The Shotgun Blog
« Zimbabwe | Main | Does Democracy have Weaknesses? »
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Silence before the Storm
(x-posted on Adventures in London)
(Updated, see below)
Tomorrow, at 9:45 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule in the case of Chaoulli and Zeliotis v. Government of Canada. Amongst possible rulings is that the prohibition on private care in Canada contravenes section 7 Charter guarantees to life, liberty, and security of the person.
That is, if Canadians have to wait so long for care--which they do--then their security of the person is violated. They should be free to pursue a private option within Canada should the government prove to be incapable of providing timely care in gov-run hospitals.
In anticipation of the ruling, I'm posting my conversation with Jacques Chaoulli for the Western Standard story entitled "Freedom Fighter." You can listen to it by clicking here (it's a WAV file). I do sound like a bit of an idiot in there at parts, but I guess that's forgivable...
The newsmedia is somewhat silent on this issue the day before the ruling. My Google News Alert provides me with three links:
Medicare Future at Stake (National Post)
Medicare's Future on the line (Alaska Highway News)
The Montreal Economic Institute made its presence to the media known in a press release.
Silence before the storm?
***UPDATE***
What? A Supreme Court case? Quick, where's my keyboard? Ahh... here it is:
Top Court to rule on Medicare Test Case (Globe & Mail)
Labour unions issue a press release as well, noting their intention to be available for comment.
And here, for your background reading, are a few links to keep you busy:
WS: Freedom Fighter (2004/10/11)
NY Times: A challenger to Canada's Health Care (2005/05/22)
CBC: Top court to hear private health-care challenge. (2003/05/08)
SC Press release: Case heard before Supreme Court (2004/06/08)
Margaret Wente: The dangerous ideas of Dr. Jacques Chaoulli. (2004/06/08)
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on June 8, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344897ee53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Silence before the Storm:
Comments
I wonder if it matters what the Supreme Court says.
Remember, the Supreme Court REFUSED to rule on SSM, saying that the definition of marriage, per se, is outside the Charter. That is, it has nothing to do with human rights; it is a social value.
What did the Liberals do? They said that marriage is IN the charter, and that SSM is a human right. The reason for this is that the Liberals want the big city votes.
Now, the Liberals do not want private health care, even though our esteemed PM uses private health care...
So- no matter what the Supreme Court says, the Liberals will continue to say and do what they want.
My guess is that IF the Supreme Court comes out in favour of private health care - the Liberals will ignore the decision. Reason? They want the middle of the road vote - in Ontario and the Maritimes.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-08 2:01:54 PM
[PDF] Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
ROY J. ROMANOW, QC. COMMISSIONER. Final Report. NOVEMBER 2002 ... pleased to
submit for your consideration the Final Report of the Commission on the Romanow Commission>
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/care/romanow_e.pdf -
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The Socialist vision; straight from the crypt of Tommy Douglas.
No readers?
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-08 2:14:21 PM
The Canada Health Act is a pernicious, vile piece of law.
It must be struck down by the legislature from which it came; by legislation of Parliament, not by the judiciary.
Health, really sickness care, is the exclusive domain of the provinces.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-08 2:20:54 PM
The Chaoulli case presumably has no impact on the Canada Health Act. Chaoulli argued that his case is perfectly consonant with the Act, and with a private parallel system of care. (I don't know how you get around Public Administration...)
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-06-08 2:38:07 PM
I think Tommy Douglas would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what Canadian health care has turned into. Our current system doesn't help the less fortunate at all.
Posted by: Toronto Tory | 2005-06-08 2:54:45 PM
This is not the right theme for this, but, it fits in with the notion of a 'silence before the storm'. I'm going to make a prediction - not about health care - but about the Liberals.
I see that the Manipulators have been busy re-defining Chretien in the last few weeks; he's now The Good Guy. Martin will be The Bad Guy.
But, what I was wondering, was that Chretien had a major agenda - Get rid of Martin. I can't imagine that agenda has changed.
What seems to be emerging, 'in the silence' is a different plan. Plan A was Martin lose to the CPC under Belinda Stronach. That would have satisfied Chretien's hatred of Martin and the Cartel's need to retain control of the Canadian gov't. That didn't work out. So, Belinda the Puppet was moved across the floor. They will have Martin increasingly take the flak for Adscam, while they are remoulding Chretien's image as The Saviour. They'll have Martin win the next election with a minority...and he will then be forced to retire in favour of Belinda Stronach.
She'll be the next Liberal PM. Just watch.
