Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Toward 2014

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:35am - 82 Comments

In a series of speeches today from Caroyln Bennett, Hedy Fry and Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberals are laying out the parameters of their health care agenda.

All of this will require federal leadership and partnership between governments, which is what Canadians expect. We want our governments to fight for Medicare, not over Medicare. We expect the social contract that Medicare represents to be honoured, not abandoned.

The federal government has the jurisdiction, the role, and the responsibility to defend the national interest and our shared objectives: to ensure that Medicare survives and thrives, to ensure the principles of Medicare are respected by enforcing the Canada Health Act, and to share in the cost of the system by providing funding to the provinces and territories.

Bookmark and Share
  • PeteTong

    …to redistribute wealth … stymie innovation …

    As if provinces don't have enough to deal with in the health files they have to put tons of effort into creating photo ops for federal politicians….

  • anon

    The only difference I can spot between the Conservatives and the Liberals on health care is that the Liberals want more Canadian politicians on American television to argue with Republicans about it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

      If the Liberals don't take to the American airwaves, how else are they going to communicate with the PM?

      • MostlyCivil

        Also, they're more likely to meet the PM in the greenroom at the Fox studio.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Thanks for the Liberal Party press release, Mr. Wherry!

    • madeyoulook

      Dude, Aaron covers politics. If a party releases something having remotely to do with policy, and he passes it on to us so we may celebrate it or pick it apart, what's your beef?

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Can you point me to where his blog acts as a press service for any other party? Thank you.

        • hollinm

          Good point. Absolutely true.

          • Thwim

            Oh please.. there've been numerous occasions when Wherry posts statments by the CPC and you guys usually get all upset about it.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Whatever. I don't recall Wherry ever serving as a PR flack for Conservatives. Sorry. Look at the title of his blog post: "Toward 2014". It's a slogan, for crying out loud. Why do the Liberals even need to pay for PR writers?

          • sourstud

            Actually, it seems to me he may be mocking the Liberals this time around. Considering their entire "agenda" seems to be maintaining the status quo. Then again, with the Liberals these days, it's tough to tell when they're joking and when they're being serious.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Really. Where's the mockery?

        • madeyoulook

          It's not the press-release aspect I care about. It's the policy statement. Whether that comes in the form of an address to the House, a speech at the Canadian Club, a conversation picked up by the mics at a Timmies, or a party press release, it's policy. This is politics. So I ask again: what's your beef?

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Well, it's the press release part that I care about, and that any self-respecting journalist would care about too, in my opinion. If this blog wants to be known as a Liberal Party platform, then so be it. If it wants to relay Liberal Party messaging unfiltered, there's obviously not a whole lot I or anyone else can do about it, is there. But I'm sure there are PR people out there who salivate for such cooperation from journalists. Just saying.

          • madeyoulook

            Well, ok. But I as a voter I really want to know what the major federal parties have to say about the issues. So I will happily take it however it comes. This sure beats the communion wafer crap or who's-dating-Peter-today nonsense.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            a) I really don't see Wherry providing the same service for other parties.

            b) I'm sure Liberal party PR people would agree with you. It's great that he's getting their message out. That's their job.

          • Jan

            Feel free to criticize the Liberal position – anytime your ready.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Why? As per usual, you either don't understand what we're talking about, or you're agitating for your precious Liberal agenda. Do you not have other hobbies?

          • BCer in Mtl

            a) That's why God created Ezra Levant

            b) One word: Postmedia

  • gottabesaid

    Ah, yes, fearmongering. The Conservatives fearmonger about crime, coalitions and invading Russians, and now the Liberals are fearmongering about health care. Pretty soon Stock Day is going to have to pull out his 'No Two-Tier Health' sign.

    Would be nice to know what the Conservatives would do after that agreement is up in 2014, though.

    • Amateur Hour

      "Would be nice to know what the Conservatives would do after that agreement is up in 2014, though."

      I think that's what the Opposition is doing: trying to get the Government to make some kind of statement about this file. Harper's only one to date, made on US TV: "… responsibilities of provincial governments …" yadda yadda.

