Canadian Politics

Ranked #13,921 in Culture & Society, #279,460 overall

Canadian Politics: A Mike's Eye View

If you love a great debate and enjoy voicing your opinion, this is the lens for you!

I've always been fascinated by politics. I'm even more fascinated by the fact that many Canadians don't know what's going on around them. Most of us are blind to politics. We're so fed-up with politicians and their lies that we actually make it easier for them to lie to us by being ignorant. We turn our backs and make uninformed choices, and then complain about it when we get shot in the foot by the people WE elected. In fact, nearly 50% of Canadians don't even bother to vote.

If you're an American, how well do you really know your neighbour and biggest trading partner? Do you think we're just beaver hunting, puck chasing, blubber eating Canucks, or do you take the time to understand us?

Whether you're from Canada or not, I sincerely hope you enjoy this lens and contribute to the debates. I hope you return again and again. I have high hopes for this lens, and in it you will find articles, polls, debates and news stories that reflect Canadian Politics. I will voice my opinion, and I hope you'll voice yours.

Welcome to Canadian Politics: A Mike's Eye view!

Time to Raise Age of Sexual Consent in Canada

I had the below article published in my local newspaper in 2005. However, I still believe it has merit, and it's as relevant today as it was then. I hope you read the article and voice your opinion below.

Time to Raise Age of Sexual Consent

(Jul 12, 2005) Published in The Cambridge Times newspaper

Many Canadians look at you as if your head has shrunk to the size of a pea, and your clothes are on backwards when they are told that the age of sexual consent in this country is 14.

Sixteen, some will argue. Others (generally the ones with kids who are either 14 or approaching that tender age) look nauseous.

How is it that young people can't smoke until they are 19, vote until 18, buy a lottery ticket until 18, drive until 16 or even drop out of high school until 16, but are deemed mature enough to engage in full sexual relations at the age of 14, providing that the adult they are having sex with doesn't hold a position of authority?

Does this make any sense to you?

As a parent of a daughter who is almost 12 years old myself, I can tell you this scares the hell out of me.

If she exercises her right to have sex at 14, then she could be having a baby just before reaching the age of 15.

In my opinion, she won't be mature enough or financially stable enough to raise a child.

The boy or man who impregnated her is probably not going to support the baby, so guess who that odious task is going to fall to?

Yes, you guessed it, me.

Either that, or she puts the baby up for adoption, aborts it, or she tries to raise the baby while being unequipped to raise herself.

None of those choices sounds particularly appealing to me.

If the last scenario doesn't scare you enough, there is also the fact that your baby girl or boy may be having sex with your 50-year-old neighbour right now and you, as a parent, would be powerless to stop it.

In fact, if you were to go over to that neighbour's house and remove your child, you could be charged with kidnapping.

On top of all of that, pedophiles from around the world have targeted Canada as a nation that will tolerate the exploitation of our youth.

Not only will we tolerate it, we have legalized it. Fourteen-year-olds are easily manipulated by wealthier, smarter, less naive adults and so make easy targets for sexual predators.

Why are we allowing this to happen? At first we fought back, but over time many Canadians have forgotten. In 1987, the Mulroney government lowered the age of sexual consent to 14. Since then, the Liberals have refused to raise the age of sexual consent to 16.

In 2002, more than 40,000 people sent a letter to Justice Minister Cauchon asking that the age of sexual consent be raised to 18.

The Canadian Police Association has requested the age be raised twice and in 1999, the Attorney General asked that the age of sexual consent be raised to 16 in order to combat the exploitation of our children.

Despite all of these efforts, the Canadian public has not been heard. Our kids are still being put at risk, and more and more children are having children.

It is the government's responsibility to protect our children from sexual predators and most of them are doing a terrible job of it.

As a Canadian citizen and a parent of two, I urge the public to make their voices heard on this subject. Write a letter to parliament and get in touch with your local MP and tell them how you feel.

I believe there is nothing more important than protecting our young people, don't you?

Did you Know?

Loading poll. Please Wait...

What do You Think About The Age of Sexual Consent?

Let me know whether you agree with me or disagree. I love to hear your thoughts, so here's your chance to sound off!

What do You Think About The Age of Sexual Consent?