The NDP won't be able to say a word about her stupidity because she's a woman and is as dumb as Smilin' Jack. The Bloc is also feminist. Only the CPC...and they'll be labelled as..whatever..
The only thing that matters is for the Cartel to retain control of the gov't.
Canada is not a democracy.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-08 3:03:40 PM
More commentary on this decision here:
http://potentpew.blogspot.com
I expect to analyse the case when it comes out tomorrow.
Posted by: Jonathan M | 2005-06-08 3:14:16 PM
TT: "I think Tommy Douglas would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what Canadian health care has turned into."
I think Saint Tommy, the socialist patron saint of state run medicare, would be mightily pleased with the Canadian Health care system. He'd be amazed at how much farther it has been taken than he thought possible.
Posted by: JR | 2005-06-08 3:18:42 PM
I guess a lot of things would make Tommy Douglas turn in his grave (besides the collapse of his beloved USSR):
"We ought to recognize homosexuality for what it is. It's a mental illness; it's a psychiatric condition which ought to be treated sympathetically, which ought to be treated by psychiatrists and social workers."
"I don't mind being a symbol but I don't want to become a monument. There are monuments all over the Parliament Buildings and I've seen what the pigeons do to them."
"Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it's doing in the Maritimes."
"But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea."
Douglas wrote his masters thesis on eugenics as a necessary component of creating a "just" society.
[Related to this:
"Why are we putting xenophobic feminist on the back of new bill?" By John Akpata.
[http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-03-10/news_story5.php]
"The honour of being represented by a statue on Parliament Hill is usually reserved for prime ministers and royalty, but an exception was made for the Famous Five: Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy, the Alberta women who won the Persons Case that gave women the right to sit in the Senate.
"The five were recently added to the back of the new $50 bill as part of the 75th anniversary of the Persons Case. That's what most people know.
"What most people may not be celebrating during this International Women's Week is that in 1922 Emily Murphy began writing under the pen name Janey Canuck in Maclean's and other publications, regularly vilifying Asian immigrants, American blacks, Jews and Eastern Europeans who had chosen Alberta as their home.
"Granted, Murphy's particular brand of xenophobia, it can be argued, wasn't uncommon in her time – and wasn't even considered racist by many. But are we learning anything from the past by ignoring these facts?
"Her book 'The Black Candle' outlined her belief that multiculturalism spelled moral degeneracy and was detrimental to the purity of the white race. She advocated tighter immigration control and the "exclusion of all persons of colour from the continent."
"Murphy publicly supported the Chinese exclusion laws of the 1930s and 40s, and travelled throughout British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan delivering speeches advocating forced sterilization. Murphy, along with McClung, a novelist and legislator, and McKinney, the first woman sworn into the Alberta legislature, were all instrumental in the adoption of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928. Until as recently as 1971, the Alberta government made applications to the provincial courts to have young native women sterilized.
"The Bank of Canada acknowledges that during focus-group sessions on the new $50 some people were concerned about some of the history of the Famous Five but believed that their contributions as a group were valuable.
"The theme of the new $50 is "Nation building, shaping the political, legal and social structures for democracy and equality." Designed by Jorge Peral, it also bears a quote from the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as well as an image of a pair of scales representing justice.
"Murphy's writing was instrumental in developing the ideology of white supremacy."
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-08 3:36:35 PM
There isn't much the SCC can say in the current state of affairs that really means anything significant.
We have an Ottawa government which does not play by the rules, ignores constitutional demands and pretty much figures thare are no rules any more...they make them up as they go....so why should I care what the SCC says....particularly about my freedom of choice in health care....particularly when our political leaders have the best private plans our money can buy.
It really is getting to the point where this oppressive statism has to be revolted against or simply ignored.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-08 4:09:20 PM
Uhm... read the Globe & Mail's hacket job on this one. Are you kidding me?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-06-08 4:19:40 PM
I'll predict the the court will reject private health care. They are Liberal appointees. I don't think there are any substantive arguments, now, in favour of our public health care system, for it has shown that it cannot deliver services. More money won't help.
But, I don't think that the courts have the guts to make a real decision; they'll go along with the status quo, which is, in effect, no decision.
Result - Canada will continue to implode on itself, until it reaches a threshold..of structural collapse. By this I mean, that when a system doesn't function anymore, sideline systems move in, from the bottom up, to take over.
So- we'll see more and more private clinics, many unregulated; we'll see more private health deals....because the public health system can't deal with it.