      • gottabesaid

        I have no doubt the Conservatives would take steps to institute some sort of two-tier model, but they're sure as heck not going to be talking about THAT before they get a majority. If the Liberals can pin the Conservatives down on that, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

        I have no doubt the system needs to be reformed, but the 'fearmongering' approach tends to lead to both sides of the debate just shouting past each other.

        • McC_

          "would take steps to institute some sort of two-tier model"
          you make it sound like we haven't always had a multi-tiered model. would all of those with private supplemental health insurance raise their hands? <raising my hand>

          Then there's those private-for-profit family doctors paid for by provincial health insurance, and visits to private-for-profit walk-in clinics paid for by provincial health insurance…

          what counts as two tiers? I know we don't like privately-run hospitals for some reason, ditto people paying to jump queues, but we have all kinds of private payment and delivery of health services in Canada that are not universally accessible.

          • gottabesaid

            An oversimplification on my part. I meant to say a greater role for the private sector than what already exists in the system currently.

          • McC_

            fair enough, and I think this is one reason why we have a tough time talking about health care in this country — our terms are very poor descriptors of the reality. e.g., you probably know someone who is represented by a public sector union that proudly flies "No Two Tier Healthcare" flags while simlutaneously insisting on some of the best private secondary health insurance (including a drug plan, dental plan, visits to the chiroprator, massage therapist and counselling) for its members.

          • tedbetts

            My point exactly for a very long time: we've never had single tier health care in this country. I need my glasses to function in society just as much as someone may need a prosthesis or a wheelchair and I have a lot of relatives who need their medication even more than that. I get no coverage at work for my glasses and you'd have to be an employee somewhere to get your drugs covered (and even then only partially).

            If socialist France and Italy, whose health care systems are always rated way better than ours, are OK with having co-existing private health care choices, then what the #$%# are we wasting our time talking about empty slogans like "two tier" and "health card not a credit card" and limiting our debate and options by comparing to the disaster that is the US healthcare "system"????

          • Leo

            My friends who moved from Montreal to Sherbrooke, Quebec last year were only able to secure a family doctor by paying him a yearly 'fee' of $600 for their family of four.

            This is just another attempt to create a "wedge" issue. Hedy Fry….ewwwww

            Can someone tell me why inmates of federal prisons, are excluded from the Canada Health Act?

          • McC_

            just a guess — too lazy to look up the facts — but perhaps because responsibility for their primary healthcare is provided federally (probably under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act) and whenever they receive treatment from a provincial health service, Corrections Canada has to reimburse the Province. Again, just a guess — too lazy to look up the facts — it might be similar for First Nations on Reserve and Canadian Forces Personnel, who also receive federally-funded health services?

          • Leo

            Thank you for that – guess I was being lazy, lol! As you suggest, First Nations and Federal prison inmates are 100% covered by the Feds under several Acts. Just one of those common sense observations that when doing at least 2+ years jail time, why can't they get in line with the rest of the public? An inmate is not being prevented from working which if Joe public does not have additional private insurance coverage he can suffer significant financial losses as well. But then, since when is much based on common sense anymore.

        • hollinm

          Of course the Libs are great at fearmongering on any serious file. They had 13 years to "fix" healthcare. They threw a pile of money at it without any kind of reform and now we expect the Conservative government to fix it for them. In the meantime the government will be called all kinds of names.

          • madeyoulook

            Wait a minute! It got fixed for a generation, I was told. Has the generation passed by already?

          • gottabesaid

            "Of course the Libs are great at fearmongering on any serious file."

            Don't even start. Seriously. Tamils, terrorists, invading Russians, crime, socialists, separatists, census-takers… I get that you're a Conservative, and I get that all parties play games, but don't start trying to say that the Liberals out-fearmonger the Conservatives. The Conservatives are building a damn re-election platform on fear.

          • hollinm

            "The Conservatives are building a damn re-election platform on fear". You may be afraid but I am not afraid of anything and I suspect most Canadian are not afraid either. Its a little dramatic don't you think.