Loading

I don't see anything wrong with it.

DianeG says:

Teenagers are having sex. That's a fact. Consensual sex between teens will continue to happen. It is the job of parents to provide knowledge and a moral base. The schools should also play a role, but the education system is not a substitute for parental guidance.

I don't think the age of consent needs to be raised.

Kylyssa says:

The problem with making the age of sexual consent eighteen is that on average, teens have sex with teens before that. I don't think adults with more than three years of age difference from their partner should be allowed to have sex with anyone under eighteen, though.

Here in the US, a just-turned-seventeen year old girl who has consensual oral sex with her one-week-from-16 year old partner can be imprisoned and face a lifetime as a registered pedophile.

Adults shouldn't be having sex with teens but I see no reason to criminalize teens for having sex with each other. It's the parents' place to teach their teens about the consequences of careless sex.

Making sex illegal has never stopped teens from doing it. However, educating them greatly reduces the amount of teen sex.

Sojourn says:

Call me a liberal, but I think I would be okay with this for a couple of reasons. First, it's up to parents to instill morality and responsibility in our children - not the legal system. Second, I've never forgotten the case in the US about Genarlow Wilson, a promising football player who at the age of 17 was sentenced to 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with a 15 year old. Justice was simply way out of control. In Canada, Genarlow would never have been charged - and I don't think he should have been charged in the States, either.

I think it's crazy and would like to see it changed.

Cari_Kay says:

Children need to be protected. I talk to young girls very confused about STDs, unplanned pregnancies and the like. At fourteen, they really do not understand what they are getting themselves into. We really need to make a stand to protect children because this will affect the rest of their lives.

MikeMoore says:

I agree, Kylyssa. Sex between teens shouldn't result in a jail sentence. However, a 14 year old girl should not be allowed to have sex with a 50 year old man either. Parents are helpless to prevent it, and can actually be thrown into jail if they remove their teen from the premises. I think that's shameful. Sexual predators eye Canada as an easy target. Our government refuses to protect our children and allows them to be exploited.

 

Should Tax Payers Bail Out Big Business?

In the wake of the American financial crisis, the world economy has declined rapidly. Canada has been no different. Car companies and financial institutions, which employ thousands of Canadians has been hit the hardest. Once powerful automotive companies, such as GM, Ford and Toyota have bled out money faster than a shark attack victim.

Both the U.S and Canadian governments have been scrambling to ensure that these automotive companies stay in business. Bailouts and big money loans have been the talk of the country, with billions of the tax payers' money being used to bail out big business.

North Americans have been hit hard, and many of us ask ourselves why WE have to pay to keep big business afloat? Don't we live in a free enterprise system, where smart businesses survive and the weak go out of business all together?

If the mom and pop store down the street goes out of business because of unwise business practices, is the government going to show up at the door and hand the owner some cash?

I think not.

The difference is that if the mom and pop store go out of business, a handful of people will be out of a job. If Ford or GM goes out of business, our country will suffer big time. They say that 1 in 6 jobs in Ontario (where I live) are related in some way to the auto industry-whether it's painting the parts, working at the auto plant or manufacturing the springs they use in the car seats, Ontario is dependent upon the auto industry to support its families.

While I would feel very badly for the families of the auto workers if they were to go out of business, I personally don't think that it should be the tax payers who foot the bill. In my opinion, unions have demanded higher and higher wages throughout the years, and as a result, car companies are going broke. Instead of negotiating a cut-back in pay, they stubbornly refuse to listen.

Isn't it better to work for less pay than to lose your job and have no pay at all?

On the other hand, car execs are no better. They line their own pockets with gold, skim around on corporate jets and give themselves pay raises. They too, in my humble opinion, make far too much money.

As I see it, you have greedy workers and greedy employers, which equal a failing business. Perhaps if one of these car companies were to go under, the other ones would have a better chance. After all, we're not going to stop driving, so eventually we'll have to buy a car. Instead of splitting those sales between a bunch of auto companies, there would be one less competitor. One less competitor would equal more business for the surviving car companies.

It's like this everywhere. If three coffee shops open up on one street corner, one or two of them are going to go under. Supply and demand is how our economy works. If you run your business badly, you go out of business. The strong survive and become stronger, and the weak go out of business and find employment elsewhere.

