A double standard?

Toronto Sun ^ | 2005-12-06 | Lorrie Goldstein

[Clive]

Based on reader response to my last two columns arguing there's an obvious pro-Liberal bias in the media covering this federal election campaign, a lot of you agree.

Today, let's examine how this bias applies to health care.

First, let's go back to the 2004 federal election.

Recall how Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's announcement that he was going to propose medicare reforms for his province once that election was over prompted charges by Prime Minister Paul Martin that Klein and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper were secretly conspiring to destroy medicare.

Recall how the national media, duly primed by Martin's spin doctors, went racing off to Harper, demanding that he do the impossible by proving a negative. That is, prove, based solely on Martin's unsubstantiated allegations, that he and Klein were NOT conspiring to destroy medicare.

Many political observers later said this last-minute Liberal scare tactic helped frighten NDP voters back to the Liberals, allowing them to eke out a minority government.

Now, let's fast-forward to this election campaign.

The Liberal government of Quebec Premier Jean Charest recently announced it will delay a white paper on reforming medicare in Quebec until after this election.

That paper will outline Quebec's plans for expanding private medical insurance in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent ruling declaring as unconstitutional Quebec's laws banning the purchase of such insurance. This in light of the lengthy wait times patients now face for treatment.

But just a minute. Martin is a Liberal. So is Charest.

(Okay, Charest used to be a Progessive Conservative, but these days isn't that pretty much the same as a Liberal?)

Further, Charest's Liberal government has just delayed until after this election the release of its proposals for what many would call two-tier health care in Quebec. (Charest has already said he won't use the constitution's notwithstanding clause to strike down the Supreme Court ruling.)

Further, the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party recently passed a little-noticed resolution supporting the expansion of private health care. As far as I can tell, Martin hasn't even been asked about it. If he has, his answer certainly hasn't been big news. By contrast, can you imagine the hysterical media questioning of Harper if the Ontario wing of the federal Conservative party had done the same?

In any event, why do you suppose there have been no front-page headlines in this election accusing Martin and Charest of secretly conspiring to destroy medicare?

Simple. It's such a silly charge that even Harper hasn't tried to make it. Good thing, too, because if he did, our ever-objective national media would laugh right in his face.

First off, Charest and Martin are about as close as, well, Harper and Klein. Charest said prior to this election he wouldn't campaign with Martin. Klein sandbagged Harper (yet again) by saying he thinks Martin will win another minority because Harper scares Ontarians.

Further, even if Martin and Charest were dumb enough to conspire to destroy medicare (a real vote-getter!) do you think they'd telegraph it by having Charest announce he was delaying his proposed reforms until after this election?

And yet, this is exactly the same unsubtantiated charge, applied to Conservatives, that the media uncritically allowed Martin to make against Harper and Klein in the last election, to devastating effect. By turning what should have been a non-story into a major one, they did Martin's dirty work for him.

Now, why do you suppose they did that unless they hadn't already bought into the Liberals' spin that Harper has a "hidden agenda" to destroy medicare?

[Clive]

-

[Clive]

OOPS, I did it again?

I posted the wrong ping list as my reply 2.

[backhoe]

Ah, but I'm interested, and I will crosslink to this:

ADSCAM: Click the picture-

While this post was conceived regarding the corruption issues, toward the "last" it is morphing into "general election issues," and I am including links, comments, and quips from the best Canadian blogs as well.

[GeronL]

The government can invalidate the Supreme Court??

I think ours can too, but they have never ever ever done it

[Clive]

The government can invalidate the Supreme Court??"

The government can't. Parliament can. Parliament's right is pursuant to the non obstante provisions of the Charter and is subject to renewable 5 year limits.

Section 33 of the Charter of Rights:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Section 2 is a declaration of fundamental rights. Sections 7 to 15 enumerate a bill of rights.

[GeronL]

um... well, as long as its simple and all