A Timely Message Important To Everyone

The video that follows was made by Canadian Doctors For Medicare, who are advocating for a national pharmacare program, something that a country as rich as ours could well-afford. It is a logical and necessary extension of our national healthcare. In fact, according to an article in The National Post,

Canada is one of the few developed countries in the world without a universal pharmacare program, and we are the only country in the world with a universal medicare system that excludes prescription drugs (as if pharmaceuticals are not an essential element of medical treatment). Each year, a staggering 10% of Canadians cannot fill a prescription due to financial reasons.

Instead of a consistent and uniform standard throughout the country, Canada has a patchwork of provincial programmes that may or may not meet people's needs. During the 12 years I lived in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's, for example, I enjoyed its pharmacare coverage which, at the time, as I recall, had a standard deductible of only $80. While things have changed somewhat in the interim, with the deductible now a percentage of family income, it is far superior to what other Canadian jurisdictions offer.

A sharp contrast is found in Ontario, where I now live; only people over 65 qualify for general coverage. Other groups, depending upon their level of poverty or their special needs, can access some coverage through other programmes.

For a breakdown of what is available in the other provinces and the Territories, click here.



That we do not have a national program offering universal access should be a source of shame. Perhaps if we are ever fortunate enough to elect a government that cares more about the well-being of its citizens than it does about bloated corporate profits, things will change.

UPDATED: Puncturing The Myth That Raising Minimum Wages Will Kill Jobs

The question of minimum wage has been very much a topic of discussion in alternative media of late, and I have written a few posts about the struggle. I am leading off today's consideration of the issue with a well-considered letter from a Star reader, followed by a Real News video that explores the Australian experience with a much higher minimum wage which, despite the right-wing hysteria equating anything that raises the costs of doing business with the killing of jobs, is doing quite nicely, thank you.

Re: Hiking the minimum wage, Letter, Aug. 9

In his letter, Doug Stewart seems to be forgetting one very important thing. The economy depends on people spending money. If someone is paid so little they can’t afford the basics, they not only will not have much to contribute to the economy and taxes, they will also become a burden on the taxpayer. Do those in the Timmy’s drive-through, sitting in their big SUVs, really need the few pennies they save by being served by those earning poverty wages? Why is that person behind the counter also not entitled to be able to buy things? You might also take a look at Walmart. It’s a very large and successful company. Its owners are among the richest people in the U.S. Yet, their employees often have to rely on the state for things like adequate food and health care. In Wisconsin, a Walmart employee is estimated to cost the taxpayer some $5,000 per year in state benefits. California is working on a law to fine Walmart every time an employee has to rely on medicaid. This is that you get when you don’t pay people enough to support themselves. The taxpayer winds up subsidizing the employer. Is that really what you want?

James Knott, Mississauga

By examining the experience of Australia and some European countries, this video offers a useful counterbalance to the propaganda that permeates the mainstream media about minimum wages:



UPDATE: Thom Hartman adds additional facts that show how wrong companies like Walmart are in bleeding their workers while at the same time being subsidized by the taxpayer.

Guest Commentary: Why Tim Hudak Has Failed To Catch Fire

Yesterday I wrote an entry offering my opinion on why Ontarians are not embracing Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak as the economic messiah he purports to be. Fellow blogger ThinkingManNeil offered a concise and insightful comment on Hudak's problem, which I am posting as a separate entry here:

I think that another reason that Ontarians are reluctant to give Hudak the reins of power is that most most people who remember the Harris regime really remember seeing no tangible benefits from it. Hospitals were closed, teachers and nurses were fired by the truckload, the deregulation free for all (free fall?) gave us Walkerton, the riots at Queen's Park and the execution of Dudley George, workfare that promised job training but was more like punitive community service (aka forced labour litter collection), and seeing valuable provincial assets sold off such as the cash cow 407 highway. And all the while the only beneficiaries of these changes seem to have been the Bay Street set. Now in Sparky McAusterity we see someone even more doctrinaire than Harris, and short of Ford Nation or the Harper Reich I think most folks a pretty leery of seeing a "Common Sense Revolution" on steroids...

Why Tim Hudak Is Such A Failure As A Political Leader

I realize that the subject of Ontario politics is likely of little interest to those residing outside of the province. Yet I can't help but think that the dynamics at work here are not much different than anywhere else in the country, especially when one is talking about the qualities that make for an effective political leader.

In today's edition of The Star, Michael Taube, a political analyst and former speechwriter for Stephen Harper, offers his opinion as to why it is imperative that Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, should step down as soon as possible. The reasons he adduces for this position, in my view, miss the larger problem epitomized by people like Hudak.

Essentially, his indictment of the hapless Hudak revolves around the contention that he doesn’t have the personality, strategic skills or the common touch that [Mike] Harris cobbled together in two successive majority governments.:

Hudak flip-flopped on seemingly solid policy positions, including opposing the HST, eliminating human rights commissions and removing the health tax. His proposal for a public sex-offender registry should have been a no-brainer, but was sold poorly and turned out to be a negative factor. Opposition rivals claimed Hudak has similar policies to the U.S. Tea Party movement, and he just couldn’t escape the comparison. He even caused a communications nightmare for his party by using a loaded term “foreign workers” when opposing a Liberal plan for a $10,000 tax credit for first-time hires of immigrants.

