[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Minor clarification: while the provinces do indeed determine pharmacy practice, and can "schedule" drugs for the purposes of determining where they are kept in the pharmacy  - for example, behind the counter (usually based on the NAPRA drug schedules), ultimately the feds, who licence drugs, can determine whether a drug would be a prescription-only or "Schedule F" drug (that is, a drug which requires a prescription from a practitioner to sell to the public).

Ah okay. So there is scope for the federal government to mess around with this? Okay.

Now, I'm not saying that Harper is just waiting to pounce on this specific item, the morning after pill. What I'm saying is that insofar as Harper is going to throw bones to social conservatives through domestic policy, it's on the level of making changes to drug classifcation etc.

In other words, not something that anyone will care about unless it's their specific area of concern or they're directly affected (and most people won't be), but that nonetheless will have a significant impact on people whom it does directly affect.

[Barrister]

In terms of immigrants - the odd thing is that the Cons have picked up many votes in this last election from immigrant-heavy communities, which used to religiously vote liberal. Many of these groups are neither White nor Christian.

This suggests to me that the Cons are not likely to embrace unfriendly-to-immigrants policies in the future.

The Cons have also made major inroads into the Jewish vote - part of which because they are pro-Israel.

They would lose that if they came out too strong on the pro-Christian stuff.

True, but...

A substantial part of the Conservative appeal to certain ethnic minorities (namely south and east asians) was thay "we share your values".  It was an almost explicit appeal absed on social conservatism.

So while I don't see them cracking down on immigrtion at all, but I can easily imagine them cracking down on bogus refugees (after all that should irk those who came legally more than anyone else).  They're not going to crack down on Sunday shopping, but they will promote more general religious topics.

[Jacob]

In terms of immigrants - the odd thing is that the Cons have picked up many votes in this last election from immigrant-heavy communities, which used to religiously vote liberal. Many of these groups are neither White nor Christian.

This suggests to me that the Cons are not likely to embrace unfriendly-to-immigrants policies in the future.

Yeah, I agree, and it gives me some hope on those areas.

This is why I expect that anything done to cater to anti-immigrant people will all be about "abuse of the system and criminality", since "good immigrants" might not feel it targets them. Though in the end, it comes down to how they feel the system treats them. If the wait time to bring grandma in goes up from seven to twelve years, then all the talk about "it's an economic choice" and "we love immigrants" won't take the edge off that.

So yeah, I expect most of it will just be a change in rhetoric. Chinese voters, for example, won't have a problem with refugees being shafted further or law-breakers being deported for smaller and smaller offences or whatever (depending on how petty it might get, of course).

[Malthus]

Minor clarification: while the provinces do indeed determine pharmacy practice, and can "schedule" drugs for the purposes of determining where they are kept in the pharmacy  - for example, behind the counter (usually based on the NAPRA drug schedules), ultimately the feds, who licence drugs, can determine whether a drug would be a prescription-only or "Schedule F" drug (that is, a drug which requires a prescription from a practitioner to sell to the public).

Ah okay. So there is scope for the federal government to mess around with this? Okay.

Now, I'm not saying that Harper is just waiting to pounce on this specific item, the morning after pill. What I'm saying is that insofar as Harper is going to throw bones to social conservatives through domestic policy, it's on the level of making changes to drug classifcation etc.

In other words, not something that anyone will care about unless it's their specific area of concern or they're directly affected (and most people won't be), but that nonetheless will have a significant impact on people whom it does directly affect.

I think he'd have trouble doing that - interfering with a schedule classification would involve directly monkeying with Health Canada, a very large and entrenched bureaucracy. There would be considerable push-back.

It could be done by legislation, but I think that would create a huge amount of problems.

But it is true that determining whether a drug must be prescription-only (or "Schedule F" in the lingo) is federal.

[Oexmelin]

It is interesting that the more social conservative militant of the Conservatives is agreeing with Jacob's, mine, and Josephus' fear about the social conservative agenda of Harper against the fiscal conservative voters who say such an agenda doesn't really exist...

[Barrister]

It is interesting that the more social conservative militant of the Conservatives is agreeing with Jacob's, mine, and Josephus' fear about the social conservative agenda of Harper against the fiscal conservative voters who say such an agenda doesn't really exist...

I am?

I thought I said they'd throw out a few bones and that was it.

[Oexmelin]

It is interesting that the more social conservative militant of the Conservatives is agreeing with Jacob's, mine, and Josephus' fear about the social conservative agenda of Harper against the fiscal conservative voters who say such an agenda doesn't really exist...