It's not pretty, and again, I'd feel badly for the families who would suffer, but I'm just stating the facts as I see them. I think that greed has destroyed our economy, and now we're suffering through the correction-- workers and executives have to learn to compromise and correct their business standards or they go out of business.

Do you agree with me or disagree. Either way, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Maybe you'll change my mind. Thanks for reading!

Reader Feedback

Do You Think Tax Payers Should Foot The Bill For Failing Big Businesses?

Loading

Yes I do and here's why

Sojourn says:

In the end, if we don't bail them out - at least the ones that have considerable nation-wide impact - because if we don't, the folks who pay will not be the ones that caused the problem, but the workers who had nothing to do with the mess at all. I'm pretty sure the big execs who crumbled the auto business will make money no matter what happens, but thousands of innocent families would be hurt. I'd rather cough it up and carry some of the burden along with everyone else than make the families employed by idiots pay the price all by themselves.

No I don't and here's why

bgamall says:

I believe there is a stronger case to help big business than the big banks. I believe that the big banks have taken over the sovereignty of both nations. They need to be broken up and the bondholders of the corporate debt need to take a haircut. As long as friend of hedgefunds, Larry Summers is in power, there will be no haircuts for the international banks.

skizzle says:

When a business fails it allows for new businesses to step in and fill the void. Tax payers should not bail them out. In order for the tax payers to bail them out the government has to tax, print or borrow the money. In other words we are rewarding bad economic decisions by huge companies when they should know better.

 

Public or Private Health Care?

When I picked up my local newspaper today, The Cambridge Times, I noticed the headline, "Doctors Reaching into Own Pockets", splashed across the front page. I shook my head and read on.

According to the paper, "80% of Ontario's hospitals are running a deficit." My hometown hospital may be shutdown. In an effort to save the failing hospital, the doctors and medical staff are being asked for donations. Dr. Michael Lowrie, president of the hospital's medical staff has vowed to raise $100,000 within three years.

You may think this is happening because of the global financial crisis, but you'd be partly wrong. While the financial crisis doesn't help, our hospitals have been suffering a long time. Canadians cling to our publicly funded health care system like a newborn to their mother's teat, even though our system has been failing for years.

Doctor's are moving in droves across the border. Our medical schools are teaching new doctors and basically sending them across the border where they can expect to make more money doing less. Our hospitals are over-crowded, our nurses and doctors are working double shifts and patients wait hours in waiting rooms. And Lord help you if you need to see a specialist. The wait to see a specialist is usually months.

Yet despite the problems with our health care system, most Canadians turn a deaf ear to suggestions. We don't want to even hear the words 'private health care'.

How about a mixture? We could have publicly funded hospitals and private hospitals. If you can't afford to go to a private hospital, you could use the publicly funded hospital. I think that would relieve some of the strain our public hospitals are under now, and while it would take some planning, it might be the answer to our problems.

To me, it's been evident for a long time now that we can't afford our health care system. Each year that goes by our system crumbles further. When are we going to wake up and take a close look at our health care system and fix it? Political parties of all stripes have promised answers, but nothing seems to get done. We continue to sink more and more money into a system that is broken.

I understand why Canadians are reluctant to give up our public health care; we like to think that the rich and poor both get the same health care, but in my opinion, that's not true either. If you're rich enough, and your health problem severe enough, you're going to head across the border to the U.S.A and pay for quality care there.

The real problem as I see it is that while we stubbornly hold on to our public health care system, more and more people die. It's a dream that isn't possible. Canada is home to an aging population, which means that as time goes by this problem is only going to get worse, not better. We're playing Russian roulette, and politicians are playing politics with our lives.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your opinion.

Do you think we should keep our health care sytem the way it is or have private health care?

Loading

Publicly funded health care

nightcats says:

Totally public funded health care. I agree the present system needs some fixing, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Kylyssa says:

As an American who has been unable to see a doctor for my lupus, fibromyalgia or brain tumor or get my necessary medications for seizures due to becoming disabled two years ago - I'm against health care privatization.

