I'd like examples of how the federal government is jerking around the provinces on the issue of health care.
When universal medicare was introduced at the federal level, the federal government contributed 50% of the cost using a system of transfer payments called the EPF, or the Establish Programs Financing. This was distributed on a per capita basis and indexed to inflation. The single most dramatic change (apart from patriation) occurred in 1995.
That was when Paul Martin, then Finance Minister for the Liberal Government introduced his budget that sought to eliminate the federal deficit. It severely cut transfers and re-arranged the payment scheme into a single bloc transfer, to be called the Canadian Health and Social Transfer, or the CHST.
This transfer was no longer linked to inflation, or delivered on a per capita basis, and as a result of that the percentage of monies contributed by the federal government to a federal program that was instigated by the federal government and "governed" by the Canada Health Act was around 20%, with the provinces kicking in the rest of the tab.
Moreover, if any province "violates" the Canada Health Act (how can one violate an unconstitutional piece of legislation?), the punishment is withdrawal of transfers. This has, incidentally, never happened, even when certain provinces have fragrantly violated the various provisions in the Act (most recently Quebec, but also BC). The reasons that this has never happened are obvious, as it would be a PR disaster for the government of the day.
But the issue that is raised is this: if the CHST is supposed to be a conditional grant (which is what it is), and there are no conditions - or if there is no punishment of those conditions are not respected - why do we having conditional grants in the first place? I understand all of the arguments in favour of keeping national standards, the constitution be damned - but if provinces will routinely ignore the agreed upon provisions in these transfer agreements anyway why are we holding onto them?
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
They're has been rumours concernign a new political party in Québec.
It's unclear exactly what the new party would stand for, excpted this : 1) it's on the centre-right of the political spectrum 2) It puts aside the national question to concentrate on other issues, mainly healthcare and education and 3) Ex-PQ minister/MNA François Legault would be the leader of that party. Joseph Facal, another right leaning ex-PQ MNA, is rumored to be invested in the idea as well.
Journal de Montréal ran a poll about the new party and.... it would get 30% of the votes! It completely floored me to see a party that doesnt even exist yet getting the support of almost 1/3rd of the electorate. It even ranks 1st place in the poll, slightly ahead of the PQ (27%) and the Liberals (25%). Legault draw his support mostly from the PQ, tough the ADQ would loose half their support and the Liberals loose some voters as well.
Furthermore, 61% of the electorate agress with the statement '' Québec needs a new provincial political party''
I dont really know what to think about that whole situation....
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
Also, any individual who insists on literal, historically accurate interpretations of Canada's founding documents can go kiss the Queen's ass.
Sigh...
The way our country is built isn't an abstraction. There is a reason why the Queen is on our money and her agent signs our laws. Yea it's boring but its important. (edit: and if you're going to make the argument that healthcare should be a federal responsibility, the constitution has a provision to amend it.)
Native land being stolen/conquered/bought/sold happened just as long ago. Shouldn't we respect a "literal, historically accurate interpretation," of those agreements as well?
I'd like to respect a coherent interpretation of your post, but I can't even manage that. Let's face it, the Queen hasn't been our head of state for decades now, not even in the form of the governor general. Last time our Queen made an important decision through the Canadian government that impacted Canadians? Like, are you saying that we should return to a state wherein we look to the Queen for power? Or that we... I don't even get the point about natives. No, I don't think we should respect a literal, historically accurate of those agreements.... It's hardly like if we did, aboriginal Canadians would suddenly be unscrewed.
Shit, you can't even get a cell phone without signing a contract that says that your carrier can change the contract at will. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is occasionally suspended in cases in which our Supreme Court believes it in the national interest. I can jaywalk in front of a police car and not get ticketed. This world in which our laws and documents are treated literally and are sacrosanct simply doesn't exist except in people's imaginations.
You're seriously proposing that the Queen is no longer our head of state simply because she is not resident? I have news for you, buddy...the Monarch has never been resident in Canada. Her residency means absolutely nothing!