            I will judge the government and the Liberal party when it comes to the next election based on what I know and what I believe. No fear man…no fear. It is the damn opposition who are trying to scare the crap out of Canadians should Harper get a majority. Obviously you haven't been watching previous Liberal election campaigns.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Ahhhh . . . . and you completely missed GBS's point

            CPC are always trying to push hot button issues, most particularly those that can be torqued to evoke a sense of fear. Fear of crime (based on quoting phony or non-existent statistics); Fear of terrorism (must've been some terrorists on that boat!); Fear of Soviets (need those F35's!); Fear of governments knowing how many bathrooms you have (Census!!!).

            Try again to formulate a logical argument.

          • hollinm

            No… perhaps it is you who should formulate a logical argument. If as you say the Conservatives are doing this then you don't have much respect for Canadians. First of all only we political junkies watch every move done by the government and the other parties. You may be running around in fear but I'll bet there are few Canadians who agree they are walking around in fear and are going to vote Conservative in the next election because they have been "torqued by a sense of fear". This is all partisan bullsh.t on your part.
            The fact is the Conservatives are beating the Libs at their own game. Soldiers in the street, guns pointed at the screen, outlawing abortions, get rid of the charter of rights and the piece de resistance two tier healthcare. Those have been staples of the Liberal party. So the Conservatives need take no lessons about the politics of fear.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Still missed the point.

            I am not running around in fear, as I am able to critically evaluate (at least to my satisfaction) what is being spouted.

            What is happening is, the government are trying to instill a sense of fear in the general public, especially those who don't pay much attention to the issues and background (i.e. the majority). So, when Vic Toews darkly muses about the presence of terrorists among the Tamils, he is just trying to plant fear and play on those fears to gain support for a policy that is not very well thought out and likely ineffective. Same goes for most of the anti-crime legislation that the government is content to let die on the order paper.

            Fair play for the observation that Liberals have done this in the past, it seems to be the stock-in-trade for all parties, especially incumbents, in every jurisidction. You are however correct that the CPC has nothing to learn in that respect, they are undoubtedbly the masters at that game now.

          • gottabesaid

            Ho…lee…crap. Find where I'm defending the damn Liberals. Find where I'm saying, 'Hey everybody, vote for the Liberals.' LORDY. I'm SICK of partisan bullsh*t. You're buying the Conservative bullsh*t hook, line and sinker. Don't try to sell it to me, I'm not buying. I'm not buying the Liberals' bullsh*t either. But it's not helpful to fool yourself into thinking the Conservatives aren't trying to sell you a complete line of crap with its talk about invading Russians, criminals going wild on the streets, privacy-invading census takers, and socialists and separatists taking over the country. If you're going to try to have a discussion with me about which party's bullsh*t stinks more, sorry, I'm not interested.

            I'm not trying to be dramatic, but this stuff makes me pretty cranky. And sweary.

          • hollinm

            Talking about torquing….you got the prize today on the board.

            You guys started this stuff about the politics of fear. I am not going to continue but simply say that is the problem with the opposition parties and their supporters. Canadians are looking for real issues to be solved. The Libs and other opposition parties and their supporters want to focus on tactics, strategies and process. Meanwhile Canadians ignore all of that rhetoric and simply continue to support the Conservative party because they are speaking to the issues that they care about….its the economy…its the economy. However, feel free to continue with this silliness about the politics of fear.

          • gottabesaid

            I get a prize? SWEET!

            Is it scotch?

          • hollinm

            Yep! a virtual bottle of scotch is on the way. Enjoy!

          • gottabesaid

            Does 'virtual' mean 'single malt'? I hope it doesn't mean 'imaginary'. I didn't torque for fake scotch.

          • hollinm

            :-)

  • Olivier

    As long as people refuse a two-tier system things will not be satisfactory, especially with an aging population.

  • bergkamp

    "The federal government has the jurisdiction …. defend the national interest … and to share in the cost of the system by providing funding to the provinces and territories."

    There is so much twaddle in those two paragraphs, it is hard to know where to start.

    What happens when national interests, whatever they are, are in conflict with provincial interests? I am fairly certain Feds don't have powers to override provincial health policies.