It's the same phenomena in an overregulated economy...more and more of the economy will move out of the legal market and into the illegal.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-08 4:29:51 PM
"Uhm... read the Globe & Mail's hacket job on this one. Are you kidding me?"
I did PM...seemed like the typical commie appoligist drivel we expect from them. They sink the hatchet into the back of the health care consumer....not the statist thugs who think people dying in cues is acceptable collateral damage to uphold political agendas.
I have a relative die due to the decay in this wretched system...I'll be damned if I let them condemn me to the same fate. I have my options open and if the SCC wants to side with bureaucratic tyranny against me I am prepared to ignore them and do what I have to do to stay alive.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-08 4:34:46 PM
It's the charter, stupid.
I just love that the charter is being used for this. If the good Dr. wins his case, that sound you'll hear will be liberal minds imploding ("Private health-care, a charter right? But, but.... BLAM!")
Posted by: NormanLorrain | 2005-06-08 4:37:16 PM
I agree with much of what ET says. The only thing I would add is that, IF the Liberals lose seats but still form the government, the CPC and Bloc may well have enough seats to control the House. They can then defeat the Liberals and the CPC can demand to be able to form the government. Just long enough to hold enough Commissions of Inquiry to put some of these Liberals and their cohorts in prison. Oh yes, and kill a few things, like, for starters, Kyoto and the gun registration.
Like I've said previously, the Liberals will lost all of most of their seats in Quebec. Where are they going to pick those up from? I don't think they will and so I predict that they will have less seats after the next election, no matter when its held.
Posted by: John Crittenden | 2005-06-08 4:38:31 PM
I think the court will probably rule in favour of the government. If they were to admit that one has a right to security of person in the form of freedom to purchase private health care, then they will also have to admit that taxing away one's money to provide inferior service also violates one's rights to security.
As long as the public system continues to suck money out of my wallet, then giving me the right to buy private health care is about as meaningful as giving me the right to jump over tall buildings.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-06-08 5:38:05 PM
The Supreme Court is more often wrong than right. I'm very curious as to the ruling tomorrow. If they rule against the right to pay for healthcare, what possible justification can they offer? They will have to be quite creative here, I think.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-06-08 5:45:34 PM
John Crittenden
"Like I've said previously, the Liberals will lost all of most of their seats in Quebec. Where are they going to pick those up from?"
Have you seen the latest polling in Ontario?
Decima poll results as reported in the Globe:
The Ontario results suggested that the Liberals hold a 26-percentage-point advantage over the Tories in the province. The Grits were at 48 per cent, the NDP was at 24 and the Conservatives held 22 per cent in Canada's largest province. The survey, released to Canadian Press, indicated that the New Democrats held small leads over the Tories in Ontario, among women, among single people and with voters under age 34.
Posted by: Doug | 2005-06-08 5:54:27 PM
Doug - polls are directly linked to the questions asked. They can therefore be used to manipulate the public into 'buying the Best Selling Item'...when the item is NOT the Best Selling but is defined as such by the advertisement.
Think of polls that way; be cautious about them.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-08 6:06:18 PM
ET's correct; they, the Liberal appointed judges, will come down for the status quo. No changes.
Also, ET mentions the bottom-up movement; has this not been accomplished? The criminals at the Gomery Inquiry, including Chretien, were adamant in that regard.
F. Hayek's chapter in "The Road to Serfdom" is a must read. Hayek knew his criminals. Chretien/Martin know their criminals; their loyalty was partially broken at the Gomery Inquiry. They have now re-grouped. The only unknown is Chretien and his clique. OTOH, there are deep waters in the Liberal party. They tend to secrecy; to wit, Peterson & BS; stealthy and wealthy.
The opposition to the Martin regime is from the Conservates/Harper/bloggers & commenters/some parts of the MSM, such as the Sun chain/magazines such as this one. The Bloc will assist at the right moment.
We must hang together.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-08 6:22:08 PM
Ah, Rube-ert, we've missed you. As you apparently missed maz2's comment at 02:20 pm: "It must be struck down by the legislature from which it came; by legislation of Parliament, not by the judiciary."
And he's right - this need not require any judicial activism (which I define as "legislating from the bench"). The Court can simply say, "Yes, Medicare does violate the security of the person. OK, Parliament - over to you to address the problem." This answers the question put to the Court, but returns it to the legislature where the solution belongs. (And this is what the Court should do as a matter of course.)
However, like others, I see this as the least likely result. Communised medicine is one of the Holiest of Holies - they will go with the status quo (although I'd be delighted to be proven wrong).