I'm saying that anybody pointing to our constitution and saying that it should be interpreted literally and that things should be just so is living in a dreamworld. Just as I don't care that the Queen is technically our Head of State, similarly I don't care that the federal government is technically infringing on the provinces vis a vis health care. It's precisely the gap between the technically true statement that the Queen is our Head of State and the practically true statement that the Queen hasn't done a damn thing regarding Canada for decades that I'm poking at... and which you guys also seem to be poking at, in what is, for me, a very confusing rhetorical method.
I can only see 3 possible arguments here:
1) From principle. Except I don't believe that there is a general principle that federal governments should not interfere in provincial/state matters. If Manitoba decided to stop providing health care service to Asians, if Quebec decided to stop education for Muslims, if Newfoundland decided to do away with all provincial services, I'd be completely for the federal government intervening. I don't know of any such principle that exists.
2) From strict legal interpretation. Except that's simply absurd, since pretty much all the Supreme Court of Canada does every day is non-strict legal interpretation. Like I said, nobody acts as though the Queen's our head of state, like jaywalking is actually illegal, etc, etc,. We don't *do* strict legal interpretations, and to suddenly insist that here, in this particular area, this is where we should start?
3) From practicality. And practically? I don't see the federal government fucking up provincial health care. The fact that it's technically an unfunded mandate is a big fat whatever, the fact that no transfer payments have been stopped is another big fat whatever, the fact that no province objects to having to provide public health care is also another big fat whatever.
As far as I can tell, this is just cherry picking for an issue that has no actual impact on our lives, no general principles by which to abide, and is completely contrary to the responsibilities of an post-Enlightenment nation-state. If you were to talk about, for example, the federal government getting its hands dirty with the stimulus money and pushing around lower levels of government, sure, or its financial involvement in post-secondary education or public transit, sure. I already bitch about those things in this thread, because I think that in, those cases, the federal government is actually doing harm with its interference. But in health care? I asked for an example of how the federal government is actually meddling in health care for the worse, and you just blah blahed some stuff that was completely devoid of any actual negative real-world consequences that would be reflected in the quality of health care being provided or the efficiency of its provision.
I mean, according to you, the big deal is that the federal government ISN'T funding health care as much as it used to and ISN'T punishing provinces for violating its directives? Jeez, what should I be worried about next, kids drinking their milk? People driving sober? Drive-by shootings with blanks?
tldr: I don't care. Non-starter for me, and a bajillion other Canadians. Which is a big deal. Because there aren't even a bajillion Canadians.
So, I live in Guelph (recently moved there) and have no clue who to vote for (Can I even vote if I moved here a month ago?).
Most voting has a residency requirement of 6 months.
EDIT: For example:
You can vote in the Edmonton City Elections if:
1. You have acceptable personal identification with you
2. You are a Canadian citizen
3. You are at least 18 years of age
4. You have lived in Alberta since April 20, 2010
5. You live in a voting subdivision in the city of Edmonton on Election Day and
6. You have not already voted in the 2010 Edmonton Elections.
So, if I just moved to Edmonton from Calgary this week, I would still be elligible to vote in the Edmonton elections, assuming I could prove that I lived in that Edmonton subdivision where I was trying to vote.
You know what, can we please try to avoid the fetishizing of the fathers of confederation that goes on in the states with the writers of their constitution. Not to put to fine a point on it, it is fucking retarded. I majored in history, and maybe its because of that this backwards looking "what we decided a long time ago/what these old white dudes thought was the one true way" line of thought makes me want to puke. The FoC were just people, not psychic legislation crafting demi-gods.
A federal step back from health care would likely be a disaster for the quality of healthcare in the smaller provinces. You're already far better off getting cancer in BC than you are in PEI, and that would only get worse under this proposal.
Except, as far as I know, the federal government doesn't actually interfere in health care or educational (non-secondary) matters much.
And I would consider establishing a national minimum standard of living a key responsibility of any national government. Just as I consider it a requirement of the UN/any other world governmental body to stop genocides. Otherwise, what's the fucking point? Let's just Ron Paul it up here instead.
It absolutely does. The Canada Health Act and the Federal Ministry of Health attempt to impose federal standards on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the federal government routinely uses its spending power to impose its policy goals on areas outside of its mandate.
So what? If the Canada Health Act goes against your Federalist principles, your Federalist principles can go fuck themselves in the ass. And this is not some minority opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find any Canadians who'd prefer a strict adherence to one or another idea about the separation of powers over their health care.