    And it isn't Feds pols money that is paying to protect a supposed national interest … it is taxpayers. Feds aren't 'sharing' in anything, taxpayers are.

    • tedbetts

      "I am fairly certain Feds don't have powers to override provincial health policies."

      Interestingly, Harper is trying to argue that very proposition with his opposition to InSite.

      • madeyoulook

        I thought that was as much (or more) a Criminal Code matter. Am I mistaken?

        • tedbetts

          That's the crux of the matter. The feds are arguing federal drug laws and the provinces are arguing provincial healthcare. When it is both and neither.

          And the hilarious thing (for folks like me who may have chosen a side, but recognize when being partisan undermines your own view of things) is to see erstwhile progressive/centralist/federalists/Trudeauskis argue that the provincial government's jurisdiction over healthcare is so exclusive and primary against erstwhile conservative/regionalist/provincialist/firewallers argue that the federal government has a duty to interfere in provincial healthcare plans and creative policy making (especially when it shows such clear positive results) and dictate to the provinces.

          • madeyoulook

            Well, then, FWIW, here is the take from the spokesperson, president (and seemingly only member) of the Canadian individual-liberty small-government read-the-damn-constitution coalition:

            Using the spending power excuse, the federal government has made a total mess of the provinces' health care systems, and the provinces have painted themselves into a funding corner where they cannot possibly free themselves of this dumb co-dependency.

            Our illegal-drug policy has been an even greater shambles, doing little-or-nothing to prevent the loser-user class of people among us, encouraging organized crime to swallow a huuuuge swath of our economy, and imprisoning people who need mental health services instead, if only they had the sense and the willpower to seek it (and if only these services were reasonably available and effective in order to rescue at least those who ask to be saved).

            So, the Criminal Code definitely needs fixing. But until it gets fixed, a greater risk to this country would be lack of enforcement.

          • tedbetts

            Except that there was a legally enforceable exception made out of the CC for Insite.

            What a perfect way to test the need or value in fixing the CC: instead of getting rid of a law holus bolus, test it out under controlled circumstances and monitor the results.

            In this case, the results were very positive and the test was a success. Unfortunately, the Harper Conservatives are the type who want to control behaviour and so they would not renew. Dumb.

            But I'm actually on their side from the court case point of view: it is entirely the federal government's perogative and it has supremacy over provincial health care. I don't like the decision but that doesn't mean I change my views on the role of the federal government. Some day there will be a provincial government trying to break away from the Canada Health Act and as a strong federalist, I can't support the BC government on their legal point just because I like their policy position. I take a principle-based approach on federalist matters, not a results-based approach. Which is why I find the anti-federalist/pro-Insite position and pro-stronger central government/anti-Insite Harper position on this so amusing.

            We are already the most decentralized government in the world. We are so far away from Sir John A.'s views and dreams of Canada. He thought the provinces – more akin to municipalities in his mind – would have long since disappeared by the turn of the century – last century.

          • madeyoulook

            Except that there was a legally enforceable exception made out of the CC for Insite.

            You know what I call that? An IN-justice. Why should the exemption only hold in a single mini-zone of this country?

          • tedbetts

            Why not? Doesn't it make more sense to do a special-exemption trial first under very controlled circumstances before expanding it fully to everyone? If it doesn't work out, you just shut down the exmption and the one place it was allowed. If it does, you expand it and help save more lives… unless you are Stephen Harper, of course, and want to shut it down regardless of the lives it saves.

          • madeyoulook

            Not buying. Exempt the whole country, or not at all. A Vancouver neighbourhood is no more nor less deserving of the suspension of a law (with whatever benefits or harms such a move may entail) than is every other square inch of the country.

          • tedbetts

            That's exactly why you shouldn't make the entire country a laboratory and every junkie everywhere a guinea pig with something so new and so experimental. This kind of special exemption is done all the time and is very practical (no wonder Harper doesn't like it).

