Canadian Politics

Eriol

Eriol

I don't want political stuff to go into the main "Canadian" thread on the General forum, so here's one just for political stuff. Provincial, Federal, local, whatever.



First off: Trudeau government abandons promise of electoral reform

From the article:
A new mandate letter issued to Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould, released publicly on Wednesday, says "changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."
...
Trudeau first committed to replacing the current first-past-the-post electoral system in June 2015, shortly before the federal election campaign. His government's first throne speech then promised that the Liberals would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system."
Click to expand...
I'm mixed on this one. As any of you who follow me on here know, I'm "not a fan" of our current PM, but I also think that most of the leading contenders to change the system sucked. They're pretty much as-bad or even worse than what we have now, so I wasn't confident they'd make a GOOD move on it. Thus, I'm OK with not changing it, but at the same time acknowledge that change IS needed.

So a pretty clear promise broken, but I'm OK with him breaking this one, since it was looking like it was going to be implemented badly. Hence my mixed feelings on it.
 
Eriol

Eriol

This is a story out today that I originally when reading it felt one way, but changed my mind by the end of the article: Border-town Manitoban baffled province won't pay huge U.S. medical bill

For those americans reading, if a Canadian goes to the USA and has a medical issue, you need to have insurance (you can pick up travel insurance if you know you're going for fairly cheap, and my job has always provided such, even if not traveling for work) or else you get a bill then, or when you get home.

So when starting to read this, I was thinking "typical idiot who didn't buy medical insurance, wanting the province to pay for it after the fact." You hear about that a decent amount for varying levels of sympathy from other Canadians. IMO there is zero excuse. If you can't afford to make the trip without insurance, then you can't afford to make the trip. Same idea with fire insurance and a house. I don't care if you had no medical conditions prior to going. I don't care either if you were only 6 months pregnant and popped them out down there, you should have had it regardless. I DO have some sympathy of a case where the couple DID have insurance, but didn't realize that when they had a kid down there unexpectedly that the KID was not covered, even though they had family coverage (I'd link that, but couldn't find it through a quick search). That's insurance companies being assholes, not the couple's fault.

But it turns out that my former paragraph doesn't apply here. From the article:
Under a special long-standing deal, people who live in some southeastern Manitoba communities near the border are covered for emergency medical care at two Minnesota hospitals.
Special Manitoba-Minnesota health deal

The Altru Agreement, as it's known, doesn't cover emergency treatments in Grand Forks, N.D., which is where Milne ultimately ended up last October after suffering a heart attack in his yard.

Milne was rushed to hospital in Roseau, Minn., about 25 kilometres south of Sprague.

Sprague, Man., is about 145 kilometres southeast of Winnipeg. Roseau, Minn., is about 25 kilometres southeast of Sprague. Grand Forks, N.D. is about 200 kilometres from Sprague. (Google Maps)

The Altru deal only includes coverage for Manitobans in Roseau and Warroad, Minn.

Unable to perform the potentially life-saving heart stent procedure Milne needed, the Roseau doctor requested St. Boniface Hospital send an emergency Lifeflight air ambulance down to pick Milne up and bring him back to Winnipeg.

When an hour and a half passed and with no further contact or an estimated time of arrival from the hospital, the Roseau doctor told Milne and his wife time was running out and they had to be flown to Grand Forks or risk the wait.

A U.S.-based emergency airplane company flew Milne to Grand Forks where he spent two nights and received the stent he needed. A few weeks later, bills for the flight and hospital costs arrived in the mail amounting to about $118,000 Cdn.
Click to expand...
Basically, they did everything right IMO. The government is claiming that "Milne was later told by the Manitoba government that because he elected to go to Grand Forks via Roseau, he was on the hook for the expenses." This is total bullshit. Wait around for a plane that may never come (an hour and a half with no confirmation that anything is happening) or go to the larger centre in the USA. Umm, not die please?

Fully on the guy's side here. He followed the rules. Government are being scumbags here.
 
Eriol

Eriol

jwhouk said:
Can he sue the province?
Click to expand...
One can only hope, though that's no assurance of payout. The lawyer's fees alone would be horrible. Hopefully public pressure helps, but there's no way to know.

Somebody on the board lived in Manitoba I thought, but I don't remember who.
 
Adam

Adam

I'm familiar with the area and the story. I suspect that there's a bit more to it and I'm trying to use some local contacts to figure it out. These kinds of situations are pretty common for small ass border towns so it's a weird thing.
 