Even in Quebec, where you try and draw this ridiculous thing out. The Quebequios may have issues with the Federal government, but those issues are not about their Health Care.
As hippofant points out, the Queen is a great example of this idea. She may be our Head of State technically, but that's got nothing to do with the reality of how our state works. No one gives a shit what the Queen thinks. She is irrelevant, no matter what some document may say.
You know what, can we please try to avoid the fetishizing of the fathers of confederation that goes on in the states with the writers of their constitution. Not to put to fine a point on it, it is fucking retarded. I majored in history, and maybe its because of that this backwards looking "what we decided a long time ago/what these old white dudes thought was the one true way" line of thought makes me want to puke. The FoC were just people, not psychic legislation crafting demi-gods.
A federal step back from health care would likely be a disaster for the quality of healthcare in the smaller provinces. You're already far better off getting cancer in BC than you are in PEI, and that would only get worse under this proposal.
As I said when this was first brought up, it appears the Conservatives have yet again forgotten that they aren't Americans. The fetishizing of a bunch of dead guys from 150 years ago is stupid and Canada has always been better off for not having it.
shryke on
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
They're has been rumours concernign a new political party in Québec.
It's unclear exactly what the new party would stand for, excpted this : 1) it's on the centre-right of the political spectrum 2) It puts aside the national question to concentrate on other issues, mainly healthcare and education and 3) Ex-PQ minister/MNA François Legault would be the leader of that party. Joseph Facal, another right leaning ex-PQ MNA, is rumored to be invested in the idea as well.
Journal de Montréal ran a poll about the new party and.... it would get 30% of the votes! It completely floored me to see a party that doesnt even exist yet getting the support of almost 1/3rd of the electorate. It even ranks 1st place in the poll, slightly ahead of the PQ (27%) and the Liberals (25%). Legault draw his support mostly from the PQ, tough the ADQ would loose half their support and the Liberals loose some voters as well.
Furthermore, 61% of the electorate agress with the statement '' Québec needs a new provincial political party''
I dont really know what to think about that whole situation....
I'm not.
1. It's basically asking people who they would vote for between our existing parties or a fictional new party they can imagine. I'm not surprised that 1/3rd of Québécois can imagine a better party than those currently available. It's basically a measure of how dissatisfied people are with the current parties.
2. 30% would vote for a fictional new party doesn't translate into 30% votes for an actual new party on election day. A lot of people will change their minds when they realize the actual candidates and positions are not the same as the imagined candidates and positions they had in mind.
The Queen is nothing but the de jure Head of State, if there was any serious conflict I doubt Canadians would be very concerned with dropping the Monarchy completely.
I look forward to Hamilton's municipal elections, even though I don't really know who to vote for. Too busy laughing at US politics.
I haven't lived in Hamilton for a long while, so I don't know the issues, but I'd say that if there's someone who isn't willing to get this new Ticats/Commonwealth Games stadium in downtown Hamilton, that's probably someone you shouldn't be voting for. I mean, really, having the ACC/Rogers Centre/BMO Field downtown in Toronto are pretty big things in terms of achieving tourism status, opening access, stimulating local businesses, etc,. I can't imagine what possible good it'd do the city of Hamilton to drop that stadium down in the burbs.
hippofant on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Ah, Aegis. I was hoping to get your opinion on Peterson. Everything I've heard sounds rather negative, but I'd like to get a P-Aer's perspective on it.
I honestly don't really know her, didn't really pay that much attention to Thunder Bay politics, particularly since I rarely live there any more. Though I'd mostly confirm that that would be the general sentiment of a negative streak going around about her, at least with regard to my parents and my grandparents and their relatives. Not entirely sure why, mind.
Is there anywhere where a non-Torontonian can get as-live-as-possible polling numbers for the TO Mayoral race?
I ask here because I'm too fucking lazy to Google it.