Such an analysis strikes me as shallow and incomplete at best. While it is true that young Tim has failed to inspire confidence in the electorate, Taube's narrow ideological lens suggests that a good portion of Ontario is awaiting a leader who steadfastly projects the kind of right-wing values epitomized by Mike Harris, unquestionably the most divisive and, in my view, detested premier Ontario has ever seen. I give the electorate here a little more credit than that.

Judging by the fact that the NDP under Andrea Horwath has made some impressive gains in the province, and current Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne has inspired some respect for her willingness to raise difficult questions about transportation funding, my thought is that the voters of this province are more progressive and savvy than Taube gives them credit for. They are not looking for a return to the mean-spirited and ideologically-driven agenda so lustily embraced by Mike Harris; they are tired of the right-wing bromides that promise everything and deliver little more than misery for the masses and profligate perks for the privileged. They are hungry for policies that will be of use and relevance to themselves and their fellow citizens.

The fact that the Liberals were not trounced in all five recent by elections suggests that despite the many scandals they have been involved in, the electorate still regards them and the NDP as far preferable to the kind of anti-union, pro-corporate policies propagated by the province's right wing.

May I suggest that the time for reactionary political parties as represented by the likes of Tim Hudak is passing quickly?

A Saturday Evening Thought

An Elegant Solution

Earlier this month I posted an interview with Neil Turok, head of The Perimeter Institute and the deliverer of this year's Massey Lectures. As I indicated in my original post, I was struck both by Turok's humanity and his optimism, perhaps best exemplified when he said that almost all the problems we face are caused by human beings and are capable of being solved by human beings.

I was reminded of that sentiment today as I was editing a loan description for Kiva, a microfinance organization with which I volunteer. The woman requesting the loan lives in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, where she wants to buy something called a Fresh Life Toilet, which provides a rather simple yet elegant solution to the problem of waste disposal, a problem of especially pressing concern in many developing countries, especially in their slums, where access to sanitation facilities can be quite limited, leading to soil and river pollution.

After editing the loan, I did some research on the device, which is mentioned in the following very informative video:

Additional information can be found here and here.

While I have written about the good that Kiva does in a few past posts, I once again invite readers to check it out for themselves. A loan of as little as $25 is a tangible way to do a lot of good in a world that sorely needs it.

The Marijuana Debate Continues

The other day I wrote a post suggesting the need for a vigorous debate on the question of the legalization of marijuana, a drug against which countless billions have been spent as part of what many feel is a failed 'war on drugs.'

In today's Star, there is a spirited discussion in a lengthy series of letters that explore this topic, two of which I will reproduce below. As well, CNN's Sanjay Gupta, in a column on the CNN website, explains what led him to apologize for his earlier condemnation of pot for medicinal purposes. A brief video of his explanation follows.


Re: Legalizing pot, endorsing stupidity, Aug. 7

Is this column about the inappropriateness of legalizing pot or the shortcomings of Justin Trudeau as the Liberal leader? Trudeau is “the political embodiment of stupid?” Because Trudeau has an alternative to the time-consuming expense of policing the use and possession of pot, Rosie DiManno has chosen to ridicule JustinTrudeau by suggesting that “maybe he should fire up a reefer and ponder it some more,” in reference the fact that his thinking about dope has “evolved.”
I have never tried pot and never had the inclination to do so. Quitting “regular”cigarettes was, for me, difficult enough. The smell of this substance is nauseating to me when I have had the misfortune to be near someone who was smoking it.

But I think that Mr. Trudeau has an idea worth considering. By not having pot legalized, we are ensuring that some young people, who may be in possession of this drug when stopped by police, could be be saddled with a criminal record that will affect their future employment.

The financial savings alone would merit the legalization of pot. The police would be free to pursue more important criminal matters. The load on the court system would be lightened. There would be more room in our jails for “real” criminals.

Finally, if legalized, the tax revenues could be comparable to those collected by the LCBO. Could we actually see a PCBO, or an MCBO?
“What about driving whilst high?” Ms DiManno asks. I believe that some police forces are now in possession of a “marijuana version of the breathalyzer” that was developed in Sweden. It can detect 12 different controlled substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, morphine and of course, marijuana. Apparently, this test is equally as accurate as blood and urine tests. Therefore motorists using legalized marijuana would be subject to the same restrictions as motorists using legal alcohol.

Unauthorized growing of marijuana would remain a criminal offense, the same as bootlegging and cigarette smuggling.

I agree with Ms DiManno’s final statement that “Canada already has way too much stupidity,” but I don’t agree that Justin Trudeau’s idea of marijuana decriminalization is a part of that stupidity.

Warren Dalton, Scarborough

I agree with you that Justin Trudeau owes it to Canadians to explain how his legalizing marijuana would actually work. I have problems following his rationale for legalization. It seems to be his belief that by legalizing and regulating pot that will keep it out of the hands of our youth. We all know how successful that has been keeping tobacco and alcohol out of the hands of young people.

Not only that, in both cases legalization has resulted in a black market for both substances, with the entrance of organized criminal elements. I can see the same thing happening if we follow the same path with marihuana.

The other aspect Mr. Trudeau seems to ignore is that today’s hydroponically produced marijuana is many times more potent than that produced in the past. This makes it more likely to lead to addiction, adding even more problems to our struggling healthcare system.

I think Mr. Trudeau should rethink this subject before pushing ahead.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa