What the Next Election Will Really Be About

What the Next Election Will Really Be About

A Terrified Middle Class

What follows is a simple reprint of a column by Colby Cosh

In the May 12 issue of

MACLEANS

And just like that the scene was set for the 2015 federal election. An overstatement, perhaps, but what a week: The RCMP ended its investigation of Nigel Wright, Elections Canada dropped the “robocalls” inquisition, the government retreated on changes to the Fair Elections Act, and the Supreme Court delineated conditions for alterations to the Senate. Meanwhile, amid all this slate-cleaning, the New York Times handed the Conservatives a windfall, announcing that the median after-tax income in Canada had surpassed that of the U.S.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Senate reference is a turning point. For 30 years and change, our renovated judicial branch, armed with dreadful power to dispose of and revise laws, has been able to play the role of defender of minorities and enforcer of sacred rights. It sees itself probably as having a similsr function vis-à-vis the Senate question: protecting the interests of small provinces thsat entered Confederation on certain terms.

In practice the Court has made federally led reform or abolition of the Senate impossible for generations. And though the decision was unanimous, the Courts reasoning is less than overpowering. Like those who have opposed the Prime Minister’s approach to reform, the justices complained that term limits would improperly “ imply a finite time in office” for senators- while insisting, without much explanation that the age limit imposed in 1965 poses no similar problem. (Throwing the old people out of an assembly whose name means “house of old people”? A trivial detail.)

The Court also found that it is unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to use the results of a consultative election to choose suitable candidates. He can use an Ouija board: that’s not a change to the “method of electing senators.” Chicken entrails? No problem. Use a professional polling firm? Fine. Only “elections” as such are deprecated.

The full implications of the ruling are unclear. The court was asked to rule on federal legislation providing for Senate elections. Such elections have been held in Alberta, and winners appointed, with no federal framework. Were these votes unconstitutional? Would future ones be? If not, are elected senators already in the chamber illegitimate? What about Mike Shaikh, the “senator-in-waiting” next in line for a seat? Is he the only qualified person alive who cannot be appointed?

Almost everybody will find something to dislike in this decision and its general effect is to fortify the odious present form of the Senate. There is no further avenue of appeal. The rule of stare decisis binds future Supreme Courts in a manner in which Parliament can never bind Parliaments. These truths must now sink in with Canadians- including the NDP’s Senate abolitionists- as never before. It does not help that the Senate ruling follows close on the Justice Marc Nadon business, in which a strong lone dissent rather shamed the majority of the court. - as never before. It does not help that the Senate ruling follows close on the Justice Marc Nadon business, in which a strong lone dissent rather shamed the majority of the court. Haps a long honeymoon has ended.

The other story with long-term implications is the New York Times middle-class splash, echoed around the world. For Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, who have spent a year hammering the theme of middle-class anxiety, this must be unpleasant. The immediate countermove has been to say “Sure, we’re doin well compared to the U.S.: It’s in the toilet.” (Sorry President Obama!)

To this approach one can only say “Lots of luck.” Every adult Canadian has spent his entire life comparing his station to that of analogous Americans. And anyway the Times’ charts have the median Canadians beating the median German, Dutchman, Swede, Briton, and Finn.

The Times did not mean to make mincemeat out of Canadian Liberal strategy, but I predict the Grits will respond by adopting Thomas Piketty as their totem. Piketty is a French economist whose new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is the intellectual blockbuster of the year. He believes he has discovered an iron law, whereby the rate of return on capital must exceed overall economic growth, fostering a return to the 19^th Century style social classes and quantitative inequality. Piketty advocates a global wealth tax in order to humble rising capital in the way two world wars did- with fewer exploitations, one hopes.

Piketty as his book title suggests, means to be the new Karl Marx. As an empirical analyst of inequality, Piketty has been universally celebrated. Marx was an outstanding data-digger too. Unfortunately, his entry into the racket of flogging historical laws may have been the single most catastrophic decision ever made by an individual. But Piketty’s updated line- that the middle class people everywhere are right to be anxious about scary, posh rentiers in monocles and top  hats- offers the Liberals an obvious escape from a tricky corner. Remember where you heard it first.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I think I read this as

Tax the 1%.

Don’t you?

Blaine Barrett

TheSmeeGoanGuy

My Name is Jennifer Collett

Who is this Jennifer?

She’s a Real Friend!

She works her butt off and asks for no thanks.

I asked her to post this because she has a broader view than I do.

She provides a fresh perspective to on the Marijuana Mess.

She can speak for herself !