Imperfect on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail both have Toronto election sections (buried in their websites). They've been including posts about newly released polls whenever they come up. I'd expect a fair amount of polls between now and election day, though advance polling has been going on for at least a week (I already voted!) so some results are likely already in. The recent polling put out was that Smitherman and Ford were in a dead heat (statistically tied, which is honestly a marked improvement over earlier polls), but this was I think 2 days ago and between then Rossi dropped out of the race. So now it's just a Ford-Smitherman dynamic and we're not sure where the support's going to go.
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I'm not.
1. It's basically asking people who they would vote for between our existing parties or a fictional new party they can imagine. I'm not surprised that 1/3rd of Québécois can imagine a better party than those currently available. It's basically a measure of how dissatisfied people are with the current parties.
2. 30% would vote for a fictional new party doesn't translate into 30% votes for an actual new party on election day. A lot of people will change their minds when they realize the actual candidates and positions are not the same as the imagined candidates and positions they had in mind.
Well yeah it's pretty much inevitable than the party would start loosing support in the heat of a campaign. The question did specify : a centre-right party with Legault as it's leader tough, so I dont think many left wingers are within the 30%. But yeah it IS awfully vague what ''centre-right'' actually means.
My biggest worry personally is than this party would just split up the anti liberal vote and ironically let the liberals win.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
So, watching Power & Politics, and obviously the big topic is the UNSC seat. The Conservatives have dropped the "Ignatieff is to blame" line, and not a single pundit or minister has mentioned it. Obviously they clued in to the fact that it was a poor excuse.
They have however taken up the tired mantra that they "Support Israel" and are not going to apologize for that. They also started downplaying the importance of the UN and questioning the organization itself. It's really interesting watching them grasping and trying to back track on this one.
But to my point, which deals with the "Support Israel" line. Why are we supporting either side? Why aren't we taking a line such as "We support the Middle East peace process?" I mean, such a line gives us flexibility and options to respond to situations, and would also avoid putting us in bed with one actor while pissing off the other. I just don't get this Israel hard-on that the Conservatives are starting to trot out...
They also started downplaying the importance of the UN and questioning the organization itself. It's really interesting watching them grasping and trying to back track on this one.
You're breaking up with me? Yeah, well I didn't want to sleep with you anyways!
So, watching Power & Politics, and obviously the big topic is the UNSC seat. The Conservatives have dropped the "Ignatieff is to blame" line, and not a single pundit or minister has mentioned it. Obviously they clued in to the fact that it was a poor excuse.
They have however taken up the tired mantra that they "Support Israel" and are not going to apologize for that. They also started downplaying the importance of the UN and questioning the organization itself. It's really interesting watching them grasping and trying to back track on this one.
But to my point, which deals with the "Support Israel" line. Why are we supporting either side? Why aren't we taking a line such as "We support the Middle East peace process?" I mean, such a line gives us flexibility and options to respond to situations, and would also avoid putting us in bed with one actor while pissing off the other. I just don't get this Israel hard-on that the Conservatives are starting to trot out...
WINNIPEG — University of Winnipeg valedictorian Erin Larson gave Canada’s public safety minister a piece of her mind at Sunday’s autumn convocation.
She told Vic Toews, who received an honorary degree from U of W, that she was "not proud" to share the stage with him.
Larson, the top student at the university, said the school had lost its integrity by awarding Toews an honorary law degree.
Toews sat quietly a few feet from Larson, looking at his program.
Earlier, about 50 students protested outside the university, holding neatly printed signs denouncing Toews’ degree.
"He stands for everything a university shouldn’t," said organizer Rob McGregor.
The students say Toews has opposed gay rights, is behind a needless law-and-order crackdown that will result in millions spent on prisons and he called Tamil refugees terrorists.
The students, who were lined up against the building, say those views are at odds with the university’s inclusive reputation.
"(Toews’) policies are in direct opposition to the notions of compassion, justice, acceptance, inclusiveness, human rights and equality," said Brittany Thiessen. "As a university which values these notions, I along with many others, believe that honouring this man is unacceptable."
Without having seen or held any kind of conversation, I can easily declare that Erin Larson is hawt. I want to see more people call the people out in this federal government for their BS and IMHO we would all be the more hawt for it.
Did the story manage to make another other outlets other than the Vancouver Sun? Hmm, a quick google says yes.
Excellent press for my university. Looks like it made the only decent local paper (article has photo of Erin Larson) as well as the national sections of cbc.ca and ctv.ca.