I am?

I thought I said they'd throw out a few bones and that was it.

I know, just kidding. But it seemed CC (at least) wasn't even about to recognize the existence of such bones...

[Jacob]

I think he'd have trouble doing that - interfering with a schedule classification would involve directly monkeying with Health Canada, a very large and entrenched bureaucracy. There would be considerable push-back.

It could be done by legislation, but I think that would create a huge amount of problems.

But it is true that determining whether a drug must be prescription-only (or "Schedule F" in the lingo) is federal.

Thanks for the information

Like I said, I don't expect anything with this one specific item necessarily. All I expect is that where there are reasonably easy battles (or harder, but hidden from public view battles) to win for a social conservative agenda, that's where there'll be some action.

Obviously one needs to be more conversant with the specifics of legislation and government bureaucracy than I am to pinpoint the most likely areas of action.

[Jacob]

I am?

I thought I said they'd throw out a few bones and that was it.

You are. I agree that throwing a few bones is all that will happen. I went further and tried to speculate on what sorts of bones they would be, and CC came back with reasons why those bones can't be thrown. It seems he's implying that means no bones will be thrown at all; that's certainly how he's coming across to me, but I may be misunderstanding.

In my view, nothing I've said on the "bones to social conservatives" sub-topic is at odds with what you've been saying. I think we expect more or less the same thing, the only difference is in what light we view it

[Malthus]

The basic issue is the extent to which the cons have to "sell out" their undoubted social-conservative leanings and background in order to maintain power.

I suspect the answer to that is that, cynically, they have mostly done just that. Today's cons are thinking that they would like to remain the natural governing party for more than one term, which means of necessity moving towards the centre. 

Pretend to be centerist, and eventually you become centerist. In much the same way as I suspect that the NDP will become more Quebec in flavour - the new people moving into the party will have their own agendas, which may not be those of the old guard.

Whether they will toss specific bones to their old-guard supporters, I dunno.

Edit: my prediction: that they will move towards the centre, forgetting their social-conservative roots, become increasingly corrupt, complacent and dictatorial, and that it will be scandals relating to these things - corruption, complacency and dictatorial-ness - which will in the end bring them down.

[crazy canuck]

Well, if you can promise me that none of my concerns, or anything like them, will come to pass, that's a great relief

Its not so much as a guarrantee but the scenarios you painted seem unlikely and verging on a kind of conspiratorial thinking that the conservatives are out to get the poor if no one notices.

Take the morning after pill.  Do you really think only poor folks are the only ones that are going to notice any restriction on that - assuming your theory of who will be targeted is accurate.  Not bloody likely.

[Jacob]

Myprediction: that they will move towards the centre, forgetting their social-conservative roots, become increasingly corrupt, complacent and dictatorial, and that it will be scandals relating to these things - corruption, complacency and dictatorial-ness - which will in the end bring them down.

Come on. That will NEVER happen 

Okay, I largely agree. I just think they'll throw a few bones to the social conservatives as the opportunities are identified along the way. I don't see a downside for the Conservatives to do so, as long as the bones don't show up too big in the wider public consciousness.

[Jacob]

Take the morning after pill.  Do you really think only poor folks are the only ones that are going to notice any restriction on that - assuming your theory of who will be targeted is accurate.  Not bloody likely.

If, say, it's up to the local pharmacist whether he has ethical problems dispensing it, I think lots of people won't care. In Vancouver, everyone will dispense it anyways (and if not, there's another pharmacist on duty or another pharmacy); no one will notice. But in some small town with only one pharmacist, if he or she doesn't want to dispense it that has significant impact for individuals.

You asked me what sort of things I'm expecting. I told you, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think those *specific* situations to develop, but things that are roughly analagous and of the same order of magnitude.

If they, as a hypothetical, mess with how the morning after pill is available, it won't be to the point that should your son get a classmate pregnant, the girl won't be able to get the pill. You're right, there's no way the Canadian populace would stand for that. But it might make it harder for someone far outside of the city to get one, say in some rural Albertan hamlet. I don't think the broad population would care that much and it probably wouldn't endanger the Conservatives in that riding either.

But maybe it, or anything like it, won't happen. We'll see. I'll be happy to find that my worries did not come to pass.

[crazy canuck]

The basic issue is the extent to which the cons have to "sell out" their undoubted social-conservative leanings and background in order to maintain power.

That assumes they have an "undoubted social conservative leaning".  Which brings me back to my original point.  When I look around at who is supporting this majority and dont see a "core" of supporters who are banging on the table for the return of restrictions on abortion, the death penalty and whatever else might keep NDP supporters awake at night.

