hear Fed Minister Ujjal Dosang (former BC NDP premier) try to rake the Conservatives over the coals for a supposed HIDDEN AGENDA, re privitizing of health services.

Problem is the Ujjal has no credibility and is more akin to a Liberal pit bull attacking what ever corner his master tell him.  As well the Liberal should not be one to talk of hidden aggenda's:
     1. No credibility after GOMERY enquiry.


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

Sorry mouse is all over the place;

       2. Liberals have already allowed medical privatization to take place in Quebec and Ontario, while    lambasting and fear mongering over the Conservatives plan for consultation of options.
       3. Liberals kill all round table discussions over options to improve medicare in Canada (if Lib's don't think propose idea).


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2005)

I am looking for the ref; but it appears that paragon of socialized medicine, Mr D himself, has a private Dr who runs a private clinic. I guess I know who will hit the mat for healthcare....(not Mr D, for certain)

As for the Gomrey Inquiry, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Why havn't the legions of crusading reporters (who somehow missed ADSCAM) decended upon the "Foundations" that the Liberal government endowed with seven billion tax dollars, beyond the perview of Parliament or the Auditor General? 

Hey, we all know some of you "guests" and lurkers work for the media; get going before some American Blogger scoops you all (again). As for the rest of us, a campaign of letters to the editor exposing facts like the ones Max brought up would start putting backspin against the spin Drs.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Apr 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> JMacleod, BC Liberals do not have much in common with the federal Liberals, infact the provincial boys & girls cringe at the name association. BC provincial Liberals are regurgitated Social Credit supporter if you are looking for ideological association.



Exactly.



			
				Blue Max said:
			
		

> 2. Liberals have already allowed medical privatization to take place in Quebec and Ontario, while lambasting and fear mongering over the Conservatives plan for consultation of options.



On top of which, Paul Martin's own doctor runs a $50million+ private clinic in Montreal (there are private clinics in BC, too: the doublethink is astounding).  After the last election, where the Conservatives (arguably) lost because they didn't go for the jugular when they had the chance, this might get a little more attention once the CBC starts headlining the "secret agenda on healthcare" line again ...


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

One other massive Liberal failure comes to mind, the Tainted Blood fiasco. I just read the Mr. Dither's actually sat on the board of a company (plant was owned in part by the Canadian Development Corp) that was pushing to have a process to screen blood certified . This process was found to be sub standard, and thus dropped but not before thousands of Litres of good blood were wasted in trials.

To make up the shortfall blood was purchased from the American penal system (can you say drug user's), and then the Canadian Blood Committee blocked the introduction of safety standards(test for Hep C) for years. The Red Cross lied about the chances of picking up an illness from this blood as being 1:1x106 when it was as high as 1:166, then the blood that was known to be unsafe was given to Hemophiliacs.

On top of all the front end "mistakes" that were made, the federal govt (Liberal's) have until yesterday denied compansation to all of the effected people. Yesterday was only another crass attempt at vote buying. :rage:

See Globe & Mail, April 21, Second Opinion by Andre Picard.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I am looking for the ref; but it appears that paragon of socialized medicine, Mr D himself, has a private Dr who runs a private clinic. I guess I know who will hit the mat for healthcare....(not Mr D, for certain)





			
				I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> On top of which, Paul Martin's own doctor runs a $50million+ private clinic in Montreal





> *MPs cry foul; Paul Martin's doctor runs private clinics*
> Last Updated *Fri, 07 May 2004* 21:38:56
> 
> OTTAWA - *Opposition politicians are calling Paul Martin a hypocrite after finding out that his personal physician heads a private health care clinic in Montreal.
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/07/canada/Martindoctor_040507


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2005)

Kudos to John Gault.

For the legions of readers, start writing those letters to the editor. NOW!


----------



## Zipper (21 Apr 2005)

The Liberal's are toast. 

Although we have to accept with a grain of salt whether or not the alternatives will be any better.

Sheesh...


----------



## jmacleod (22 Apr 2005)

The spin doctors in the Martin Minority government know that it will take many months for the
Gomery Report to be concluded, debated, analysed, debated again, etc., etc., What has been
overlooked by the flunkies are two important unknown factors in the upcoming campaign for
electorial support; one is the advocation of connubial sodomy (same sex marriage) bitterly resented
by the traditional Liberals, which will cost those MP's who support it dearly (take a look at LifeSite
News) - the other is the fact that several persons named in the Gomery Report have been charged
under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada RSC. They will appear in a Court of Ordinary
Criminal Jurisdiction, where if one lies, one faces much more than a dirty look. Several former Liberal
cabinet ministers are quaking in their boots over this aspect of their political careers (see today's
Chronicle-Herald Halifax NS). The political baisis for Canadian society also, as all members and visitors
to this site know, has a definative and profound effect of the defence of Canada, with chillingly
negative effect over the past two decades. This must be changed; the process is called a General
Election - MacLeod


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2005)

With the Queen's plans to visit Canada this summer to celebrate Alberta and Saskatchewan's Centennials, I would think that there are some other reasons to wait for a General Election.  Reasons, other than the results of the Gomery Inquiry.  The Queen has a policy of not visiting a Nation that is in the process of conducting a General Election, so any plans or intent to hold a General Election prior or soon after her planned visit could prove costly to many of the Prairie Provinces and others involved in these visits.  If this is a consideration, we may not see any election posturing until the late Fall.


----------