So it's mayoral elections tomorrow in Calgary and it looks like Naheed Nenshi has a good chance of winning over Rick mckiver.... He is harvard educated and in academia. This feels like opposite day or something.
So it's mayoral elections tomorrow in Calgary and it looks like Naheed Nenshi has a good chance of winning over Rick mckiver.... He is harvard educated and in academia. This feels like opposite day or something.
See, smart people come in two categories. The ones who are with you and the ones who are against you. The problem is that people often fail to distinguish between the two categories, and turn on the ones who are with them, resulting in the ones who are against them going unchecked, fueling further outrage against smart people that's turned on the ones who are with you, etc, etc,
But in a social order that, generally, rewards intelligence, of whatever sort, it's not like the smart people are going to go away.
So it's mayoral elections tomorrow in Calgary and it looks like Naheed Nenshi has a good chance of winning over Rick mckiver.... He is harvard educated and in academia. This feels like opposite day or something.
See, smart people come in two categories. The ones who are with you and the ones who are against you. The problem is that people often fail to distinguish between the two categories, and turn on the ones who are with them, resulting in the ones who are against them going unchecked, fueling further outrage against smart people that's turned on the ones who are with you, etc, etc,
But in a social order that, generally, rewards intelligence, of whatever sort, it's not like the smart people are going to go away.
I agree with you on all points but he is of east indian descent... In Calgary. He also is a teacher of Non profit management in a very for profit city.
Disco11 on
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
so looking over all of the Mayor and City Council candidates I can vote for, I've decided to not vote for anyone that doesnt have a webpage.
Also, found an amuzing crazy candidate that is running for City Councillor for my ward.
Which city election? If Toronto, careful of the Toronto Elections website candidate listing. They might not list a webpage and then it turns out the guy actually has a well-functioning site if you google his name. I found this out as I was doing the same thing you were and couldn't quite believe that the elections website was telling me the incumbent had absolutely no online presence.
Pretty interesting article in the Globe today about the potential for a real currency war between the developing world and the developed world. Lots of angry statements during the last few G20 events that didn't get a lot of play at the time (that are now being scrutinized in light of America's decision to devalue their currency.)
Also interesting to see the Bank of Canada's rightly-rankled attitude towards America's unilateral decision to inflate away their massive debt load. It must be maddening for the central planners of the Canadian economy to know that even our best long-term planning for sustainable growth can be tossed aside on the whimsical governance of Washington.
so looking over all of the Mayor and City Council candidates I can vote for, I've decided to not vote for anyone that doesnt have a webpage.
Also, found an amuzing crazy candidate that is running for City Councillor for my ward.
Which city election? If Toronto, careful of the Toronto Elections website candidate listing. They might not list a webpage and then it turns out the guy actually has a well-functioning site if you google his name. I found this out as I was doing the same thing you were and couldn't quite believe that the elections website was telling me the incumbent had absolutely no online presence.
Nope, Edmonton.
I generally voted for all of the incumbents, because all of the challengers were basing their campaigns around trying to keep the City Center Airport open, which is just a hand job to the few corporations that keep offices here.
Pretty interesting article in the Globe today about the potential for a real currency war between the developing world and the developed world. Lots of angry statements during the last few G20 events that didn't get a lot of play at the time (that are now being scrutinized in light of America's decision to devalue their currency.)
Also interesting to see the Bank of Canada's rightly-rankled attitude towards America's unilateral decision to inflate away their massive debt load. It must be maddening for the central planners of the Canadian economy to know that even our best long-term planning for sustainable growth can be tossed aside on the whimsical governance of Washington.
It's not like this is new or something though.
I pay alot of attention to American politics in large part because we usually get dragged down with them whenever they start being stupid.
shryke on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
CBC, could you not frame a 'poll' as Parents vote to shut off Wi-Fi at Ont. school. It a) wasn't a vote, it was a poll over their concerns on the issue; and b) they aren't the ones with the authority to shut the damn thing down, the school board is. I'm personally peeved at this shoddy reporting in that I'm worried about the extent that this might bolster support for similar boneheaded initiatives.