They've already approved the trampling of other fundamental freedoms as being "justifiable" per Charter allowances. Why not the freedom to stay alive?
But let me also comment on the last part of maz2's post above: "Health, really sickness care, is the exclusive domain of the provinces." Well, let's just say that it's NOT a federal matter.
If you read the BNA Act, Section 92 says,"In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ...[sub-para 7]... "The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals."
Boiling that down (as I interpret it), provincial governments are responsible for establishing laws and regulations governing the operation of hospitals,etc. But they are not defined as being responsible for actually operating them, or paying for them, or establishing how many doctors and nurses are allowed to practice or anything else. That was left to the private sector and to charities to provide. The government was simply to establish standards and guidelines.
Again, if I've mis-interpreted, I'm open to being corrected.
Posted by: Another Doug | 2005-06-08 7:20:27 PM
The Ontarians won't care. Unlike non-Ontarians, they have access to quality health care. Remember, there are few points in Ontario more than a short drive to Buffalo or Detroit, or a short flight to New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
These things are denied to only the most well-off non-Ontarians, while only the poorest Ontarians cannot take advantage of it. It must be nice to be so rich.
Down with Ontario.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 7:27:27 PM
Change a bit:
These things are available to only the most well-off non-Ontarians, while only the poorest Ontarians cannot take advantage of it. It must be nice to be so rich.
Down with Ontario.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 7:43:57 PM
Another Doug: You're right. Nothing, at the moment, prevents the provinces from ignoring the Canada Health Act. In fact, Alberta was mulling the idea for a long time.
What does, in practice, prevent ignoring the Canada Health Act is the Canada Health Transfer. That Transfer comes with strings attached--namely, that you adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act. If you don't, that's not illegal, it just means that you can't get the CHT from the gang in Ottawa.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-06-08 7:58:02 PM
P.M. Jaworski: if Alberta can ignore the Canada Health Act, does that mean Alberta can ignore any federal law that is incompatible with Alberta's needs?
If so, then the potential is limitless. We can ignore any law. Cool! Our prayers have been answered. Now if only we can get our tax money back.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 8:01:47 PM
"he Ontarians won't care. Unlike non-Ontarians, they have access to quality health care. Remember, there are few points in Ontario more than a short drive to Buffalo or Detroit, or a short flight to New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota."
Once again, your audacious stupidity beggars the imagination, Scott.
Let's leave aside that the Mayo Clinic is actually closer to Calgary than any point in Ontario - what makes you think that, like anywhere else in Canada, any middle-class Ontarian has the option of using these resources after paying the tax burden necessary to support OHIP, the additional "health tax" that McGuinty has burdened us with, not to mention education for which only teacher's unions benefit?
Such a bigoted, ignorant jackass you are, Scott. Please stop calling yourself a conservative, you cretinous cesspit.
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-06-08 8:34:20 PM
"like anywhere else in Canada, any middle-class Ontarian has the option of using these resources after paying the tax burden necessary to support OHIP, the additional "health tax" that McGuinty has burdened us with"
What makes me think this? Experience.
I've seen how rich Ontarians are. There's no poverty there, none at all. Never has been, never will be. Or rather your definiton of poverty is different: the poorest Ontarians own either a country cottage OR a home in Florida/Arizona etc, not both.
The worst thing that may happen to an Ontarian is they may - repeat MAY - have to risk put off one shopping trip to pay for medical treatment.
Non-Ontarians do not have easy access to these things. We can't jump in the car and visit the doctor in Buffalo or Detroit. We can barely do that here because of the shortage. It must be so nice to be a rich white Ontarian, because 20+ million people will never know what it's like.
This gap is about to get even wider thanks to Kyoto, which will annihilate the economy outside Ontario. Ontarians will be protected because of its political importance - no government would dare sacrifice Ontario votes with a job-genocide plan like Kyoto.
I never said I was right-wing or conservative. I just said I'm an Albertan who has lived in the East and came back a dedicated supporter of a free Alberta. The sooner our people are free of the deadweight Ontarians, the better off we will be. I just want some payback.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 9:11:09 PM
As much as Canada seems like a political dead end, and if the west's gonna be independent then the sooner the better, this Scott character is really a weird, twisted, pointless creature.
His last post seemed designed to prove his "cesspit" label.
BTW, Rick's website [http://www.rickmcginnis.com/] is interesting, even if it is the work of one of these evil rich white (?) Ontarian bastards that have driven Scott to dementia.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-08 9:27:06 PM
Letting Alberta go is much better than the alternative.
We could send armed troops into your cities and force you to sign over your ill-gotten gains (property and investments) to the government at gunpoint.
Note: you can't sell your children or your slaves no matter how much you plead. We, unlike Ontario people, have respect for the human race. Nor do we accept credit cards.
You'll just have to live like everyone else, and I know that Ontarians would rather die than do that.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 9:41:50 PM
"...the poorest Ontarians own either a country cottage OR a home in Florida/Arizona etc, not both."
You're mad. I own neither, couldn't afford them, don't even own a car. Go drown in your own froth, you loon. Kyoto? What the fuck are you talking about - are you under the misapprehension that the UN headquarters are perched on the Scarborough Bluffs, you daft bastard?
You've singlehandedly reduced the credibility of this forum to exactly what sneering pisspots like Rob't claim it to be.
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-06-08 10:18:33 PM
Well it's clear that the sectional divide between Albertans and Canadians has come too wide to bridge. There's no longer any point in debating the inequities of your country because in your minds there is none. You are deluding yourselves and others about this.
Some day, when Alberta has successfully seceded and defeated Canada in your war of imperialist aggression, we can live our lives in the peace, security and prosperity you constantly undermine. All Albertans want is to be equal to Ontario people, but it is clear that this will never happen. Canada has destroyed itself with greed.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-09 2:13:35 AM
Scott, I am perfectly prepared to discuss inequalities between different parts of the country. They do exist (it would take a miracle to build a country this large without them) and should be addressed.
That said, I am only prepared to discuss it with rational beings. You, I'm afraid, have spouted enough utter nonsense to be disqualified.
A couple of examples:
"...the poorest Ontarians own either a country cottage OR a home in Florida/Arizona etc, not both." This is patently, verifiably false. There are plenty of Ontarians who have trouble paying the rent on a humble apartment. The streets of Toronto are littered with homeless people. I guess they just need a lift to their cottages and they'll be OK, right?
Then there's your oft-repeated rant about how all of the non-whites are kept as menial labour in Ontario. I've refuted you twice on this, but to recap: in my white collar, well-paid, professional department the majority of our team is non-white. I know that my mother is in fact in the small minority as a white person in her office. Hmmm. A couple of examples right in my own family of evidence of well-paid professional non-whites. Must be a really huge co-incidence that we work at the only employers in the province who let those coloured folk get all uppity, eh?
Maybe you have a friend somewhere who would like to discuss regional inequalities in Canada without making up lies about Ontario. I'd be happy to discuss the situation with them on a factual basis. You, however, are a waste of time.
Posted by: Mike | 2005-06-09 8:08:13 AM
"This is patently, verifiably false. There are plenty of Ontarians who have trouble paying the rent on a humble apartment."
Only because the new apartments in your city cost $1000/mo and up, but wages remain absurdly low. However, it is unlikely Ontario people care about such a thing.
"The streets of Toronto are littered with homeless people. I guess they just need a lift to their cottages and they'll be OK, right?"
There are no homeless people in Toronto - they are just lazy teenagers who know they can make more money begging than working. What a pitiful example of the wealth of your society. I think most of Ontario's wealth needs to be redistrubted to teach a valuable lesson.
Just because you or your relatives are outnumbered by non-whites does not mean your society is better. Whites were always in the minority on the slave plantation.
Ontario society is one that should never be copied - it is simply too racist and unequal to work in the modern world.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-09 6:41:55 PM
"There are no homeless people in Toronto - they are just lazy teenagers who know they can make more money begging than working."
My God, you are a delusional wackjob.
"Ontario's wealth needs to be redistributed...?"
A socialist wackjob, to boot. What exactly are you doing on a conservative forum, raving madman?
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-06-09 7:45:25 PM
I saw Toronto's "homeless" first-hand. I know what I saw.
I never said I was a conservative or a socialist. I'm just an Albertan out for revenge.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-09 8:08:43 PM
"...an Albertan out for revenge."
Well, at least you've admitted to your persecution complex.
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-06-09 8:34:20 PM
"Just because you or your relatives are outnumbered by non-whites does not mean your society is better. Whites were always in the minority on the slave plantation."
Scott, do you not grasp the distinction between an office workplace with people of different races working alongside each other as equals and a plantation with owners and slaves? It is a physical impossibility for you to be THAT stupid AND be capable of posting at all. You're obviously just a troll.
By the way, I never made a claim that 'my' society is 'better'. I just pointed out that your lunatic ravings had no connection with reality.
Posted by: Mike | 2005-06-10 7:28:32 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.