larry Strong said:
And to bring up point's then say you don't want to argue them is soooo fiberal. I guess it's pretty hard to argue back when there is nothing to stand on.
I guess if it walks like a duck.........
Not quite. As I said, the point being argued wasn't one of specific policy and I had no desire to redirect the discussion onto the myriad of issues which a platform represents. But keep up the temper tantrum, it reflects well on you.
Thats just like Ujjal Dosanjh, he's been here, there and everywhere claiming that if the dreaded Tories form the next government "somebody might check your wallet before they check your pulse". But he's not so glib when it comes to explaining what his party has actually done to defend the cherished status quo. Particularly when it comes to the PM's home province of Quebec, where the provincial Liberals are using the Canada Health Act for kindling.
The number of treatments available privately in Quebec is growing monthly, but while other provinces are fined for messing with the CHA, in Quebec the Martin government looks the other way. "We've been working hard on the issue of enforcement of the CHA" insists Dosanjh. "We want to work in a way that doesn't aggravate the issues that exist in Canada. In a way that's co-operative and collaborative"
Yadda,yadda, yadda give the man a waffle iron.
The truth is that private treatment - everything from hip replacements to diagnostic test's- is becoming so prevalent and profitable in Quebec that providers are now advertising in neighboring Ontario. All with out a peep of protest from Martin or his trained seal Dosanjh
Indeed - I don't disagree. Where we may disagree is the solution. I'd prefer a revamping and improvement of the existing system rather than an expansion into a full-fledged two-tier system. Easier said than done, I know, but if the public system is going to survive in a decent state, we have to have single system and that means seriously editing the existing one to eliminate the need for a second tier. Provinces jacking around their respective systems and constant fed-provincial hissy fits over funding issues are half the problem. Regarding Quebec, since the feds are scared sh-tless (especially now) about attempting to seriously enforce any kind of federal standards legislation in Quebec, for fear of spawning a revitalization of the separatist movement, I don't see any real changes happening here. Things may be able to improve elsewhere, though.
Since you got so excited about my not responding:
larry Strong said:
2, Funny Quebec has the highest amount of private for profit clinics in Canada, yet nobody says or does anything about it. Yet if you are a Conservative you automatically have a "Hidden Agenda"
Not at all, it's just that there's been a tendency amongst the more Reform-oriented Conservatives to ponder a two-tier system. Even the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario toyed with the idea, if I recall correctly. You have Liberals who'd opt for the two-tier system too, I'm just not aware of Martin's membership in an organization like the National Citizen's Coalition which has actively pushed for it.
3, Like our criminal courts and Jail system is working now, We don't run the jails anymore, the criminals do. If you doubt that, take the time to talk to any member of CSC that works the "Line". Not the management.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/946010/posts
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114210757254_31
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/27/prison-tattoos050127.html
Where did I argue that conditional sentencing was a good thing? What I took issue with was a 3-strikes law which, in combination with trying 14 year old kids as adults, could see juveniles being locked up for life for 3 violent offences which, these days, could be little more than a schoolyard fight. I really don't object to the Conservatives' proposal for earned parole instead of statutory parole and more stringent enforcement of life sentences.
Where I said that prisons were too harsh, I don't recall either. What the hell do dangerous offender status and a 3 strikes law have to do with prison tattoo funding?
4, See the second link above.
What does gay marriage have to do with non-enforcement of conditional sentences?
5, You have people that don't show up for the majority of sittings, you have cronyism, you have people given Senate jobs that don't represent the will of the population of their province, You call this working!!!!
Of course it's cronyism - so are SCC appointments, to a degree, but I wouldn't argue that we should start electing our Supreme Court justices. There needs to be alteration in the regional composition of the Senate, no doubt about it, as the west is severely under-represented but I don't take issue with it being staffed by appointment. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have been stacking the Senate whenever they could, but it hasn't been the source of any great catastrophes. On the contrary - the Senate's shooting down of the GST bill and the Abortion Act were both acts in keeping with the public's will. If you want to look somewhere for an effective change, look at Charter reform. Governmental bypassing of regulations through the invocation of random sections does more to undermine the process than an appointed senate.
6, Why not, Then the field would be even and fair.
I don't think it's unfair presently. Everyone gets the same kick a the can if they can get into government. Letting the PM call the elections also allows the public to pressure him/her into doing it. If there was a crisis of legitimacy in a majority government after 2 years of office, you'd have no effective method of solving the problem because you're locked in to a 4 year cycle.
I suppose you are all in favor of the "First past the post" that we have now where a minority can elect the government of the day, where's the democracy in that.
Plurality voting has its advantages and disadvantages - one of the primary advantages being its simplicity. I don't particularly like the system, though, and I think something like the Single Transferable Vote might work better.
You also say the Gun registry hasn't worked and it's not likely to work, yet you don't have a problem with wasting more money there. what the heck colour is the sky you wake up to!!!
Where did I say I didn't have a problem with wasting more money there? I said scrap it - hence why I put it under the "AGREE" column. I said it seemed like a waste of money since everything's already been set up; I didn't say "Don't scrap it" or I'd have said I DISAGREED with the policy. Ideally, they could use the infrastructure for some other program but given its specificity, I doubt it's possible. Dare to dream, I guess. Stop manufacturing straw men to attack.
I think the billion or so that has been spent there would be better spent hiring more police officers. But then we might put more criminals in jail something you obviously are not in favor of, Part 3 of your response.
Another straw man, eh? Where'd I say I wasn't in favour of putting criminals in jail? I said I didn't want juveniles labelled dangerous offenders after 3 violent offences. I didn't say DON'T punish them and I didn't say DON'T make that punishment time in detention - by all means, punish them and do it with jail time if necessary.