Eriol

Eriol

:facepalm:

Call Vince Li ('Will Baker') what he is: A cannibal killer who beheaded Tim McLean

That this guy is ever out is just... he went off his meds, and did that horrific crime. Now he's on them again and is supposedly "OK" now, so we release him? I'm sorry, but you're a PROVEN ticking time bomb. If Vince was actually moral at all, he'd ask to be kept in custody indefinitely because he would realize that he's too much of a potential danger to others. That he doesn't ask for such, means that by definition he's too dangerous to let out.

Yes it's a catch-22. No, I don't care. This isn't even "potential" harm, he's already DONE something horrific!

/boggle
 
Eriol

Eriol

jwhouk said:
It only takes one.
Click to expand...
I don't quite get your comment. I can think of a few explanations, but I'd like you to expand on it please.


Basically my position comes down to the idea that everybody diagnosed with schizophrenia should not be locked up (I'm heavily against any forms of pre-crime), but anybody who goes off meds and commits a crime has proven their irresponsibility. The original ruling that he wasn't criminally responsible itself was bullshit (he knowingly went off his meds, so it wasn't a health care system failure, as he was managed correctly), but beyond that, he's a proven danger to the public. He is known to go off meds, so it's no longer theoretical. If somebody had kleptomania due to a medical condition, that's one thing that they shouldn't be locked up forever. This guy KILLED a person, and then cut out and ate part of their heart. They're too big a danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cat
jwhouk

jwhouk

As one who has dealt with youth who go off their meds after release, and proceed to do heinous crimes, it only takes one day where they don't take their meds to make for a Really Bad Day for someone in their path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cat
Eriol

Eriol


Censorship is bad. Full stop. Overly-broad laws are also really REALLY bad, especially as pertaining to free speech.
 
Eriol

Eriol

GasBandit said:
I agree, and I get where that guy is going, but ye gods does he come off as a wackjob.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he is, but the point is true. There's a number of articles out of Canada about how overly-broad this legislation is, and considering we don't have as robust constitutional protections on free speech up here (much much weaker) this legislation is very worrisome.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Have you read the motion?
Click to expand...
Yes I have. It's damned scary IMO. Anything as poorly-defined as "Islamophobia" shouldn't be restricted or regulated by government, let alone the fact that the infringements on free speech are themselves bad no matter to whom it pertains.

Literally anything that says "I don't think Islam is good because of its stances on: " and name any number of factual and/or historical reasons, and THAT could be considered "Islamophobia". It's NOT defined. That's the scarIEST part, though not the only scary part about it.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

For those curious, here is the motion. Below a quote of the main text, bolded what I found relevant.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Click to expand...
Meh.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

I don't see a restriction infringement on anything. I see a request for a silly statement to condemn Islamophobia (Trudeau and probably every provincial leader has already done this after the recent Quebec mass murder) and to form a committee to study acts of Islamophobia, with no mention of anything regarding restricting speech or actions.

I just don't understand how y'all are leaping to these conclusions. I guess you're reading "condemn Islamophobia" as "not permit any acts of Islamophobia." I don't see that.

And I really don't see anything like that ever getting anywhere in Parliament, either.
 
Eriol

Eriol

condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism
Click to expand...
Methinks they're not getting rid of all race-based programs, in particular those related to the Indian Act (yes it's still called that). For that to be true, there would no longer be "status" based on your blood. That itself is institutionalized racism.

Also, anything related to Islam is not racism, as Islam isn't a race. It DOES fall under religious discrimination, which is iffier to begin with in many cases, as then you need to "respect" things like Scientology, Jedi, and Pastafarianism as equal to any of the other major world religions, and make accommodations in those directions, which gets weird IMO, especially when other values enshrined in this country conflict with the beliefs of said religions. e.g. Our "Feminist" PM speaking in a sex-segregated mosque.

So I consider it talking out of both sides of their mouth, and ultimately will not end up well.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Just... :facepalm:
Immigration minister defends legislation that prevents convicted dual nationals from losing citizenship
The minister said an individual whose citizenship was already revoked will have it reinstated. He did not name the individual, but the National Post had previously reported that Zakaria Amara, a ringleader of the “Toronto 18” that plotted terror in Toronto in 2006, would be regaining his citizenship under the legislation.
Click to expand...
Yes the ringleader of those wanting to bomb Toronto and Ottawa and behead the PM of the time (who was Martin IIRC) will be getting his citizenship back.