 

My name is Jennifer Collett. I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Medical Cannabis Partners. We are an organization of patients and caregivers who volunteer our time to changing the ways patients are affected by the system. We lobby provincial and federal government to manage our medical cannabis program under healthcare, where it belongs, as the natural, efficacious and safe medicine that it is.

We bring forward the evidence needed to discuss provincial management, and offer effective inexpensive and healthier solutions that complement the transitioning federal program. This new design really only changed the economics of cannabis distribution, while excluding the people who need to benefit from the medicine, turning it into a product.

The Medical Marihuana Production Regulations that come into effect on March 31 2014, will remove the right by policy, of 40,000 patients on fixed incomes or in various stages of chronic illness or end of life care, to stop growing in their legal gardens. (They will be expected to destroy what they feel is saving their life.) Thousands of people, some patients and some who are privately and compassionately growing for patients who cannot grow their own medicine, will be arrested in our communities. This will be paid for by our community policing budgets. It will create a burden on our local healthcare systems, as well as our Social services as families are put into distress. This will be caused by a policy change, that in reality is about money and monopoly of a medicine, not regulation and increased medical access.

I raise this point because, in no place in this new program is there any consideration for a patients financial ability to cover their own healthcare, while the rest of the country is accessing medical coverage in favour of pharmaceutical treatments. There was no risk involved in patient gardens. There are risks involved in the black market. Patients are not involved in the black market. Patients are growing and doing whatever they can to stay alive and healthy.
We all know there is a black market. I do not suggest that some people have not abused their prescription growing rights. Some of these abuses were indeed contributing to the black market, however most patients have seen the stigma attached to cannabis, for too long. They are not interested in sharing that they use this as medicine, most don’t even tell those closest to them. Of course many people enjoy it, it is most often a pleasurable experience, why wouldn’t they. We have the ability to enjoy a beer in this country also, not everyone is a bootlegger or abuser.

The System is how we the people are informed of what is available to us. From human rights to dental coverage, to restrictions and barriers, we must learn to negotiate this in order to have our needs met. We pay our taxes, most attend regular doctor’s appointments, pay our bills, and do our best to put food on the tables for our families. We follow the set of regulations dictating conduct in our society, until it becomes dangerous to us. The law is not intended to put anyone in harm’s way. Laws are not created to do harm in themselves. So, we must learn to negotiate the legislation causing the harm and have it changed in a way that works for all, not some.

This can be done through a provincial management of Cannabis medicines in the following ways.

The administration and delivery of health care services is the responsibility of each province or territory, guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act. The provinces and territories fund these services with assistance from the federal government in the form of fiscal transfers. The inclusion of cannabis medicines in the Formulary will increase access for our entire provincial population. The inclusion of continued personal production that is inspected and regulated is far less expensive.

Health care services include insured primary health care (such as the services of physicians and other health professionals) and care in hospitals, which account for the majority of provincial and territorial health expenditures. Through education and research we have learned of the essential nature of our endocannabinoid system. We must recognize and train our medical practitioners and reflect that in our requirements for medical practice. We must ensure that patients best interests are protected in the development of policy around cannabis in front line care. We must ensure access to the ability to make our medicine into healthier and more effective forms of administration. We must provide protection from the ignorance of the traditional western medical establishment; recognize that cannabis is one of the oldest, most effective, and least invasive forms of treatment for many illnesses, while ensuring there is a regulated quality control. The provinces and territories also provide some groups with supplementary health benefits not covered by the Act, such as prescription drug coverage. Here is an example of a budget that exists for just this issue in Ontario.

Affordability is a factor we cannot get around. So either we pay for it in our healthcare, or we request a section 56 for the province of Ontario to accept the download of the medical cannabis program. The alternative to not pre-emptively managing this situation is paying for it through our taxes with policing, housing inmates, court expense, social services, as well as the destruction of lives of thousands of people and their families.

This is how it becomes downloaded to the municipalities also. Every city has tax paying citizens, who pay for a large percentage of the local policing budget. Our taxes go up to the top and trickle back down through transfers. What the police require to do their jobs, is based on current legislation, whether harmful or not. Current legislation is based on political relationships and aren’t always in the best interests of the people paying for them. Current policies around cannabis are an example of this.
I am not talking about anything but medical need here. Personal beliefs remain the right of the holder, however one must recognize that others also have personal beliefs, therefor they must also be considered. Speaking to the belief that cannabis should be accessible as medicine for those who need it, we have worked to educate government, healthcare providers and our communities alike, of the benefits of a provincial managed medical cannabis program.