Canada: Liberals Lose Parliament Control

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Canada: Liberals Lose Parliament Control
49
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 12:31am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4256685,00.html


The Liberal Party lost outright control of Parliament on Monday, ending an 11-year monopoly on power, but easily won the largest share of seats and will now try to lead Canada's first minority government since 1979.


Though dogged by scandal, and pressed hard by a newly unified Conservative Party, the Liberals of Prime Minister Paul Martin prevailed by largely holding their ground in Ontario, the most populous province and the pivotal battleground in the election.

Most minority governments in Canada's past have proven unstable and short-lived. The Liberals may try to govern in an informal coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party, which favors higher taxes on the affluent.

The Liberals had won three straight landslide victories under Jean Chretien, starting in 1993, and there were signs during the campaign that many Canadians were disenchanted with the party and its recent entanglement in a financial scandal.

However, the results suggested a widespread reluctance to turn over power to the Conservatives' relatively untested leader, Stephen Harper, whose stances on tax cuts and social issues prompted concerns about unwelcome change.

Nearly complete returns showed the Liberals winning 134 seats overall, short of the 155 need to single-handedly control the House of Commons, but far more than 93 seats the Conservatives were projected to win.

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, which advocates independence for the French-speaking province, did well at the Liberals' expense. The Bloc was on track to boost its share of Quebec's 75 seats from 33 to 56, a performance likely to fuel talk of another separatist attempt to hold a referendum on secession from Canada.

The New Democrats were winning 24 seats, which - added to the Liberals' share - would be just enough to forge a majority.

The final polls taken before the election suggested the Liberals and Conservatives were deadlocked, and many analysts had predicted the Conservatives would win the most seats.

Thus the results, giving the Liberals a comfortable plurality, were a relief to Martin, the 65-year-old Liberal leader who replaced Chretien as prime minister last year. He had called the election five weeks ago, hoping the results would provide a solid mandate for his administration.

The outcome was a deep disappointment for Harper and others who had worked relentlessly in recent years to merge rival right-of-center factions and the divisions that had enabled the Liberals to dominate recent elections. The merger took place last year, but the hoped-for breakthrough in Ontario - home to one-third of the population - failed to materialize.

Among the first-time Liberal winners in Ontario was hockey Hall of Famer Ken Dryden, former star goalie of the Montreal Canadiens.

Although the Liberals and Conservatives had much in common - including support for the national health insurance system and reluctance to deploy troops in Iraq - there were some key differences. Harper wanted to slash taxes for the middle-class, increase the military ranks from 60,000 to 80,000 and pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Harper, 45, started the campaign strongly, but was placed on the defensive by repeated Liberal claims that he would try to move Canada to the right on social policies. He denied that he would seek restrictions on abortion, but conveyed some doubts about Canada's steady move toward legalization of same-sex marriage, which already is legal in three provinces.

Roughly 22 million voters were eligible to cast ballots. In the last national election, in 2000, turnout was the lowest ever at 61 percent.

The new Parliament - with 308 seats - will have seven more members than the outgoing one, in which the Liberals hold 168 seats, the Conservatives 73, the Bloc Quebecois 33 and the New Democrats 14. There are nine independents and four vacant seats.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 11:51pm
Overall, it works well, but like anything, it's not perfect. But the bottoline is that while Canada spends much less percentage of its GDP on healthcare than the US, yet we are healthier (I remember reading it on a international organization's web site, and also heard it on the national news not too long ago). I'll try to find the link.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 12:01am
The cost part is not quite accurate.

Here's a few sources:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

In 2001, health care spending in the United States was $1.4 trillion, up 8.7 percent from 2000. (“Highlights from Health Tables and Chartbook,” Health, United States 2003, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/highlits.pdf)

The United States spends a greater percent of gross domestic product on health care than any other major industrialized nation. In 2001, the United States spent 14.1 percent of the GDP on health care. (“Highlights from Health Tables and Chartbook,” Ibid.)

The United States spends more on health care than other industrialized countries; as a percentage of 2001 GDP, the United States spent 13.9%, Germany spent 10.7%, Canada spent 9.7%, France spent 9.5%, and Sweden spent 8.7% on total health care spending. (David Walker, “Health Care System Crisis: Growing Challenges Point to Need for Fundamental Reform,” presentation to the General Accounting Office Health Care Forum, 13 January 2004).

Although the United States spends more money than many countries, it does not always offer more health care resources than other countries. In 2000, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all had more nurses per 1,000 residents than the United States; Germany, Sweden and France had more physicians; and Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and France had more beds for acute care patients. (Walker, Ibid).

Despite its higher levels of health care spending, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate that the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan. (Walker, Ibid).

Americans’ average annual out-of-pocket expenses for health care rose 26% between 1995 and 2001, to $2,182. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 1:07am
Great post!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 1:19am
"Higher Tax bills equal less free money, thus less freedom."

True freedom does not come from lots of money to spend watsefully. We in Ontario are now saddled with an average additional $450 (annually) in our taxes to support our provincial health care system. As a member of society who does not have a large amount of money for discretionary spending, this amount of money to me is a lot. However, I do not feel that paying the extra amount limits my freedom. In reality, my giving up a portion of my spending money for health care will increase the freedom availible to others in my community.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 9:03am

Thanks NiceCanadianLady for the links. The Huppi link is most interesting.


I lived in the UK, prior to 1965, & the NHS (National Health Service) was great. I has surgery, emergency appendix removal with complications, the 10 days in hospital

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 9:19am

>"in Ontario are now saddled with an average additional $450 (annually) in our taxes to support our provincial health care system."<


Do you mean that is the total you pay for health care annually? Or it has risen by that amount?


To get an idea of the cost here. A self-employed friend of mine pays over 1K a month, plus a 1K deductable before insurance kicks in,

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 10:51am
Thanks for the cite, I'm sure I will use it often. HAND
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 10:56am
The amount of tax that each person here pays is reflective of their income bracket. This year, eveyone in Ontario will be paying more (in their income tax) to help support the health care system. Each of us will pay between $60- $900 more this year because of the increase. The average being $450 dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/21/canada/ohip040621

The Premier Dalton McGuinty has had a lot of backlash over this increase, since he was recently elected and his platform was "no more lies, no more taxes". However, once in office, he found out that the Conservatives (which despite some posts here claim, ARE VERY conservative) had left him with a deficit of $5.6 billion dollars and a health care system cut into ribbons. He has said that while the increase may not help his political interests, he believes it is the the right thing to do. I for one am glad that we now have a premier who is interested in mending our damaged public services, and reducing the deficit, instead of the conservatives (our last government) who's interests lay mainly in buisness instead of people.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/29/canada/ont_deficit031029

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 11:06am
<<>"takes money from non-parents to help subsidize the program"<>>

I do remember in studying history that a well educated populace is a benefit to all citizens and a necessity to democracy. Where did all this "ME FIRST" come from? Is there no longer a vision of our republic to have healthy, educated, employed citizens. Do we really want to erase all the democratic advances of the 20th century. Slave labor, child labor, and subsistent wages? Sure seems if that is what some people desire, as long as they are part of the "haves".

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 07-01-2004 - 11:12am
<>

This is the attitude I grew up with in the US. Something very unholy has happened within our boarders. The "me first" generation has grown into a national belief. How really sad.