          • Jan

            There isn't a need for Insites all over the country. Victoria has a serious drug problem. I'm reading Winnipeg is developing a real problem – note that HIV rates are way up. Insite is a multi discipline approach to treating drug addiction. It was started by a Conservative mayor of Vancouver who decided the status quo wasn't doing anything. He went overseas to study how different countries treat the problem and came up with the Four Pillars strategy. The provncial Health Ministry embraced it and everything was going great until the Harper prohibitionsts came to town. Clement when he was Health Minister actually declared that his government doesn't believe in harm reduction. Just like that. Screw the data, who needs research.

          • madeyoulook

            So the argument for limited pilot-project exemptions states that we should only jail people who give away needles to junkies in an organized fashion at an identifiable location if the city in question does NOT have a serious drug or HIV problem? Am I the only one who sees major injustice in such a policy?

          • Jan

            Why would a municipality want one if they don't have a serious problem? And why would a province want to spend scarce dollars on something that isn't needed?

          • madeyoulook

            You are confusing: (1) FORCING a facility into every town between the curling club and the Legion Hall (which I am most certainly not advocating), and (2) EXEMPTING / REPEALING a portion of the Criminal Code fairly across the entire country if we are prepared to suspend it at one storefront address in Vancouver (which I am). Please confim that you understand these are not the same thing.

          • Jan

            Are you claiming the criminal code is applied uniformly. Surely you're not that naiive. I can't think of anything more selectively implied.

          • madeyoulook

            Jan, I must say I am having a very hard time following your line of thinking. Do you or do you not understand that an exemption from a Criminal Code prohibition DOES NOT constitute an obligation to practice that which was previously forbidden? Because your comments in this thread do nothing to demonstrate such an understanding.

          • Jan

            Selectively applied…

          • Jan

            It'snot just one storefront address. It is a medical clinic operated by the Provincial Health Authority.

          • Jan

            Insite is a pilot project. That's why it's been studied so much. Victoria was to get the next one.

    • brooster2

      "What happens when national interests, whatever they are, are in conflict with provincial interests? I am fairly certain Feds don't have powers to override provincial health policies."

      They do have powers, in the form of cash transfers, and have used them in the past. It seems to me the feds threatened to withdraw their contribution to health care in Alberta under the Canada Health Act, when Ralph Klein made noises about permitting the establishment of private hospitals and condoning user fees. If I recall correctly, there was a substantial amount of money involved and the province backed down.

      • madeyoulook

        And yet Quebec has been ignoring the portability aspects since god-knows-when and the feds have never said boo.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Nope. I looked at the first four, and they're typical of what Wherry does. They're not press releases. They're passing on info with his snarky knee-jerk take attacking Conservatives. The fourth one is an exchange on Twitter between Tony Clement and someone else, presumably to show the former somehow on the losing end . Again, not a press release.

    Now, if you want to point me to one where he's simply acting as a press release, fine. But the top few certainly aren't it, and it hasn't been my experience on here. That's for sure.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't mind. I just prefer that we call it what it is.

    • BCer in Mtl

      From Tony Clement, twitter is a press release.

      Next.

    • Thwim

      Try the last one.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        OK, you got one out of thirteen, and even that one's not the same. It's from the government, not the party.

        Look, I wouldn't have said a word if I thought this was an isolated incident.

        I don't have a problem with a person who has a perspective. My problem is that it's knee-jerk, unimaginative, predictable, and almost completely one-sided. On top of that, the same person complains about dysfunction in Ottawa! You can't make this stuff up.

        • Thwim

          Because reality is always fair and balanced, you mean?

          I mean, go ahead, point to the various policy initiatives of the CPC that Wherry hasn't reported.

          Hell, even they were saying that it was up to the opposition to come up with the ideas.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I can't point to where Wherry has acted as a press service for the Conservative Party, except for one government apology, or any other party that isn't Liberal. We've already gone through this.

            If it's news about the Tories, it will be accompanied by mockery, yes?

            There's nothing wrong with that, I guess, but let's just call it what it is, shall we?

          • http://twitter.com/jonatwitan @jonatwitan

            Just got here: Dennis_F, if I may encourage you, you are not the only one who sees things the way you do.

            To Thwim, that was very kind of you to post 13 links that simply prove Dennis' original point, well, at least for those who can see it.

            Hey, it's not that I don't understand the other side. If I were a) uncritically loyal to the conservative party, and b) there was a blogger on Macleans who obviously had a partisan bias in favour of the conservatives then I would probably have a difficult time "calling it what it is" as well.

  • chet

    I can buy 1000 litres of vodka, 10,000 packs of cigarettes, blow every dime I own on gambling,

    but I'm committing a crime in Canada if I pay a few thousand dollars to have my tortured mother who lives every day in pain, to get her a new hip.

    In Canada I'm a criminal (and those in the medical system are criminals if they participate) if I pay a few hundred dollars to not have my mother languish in a hallway instead of getting her in a private bed in a clinic.

    If you unwrap the Canadian flag from our "public healthcare" debate, you'll see good ol fashioned socialism and "economic equality" reigning supreme.

    • Mike T.

      I feel terrible for your mother, if indeed she exists and is in the condition you state.

      Let us all work together for a system where NO ONE must be in serious pain while awaiting an important medical procedure.

      • chet

        While we're waiting for a utopia that will never come, my mother and thousands like here who have loved ones who would gladly forgoe a new car or another vacation to pay for surgery to held alleviate suffering, must languish.

        And therein lies the standard response. If Charlie in the next neighborhood couldn't afford it, you shouldn't be given the right, because it's not "fair".

        Oh sure, I can drive a Lexus while he takes the bus, I can eat healthier more expensive food while he eats KD, but when it comes to experiencing physical pain and suffering, that's where we "caring" Canadians have drawn the line to say "if I must suffer so should you."

        Or more appropriately, if I must suffer, so should the ten of you.

      • hollinm

        I assume you are saying that the current system is working just fine and all we need to do is give more money to the system and that will solve all that ails it.
        When healthcare is heading towards eating up 50% of the provinicial budgets despite transfers going up 6% annually there is a problem and unless the politicians are prepared to take the politics out of the healthcare debate and involve the stakeholders we will continue to see the shortcomings currently being experienced.

  • chet

    Like all socialist systems, the rubric of "equality" means lower standards for all.

    Except, of course, like all socialist systems, the elite who can by pass the system by knowing the right medical professionals or who can afford to head to the U.S.

  • chet

    If you've ever lived in the US and had occaision to visit their "public" hospitals, you'll see the conditions are like ours. Crowded waiting rooms, overflowing emergency, some folks in the hallways due to shortage of beds.

    The difference being of course that 80-90% in the US have various forms of the eeeevil "private coverage" and are able to escape to the private medical systems, where the lobbies are like hotels, hallway medicine doesn't exist, an waiting rooms are calm pleasant experiences.

    But the "progessive left" will have you believe that it's better to have 100% at an equally deplorable level, than have the unjust scenario of only the bottom 10% at a deplorable level.

    • Thwim

      Oh please. Name the Canadian hospital where they're having to do "hallway medicine" short of a multiple victim accident.

      The difference being that over half the personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs.

      The difference being that, unlike Canadian hospitals, there's an even lower care level many middle class Americans are forced to take, it's called "no health care at all" because they couldn't get or afford insurance and make too much to qualify for medicare.

      But really, I don't see why you're complaining, after all, you could simply take your mother down to the US to get medical care if that's what you really wanted.. what? It costs too much? Gee.. welcome to the private system. If you can't afford it now, what on earth makes you think you'd be able to afford it if we had the same thing? Wishful thinking, or just stupidity?

      • chet

        No one in the hallways?

        I take it then you haven't been to a major hospital in Canada then. It's a major problem, recognized by all.

        Talk about keeping one's head in the sand.

      • chet

        So in the US, 90% of the population can afford private healthcare,

        but in Canada, no one will be able to?

        Interesting.

        As for "no health care" in the US, people aren't left to die in the streets. That's why there are public hospitals and clinics in the US.

        It's amazing how much the proponents of the Canadian public system depend on pure myth of the American system. All the while accusing those who are more enlightened of being "stupid".

        • TwoYen

          Chet, I am afraid you are talking too much sense for the average leftie to understand what you are talking about.

From Macleans