I think you are correct when you say the conservatives have moved beyond that - which is why I made the point earlier that Harper has succeeded because he has moderated those elements that once existed in the antecedants of the current Conservative party.

I also agree with you that as a practical matter if the Conservatives ever rejected that kind of moderation they could kiss any chance at governing goodbye as voters like you and I would likely not support them.

Which again brings me back again to my original questioning of the notion that there is this "core" support that will drag Harper right now that he has a majority.  If anything the "core" that gave him the majority will keep him where he is and if he wants to increase it he will have to occupy the centre right.

[viper37]

I expect things like this:

Foreign aid being funnelled more towards faith based groups,

It's a legitimate fear, and something I dislike, but is already happenning.

voting against things in the UN that includes anything with women's rights or abortion,

Not gonna happen.  Never did, never will.

abstaining on any protections for homosexuality when that comes up internationally and so on.

same as before.  the government track record on this has been examplary.

Similarly, I expect he'll team up with people who want to enshrine an international definition of religious freedom that includes "persecute homosexuals."

bullshit.

Basically, where ever it's possible to hit the hard social conservative agenda points through foreign policy, especially involving foreign aid recipients, I think Harper will take the opportunity. It'll register with the social conservative amongst his supporters, but amongst the broader Canadian population the only other people who will care would never vote for Harper anyways.

If it involves government money, you will see the social conservative agenda behing the decisions, it is a possibility, a very strong one indeed.  Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't, and for sure, we'll see the leftist spin on this distorting the truth every time they can.

Domestically, I also expect some softer procedural changes in how things are done, rather than hard line legislation. Maybe doctors and pharmacists will be allowed to opt out of giving/ filling prescriptions or performing procedures they have "moral objections" to, so what if they're the only potential source in town?

Not a chance.

Maybe to get the morning-after pill you'll need a prescription from a doctor, rather than just getting it directly from the pharmacist.

Given, that, according to the left, we have a great healthcare system with no problems whatsoever that can't be solved with more money, it shouldn't be an issue.  The NDP has promised us more doctors&nurses than ever, surely, they'll propose something to the government to be implemented.  Then, all a girl will have to do is to get one of the thousands of new doctors to give her a prescription and hop, en route to the nearest pharmacist.
(in other words, the fear is, again, totally illegitimate, but I expect I will hear that spin over&over in the coming years).

I expect that funding for women health focused groups will get cut, especially targetting poorer parts of society (like, say on native reserves) and especially ones that involve help with women's reproductive rights. Most likely this will all be due to "fiscal necessity" to Canada at large, but sold as "look what we did for you" to the social conservative constituency.

Just remind me again, how many of these do we have?  What's an acceptable ration of women groups per women?  500 women groups per thousand women?
What are they doing that no one else can do?  Where is the government in all this?  Why is it morally acceptable that the government, taking our taxes, is not doing the job we're paying it for?

Nothing that would be more than a minor inconvenience for a well educated middle class individual, but that nonetheless could have a real negative impact on more vulnerable members of society.

The real question is how can we help these more vulnerable members of our society to stop being vulnerable.  But that's not popular in leftist circles, unfortunately.  Most political parties would lose their raison d'être if they fought against poverty rather than fighting for the poors.

I also expect more social services to vulnerable people (various shelters and outreach amongst the poorest of the poor) to be funnelled through private groups that just happen to have a heavy religious component as well.

Doubtful.

On gay rights, I don't expect anything big. Maybe some devolvement of decision-making to lower levels of gov't. So Harper won't outlaw gay marriage or gay adoption, but I wouldn't be shocked to see local gov't and organizations (where the sentiment is socially conservative) getting away with making it practically impossible.

It's the way it should be, imho.  Same as with crimes.  Each provinces should legislate on issues such as marriage, adoption, euthanisia, crime, etc, as they see fit, without the Big Fed telling everyone what to do from coast to coast.

With immigration, I expect to see an even stronger focus on economic migrants at the expense of family reunification and refugees.

I expect the first, not the last.

I also expect there to be a stronger focus on undesirable immigrants and cracking down on "abuse and criminality";

Would it be such a big problem?  Why should a foreign criminal be welcomed here?  Why does someone who commits a crime but is not a citizen should get a preferential treatment?

... that kind of thing. Nothing super drastic and no clear ideological grand stances; but a real change nonetheless, if you happen to be amongst the groups directly affected.

You irrational fears aside   I expect change for the better.  I might even be tempted to buy a new rifle