CBC, could you not frame a 'poll' as Parents vote to shut off Wi-Fi at Ont. school. It a) wasn't a vote, it was a poll over their concerns on the issue; and b) they aren't the ones with the authority to shut the damn thing down, the school board is. I'm personally peeved at this shoddy reporting in that I'm worried about the extent that this might bolster support for similar boneheaded initiatives.
"After learning the whole story about how risky Wi-Fi is, parents voted to protect their children's health and plug the computers back in with hardwires," said Andrew Couper, a member of Saint Vincent Euphrasia Parent Council, in a statement issued Monday.
"This is something every school council across Canada should be questioning."
/facepalm
Nice to see you guys have to deal with fucksticks like this up there too.
The parents group has about 210 members, and 88 per cent of those polled said they want the Wi-Fi shut off, Couper said in an interview. The parents believe Wi-Fi at the school, which has about 350 students, is causing a number of symptoms among students, including headaches and an inability to concentrate, all of which disappear on weekends.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PS: If you ever encounter anyone who actually is dumb enough to believe this, what you tell them is that radio waves in general interact only with things about the same size as the wave is, and that the waves used by Wi-Fi are much, much, MUCH bigger than a cell, so they can't interact with it at all, like how ocean waves pass right over a cork but get interrupted by a log. Because the waves can't interact with the cell (really the molecules in the cell, but these people are idiots), they can't cause any damage whatsoever. Physical impossibility like perpetual motion.
Posts
When universal medicare was introduced at the federal level, the federal government contributed 50% of the cost using a system of transfer payments called the EPF, or the Establish Programs Financing. This was distributed on a per capita basis and indexed to inflation. The single most dramatic change (apart from patriation) occurred in 1995.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/speech/SPEECH6-eng.asp
That was when Paul Martin, then Finance Minister for the Liberal Government introduced his budget that sought to eliminate the federal deficit. It severely cut transfers and re-arranged the payment scheme into a single bloc transfer, to be called the Canadian Health and Social Transfer, or the CHST.
This transfer was no longer linked to inflation, or delivered on a per capita basis, and as a result of that the percentage of monies contributed by the federal government to a federal program that was instigated by the federal government and "governed" by the Canada Health Act was around 20%, with the provinces kicking in the rest of the tab.
Moreover, if any province "violates" the Canada Health Act (how can one violate an unconstitutional piece of legislation?), the punishment is withdrawal of transfers. This has, incidentally, never happened, even when certain provinces have fragrantly violated the various provisions in the Act (most recently Quebec, but also BC). The reasons that this has never happened are obvious, as it would be a PR disaster for the government of the day.
But the issue that is raised is this: if the CHST is supposed to be a conditional grant (which is what it is), and there are no conditions - or if there is no punishment of those conditions are not respected - why do we having conditional grants in the first place? I understand all of the arguments in favour of keeping national standards, the constitution be damned - but if provinces will routinely ignore the agreed upon provisions in these transfer agreements anyway why are we holding onto them?
It's unclear exactly what the new party would stand for, excpted this : 1) it's on the centre-right of the political spectrum 2) It puts aside the national question to concentrate on other issues, mainly healthcare and education and 3) Ex-PQ minister/MNA François Legault would be the leader of that party. Joseph Facal, another right leaning ex-PQ MNA, is rumored to be invested in the idea as well.
Journal de Montréal ran a poll about the new party and.... it would get 30% of the votes! It completely floored me to see a party that doesnt even exist yet getting the support of almost 1/3rd of the electorate. It even ranks 1st place in the poll, slightly ahead of the PQ (27%) and the Liberals (25%). Legault draw his support mostly from the PQ, tough the ADQ would loose half their support and the Liberals loose some voters as well.
Furthermore, 61% of the electorate agress with the statement '' Québec needs a new provincial political party''
I dont really know what to think about that whole situation....
You're seriously proposing that the Queen is no longer our head of state simply because she is not resident? I have news for you, buddy...the Monarch has never been resident in Canada. Her residency means absolutely nothing!
I can only see 3 possible arguments here:
1) From principle. Except I don't believe that there is a general principle that federal governments should not interfere in provincial/state matters. If Manitoba decided to stop providing health care service to Asians, if Quebec decided to stop education for Muslims, if Newfoundland decided to do away with all provincial services, I'd be completely for the federal government intervening. I don't know of any such principle that exists.
2) From strict legal interpretation. Except that's simply absurd, since pretty much all the Supreme Court of Canada does every day is non-strict legal interpretation. Like I said, nobody acts as though the Queen's our head of state, like jaywalking is actually illegal, etc, etc,. We don't *do* strict legal interpretations, and to suddenly insist that here, in this particular area, this is where we should start?
3) From practicality. And practically? I don't see the federal government fucking up provincial health care. The fact that it's technically an unfunded mandate is a big fat whatever, the fact that no transfer payments have been stopped is another big fat whatever, the fact that no province objects to having to provide public health care is also another big fat whatever.
As far as I can tell, this is just cherry picking for an issue that has no actual impact on our lives, no general principles by which to abide, and is completely contrary to the responsibilities of an post-Enlightenment nation-state. If you were to talk about, for example, the federal government getting its hands dirty with the stimulus money and pushing around lower levels of government, sure, or its financial involvement in post-secondary education or public transit, sure. I already bitch about those things in this thread, because I think that in, those cases, the federal government is actually doing harm with its interference. But in health care? I asked for an example of how the federal government is actually meddling in health care for the worse, and you just blah blahed some stuff that was completely devoid of any actual negative real-world consequences that would be reflected in the quality of health care being provided or the efficiency of its provision.
I mean, according to you, the big deal is that the federal government ISN'T funding health care as much as it used to and ISN'T punishing provinces for violating its directives? Jeez, what should I be worried about next, kids drinking their milk? People driving sober? Drive-by shootings with blanks?
tldr: I don't care. Non-starter for me, and a bajillion other Canadians. Which is a big deal. Because there aren't even a bajillion Canadians.
Most voting has a residency requirement of 6 months.
EDIT: For example:
You can vote in the Edmonton City Elections if:
1. You have acceptable personal identification with you
2. You are a Canadian citizen
3. You are at least 18 years of age
4. You have lived in Alberta since April 20, 2010
5. You live in a voting subdivision in the city of Edmonton on Election Day and
6. You have not already voted in the 2010 Edmonton Elections.
So, if I just moved to Edmonton from Calgary this week, I would still be elligible to vote in the Edmonton elections, assuming I could prove that I lived in that Edmonton subdivision where I was trying to vote.
MWO: Adamski
A federal step back from health care would likely be a disaster for the quality of healthcare in the smaller provinces. You're already far better off getting cancer in BC than you are in PEI, and that would only get worse under this proposal.
So what? If the Canada Health Act goes against your Federalist principles, your Federalist principles can go fuck themselves in the ass. And this is not some minority opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find any Canadians who'd prefer a strict adherence to one or another idea about the separation of powers over their health care.
Even in Quebec, where you try and draw this ridiculous thing out. The Quebequios may have issues with the Federal government, but those issues are not about their Health Care.
As hippofant points out, the Queen is a great example of this idea. She may be our Head of State technically, but that's got nothing to do with the reality of how our state works. No one gives a shit what the Queen thinks. She is irrelevant, no matter what some document may say.
As I said when this was first brought up, it appears the Conservatives have yet again forgotten that they aren't Americans. The fetishizing of a bunch of dead guys from 150 years ago is stupid and Canada has always been better off for not having it.
No but I will totally eat you alive, fellow Royal City resident. Going to uni?
I'm not.
1. It's basically asking people who they would vote for between our existing parties or a fictional new party they can imagine. I'm not surprised that 1/3rd of Québécois can imagine a better party than those currently available. It's basically a measure of how dissatisfied people are with the current parties.
2. 30% would vote for a fictional new party doesn't translate into 30% votes for an actual new party on election day. A lot of people will change their minds when they realize the actual candidates and positions are not the same as the imagined candidates and positions they had in mind.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
I look forward to Hamilton's municipal elections, even though I don't really know who to vote for. Too busy laughing at US politics.