Just... yikes.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Denbrought said:
Why do you support a government's ability to strip citizenship from its citizens?
Click to expand...
Because he already has citizenship in another country. This is not creating a person without a country, and it's in the cases of horrific crimes.

Come here, get citizenship, do horrific crimes, be stripped of it, and deported. I'm OK with that.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

The "creating a person without a country" is not the part I'm concerned about, it's the part where a citizenship gets stripped from a citizen.

Eriol said:
Come here, get citizenship, do be convicted of horrific crimes deemed unacceptable by the government, be stripped of it, and deported. I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

I'm 100% with @Denbrought, here.

Stripping citizenship seems flat out wrong to me. Not something I want my country to do.


. . . although I was all for Conrad Black never getting his back once he renounced it for a British Lordship.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Denbrought said:
The "creating a person without a country" is not the part I'm concerned about, it's the part where a citizenship gets stripped from a citizen.
Click to expand...
If you can give it up willingly, I'm actually OK with the government stripping it from you when you do things like plotting to kill the Prime Minister, among other treasonous acts if you have another country to be sent back to.

And it's also enumerated in Law, rather than being something that's discretionary from the PMOs office or something, which I'd be against btw.


We disagree on this one. Fine, but it's still insane IMO to give back citizenship to a convicted (not suspected, as I'm against pre-crime and I'm very much in favor of innocent until proven guilty) terrorist.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Eriol said:
If you can give it up willingly, I'm actually OK with the government stripping it from you when you do things like plotting to kill the Prime Minister, among other treasonous acts if you have another country to be sent back to.

And it's also enumerated in Law, rather than being something that's discretionary from the PMOs office or something, which I'd be against btw.


We disagree on this one. Fine, but it's still insane IMO to give back citizenship to a convicted (not suspected, as I'm against pre-crime and I'm very much in favor of innocent until proven guilty) terrorist.
Click to expand...
I understand that you find it OK, I just don't trust any existing government with the ability to purge citizenship, similar to how I don't trust them with the ability to kill non-combatants.

Enumerated powers are still ripe for abuse, especially against the minority du jour. You can fill in examples from world or North-American history.

We'll have to disagree. It's not insane to reverse a harm stemming from a (formerly lawful but unfair and rescinded) legal procedure.
 
Telephius

Telephius

Update on guy from Manitoba who did not get covered under insurance.
Linky
He is not only on the hook for 35,936.70 (U.S.) which was the medical flight. Sounds like the Health minister may still be looking into a way to cover that but unclear at this time.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Telephius said:
Update on guy from Manitoba who did not get covered under insurance.
Linky
He is not only on the hook for 35,936.70 (U.S.) which was the medical flight. Sounds like the Health minister may still be looking into a way to cover that but unclear at this time.
Click to expand...
Good they did partial, now for the rest.

Honestly, this was stupid of the government (at the ministerial level at least) not to TRY and make hay from this politically. They could easily have spun this as an outdated regulation that the lower-levels were just following what the law/regulations said (thus not alienating the civil service by dumping on them), but not the spirit of it, and then announcing that the government will "take care of all people in the province, and this was an edge case of the agreement we didn't predict" or some such. For a government, that's worth more than $100k of PR that the party doesn't even need to pay.

So mis-step from the government on multiple levels.
 
Frank

Frank

Just in case anyone thought Ben Carson could be the most tone deaf about past racial relations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/res...ll-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115

Senator defends the residential school program that saw thousands of native children taken from their homes, killed, raped, abused etc. Government even allowed for experiments to be performed on some children of the kind that were banned after WW2...after WW2. The entire thing is one of the darkest events in Canadian history.

There are estimates that 4-6000 children died in residential schools. That's out of 150,000 students over the course of 150 years.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Frank said:
Just in case anyone thought Ben Carson could be the most tone deaf about past racial relations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/res...ll-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115

Senator defends the residential school program that saw thousands of native children taken from their homes, killed, raped, abused etc. Government even allowed for experiments to be performed on some children of the kind that were banned after WW2...after WW2. The entire thing is one of the darkest events in Canadian history.

There are estimates that 4-6000 children died in residential schools. That's out of 150,000 students over the course of 150 years.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top