I haven't lived in Hamilton for a long while, so I don't know the issues, but I'd say that if there's someone who isn't willing to get this new Ticats/Commonwealth Games stadium in downtown Hamilton, that's probably someone you shouldn't be voting for. I mean, really, having the ACC/Rogers Centre/BMO Field downtown in Toronto are pretty big things in terms of achieving tourism status, opening access, stimulating local businesses, etc,. I can't imagine what possible good it'd do the city of Hamilton to drop that stadium down in the burbs.
I honestly don't really know her, didn't really pay that much attention to Thunder Bay politics, particularly since I rarely live there any more. Though I'd mostly confirm that that would be the general sentiment of a negative streak going around about her, at least with regard to my parents and my grandparents and their relatives. Not entirely sure why, mind.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Is there anywhere where a non-Torontonian can get as-live-as-possible polling numbers for the TO Mayoral race?
I ask here because I'm too fucking lazy to Google it.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Well yeah it's pretty much inevitable than the party would start loosing support in the heat of a campaign. The question did specify : a centre-right party with Legault as it's leader tough, so I dont think many left wingers are within the 30%. But yeah it IS awfully vague what ''centre-right'' actually means.
My biggest worry personally is than this party would just split up the anti liberal vote and ironically let the liberals win.
They have however taken up the tired mantra that they "Support Israel" and are not going to apologize for that. They also started downplaying the importance of the UN and questioning the organization itself. It's really interesting watching them grasping and trying to back track on this one.
But to my point, which deals with the "Support Israel" line. Why are we supporting either side? Why aren't we taking a line such as "We support the Middle East peace process?" I mean, such a line gives us flexibility and options to respond to situations, and would also avoid putting us in bed with one actor while pissing off the other. I just don't get this Israel hard-on that the Conservatives are starting to trot out...
You're breaking up with me? Yeah, well I didn't want to sleep with you anyways!
They think they are Americans, remember?
IT WAS THE LIBRULS
IT WAS THE ARABS
WHO CARES THE UN SUCKS ANYWAY
AAAAAAAAA
We essentially got to fire questions at him for three hours.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada/Students+protest+honorary+degree+public+safety+minister/3685277/story.html
Did the story manage to make another other outlets other than the Vancouver Sun? Hmm, a quick google says yes.
See, smart people come in two categories. The ones who are with you and the ones who are against you. The problem is that people often fail to distinguish between the two categories, and turn on the ones who are with them, resulting in the ones who are against them going unchecked, fueling further outrage against smart people that's turned on the ones who are with you, etc, etc,
But in a social order that, generally, rewards intelligence, of whatever sort, it's not like the smart people are going to go away.
Also, found an amuzing crazy candidate that is running for City Councillor for my ward.
MWO: Adamski
I agree with you on all points but he is of east indian descent... In Calgary. He also is a teacher of Non profit management in a very for profit city.
Which city election? If Toronto, careful of the Toronto Elections website candidate listing. They might not list a webpage and then it turns out the guy actually has a well-functioning site if you google his name. I found this out as I was doing the same thing you were and couldn't quite believe that the elections website was telling me the incumbent had absolutely no online presence.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Also interesting to see the Bank of Canada's rightly-rankled attitude towards America's unilateral decision to inflate away their massive debt load. It must be maddening for the central planners of the Canadian economy to know that even our best long-term planning for sustainable growth can be tossed aside on the whimsical governance of Washington.
Nope, Edmonton.
I generally voted for all of the incumbents, because all of the challengers were basing their campaigns around trying to keep the City Center Airport open, which is just a hand job to the few corporations that keep offices here.
MWO: Adamski
It's not like this is new or something though.
I pay alot of attention to American politics in large part because we usually get dragged down with them whenever they start being stupid.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
/facepalm
Nice to see you guys have to deal with fucksticks like this up there too.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PS: If you ever encounter anyone who actually is dumb enough to believe this, what you tell them is that radio waves in general interact only with things about the same size as the wave is, and that the waves used by Wi-Fi are much, much, MUCH bigger than a cell, so they can't interact with it at all, like how ocean waves pass right over a cork but get interrupted by a log. Because the waves can't interact with the cell (really the molecules in the cell, but these people are idiots), they can't cause any damage whatsoever. Physical impossibility like perpetual motion.
That's my understanding, anyway.
the poor bastards