I was a workaholic and earned a decent living, until I got sick. But even with private insurance, I was unable to get decent medical care - one doctor even refused to treat or diagnose my lupus because - "If I write down that diagnosis, you'll never be able to get insurance again."

You say, "Our hospitals are over-crowded, our nurses and doctors are working double shifts and patients wait hours in waiting rooms. And Lord help you if you need to see a specialist. The wait to see a specialist is usually months." But these are exactly the conditions in the US! People die in waiting rooms here, too. I waited six months to see a specialist for knee surgery while having BCBS, one of the better private insurance plans. During that time I had to work my forty hour per week standing job in a leg brace from ankle to thigh because several ligaments were completely severed. Then, it took two months to get into surgery after I saw the specialist for my five minute appointment. Eight months from injury to surgery during which time, further damage occurred. My experience was not atypical. Waits for specialists are generally 3 to 6 months here as well, sometimes longer.

So in getting private health care, you'd have all of the problems you have now plus more people will become homeless or die from their illnesses because they can't afford health care, just like in the US. A decent amount of homeless Americans became homeless due to illness or disability.

If you are rich enough to cover all of your medical expenses in cash you might benefit from privatization.

I still have thousands of dollars of medical bill debt from when I had insurance. They can decide to not pay for services your doctor decides upon such as x-rays, MRI's, biopsies, and other diagnostic tests if a particular test result is negative. For example - if you rip out all the ligaments of your knee and the ER doctor orders an x-ray as well as an MRI, the x-ray which shows no bone breakage will probably not get covered unless you successfully appeal.

Keep in mind that private insurance only covers part and will decline to cover if you've ever been sick before with anything remotely related. A friend's expensive coverage declined to pay for her emergency surgery for an infected gall-bladder and subsequent care because she'd had food-poisoning related stomach trouble eight years earlier. So she's whittling away at tens of thousands of dollars not covered by her insurance.

Many insurances will decline payments unless you provide ten years of medical records indicating your illness is not a previously existing condition.

So with private health insurance you can have the joy of paying about $600 per month for a couple to get about half of your medical bills payed. You can look forward to getting ejected from the hospital within 24 hours after childbirth (even c-sections sometimes) and having surgeries doctors would prefer to be followed by a hospital stay as outpatient surgery.

The US infant mortality rates and post-natal maternal mortality rates in hospitals far worse than Canada's. And Iceland, a country with socialized health care, has less than half the birth related deaths that the US has.

I don't think that socialized health care is the culprit - I think it's a lack of organization.

Private health care

CosmeticMom says:

I think the cost is going to break every Country that has Public Health Care. I just heard Canada is about broke supplying Health Care for all....not sure if that is true or not.

Nearly every job I had supplied Health Care, they may not have been the highest paying jobs, but they did pay most of the bill for me. Now, I'm not sure what will happen in the USA having this thrown on us, most didn't want Public Health Care. We shall see what the next 10 years does to us. We do need to help those who can not work or who are in extreme poverty.

skizzle says:

If the government provides the healthcare, who pays for it? The tax payers do. I can see an elderly person go to the hospital and be informed that she is to old to treat her condition because they have to ration out medical treatment. Why not go the next step, active euthanasia(spelling?). This may be a sad reality when publicly funded healthcare begins to run low on funds.

Cari_Kay says:

Again, I talk to women all the time who are going through pregnancy and miscarriage problems. It is just so apparent that those living with socialized medicine often receive sub-standard care, if they receive it all! As Americans, we take our medical care for granted. True, it is not perfect but there is no doubt in my mind, socialized medicine is not the answer.

MikeMoore says:

I'm sorry to hear of your health problems, Kylyssa. I think both private and publicly funded health care have huge problems. I'd like to see an amalgamation of the two. While we don't pay monthly, Canada's taxes are one of the highest in the world. A big reason for that is because we pay for the health care system. I think any time you have to continually throw more money at a problem, you're asking for trouble. Both your system and ours is broken, and it needs to be fixed. It's really nice to see the Americans chime in with their opinions. Thanks a lot!

Sojourn says:

Not knowing as much as I probably should about this particular topic, I would think a combination of public/private health care should be employed. The more you make personally, the more you should contribute to the cost of your own health care. I think you'd have to layer over that, though, caps on fees doctors could charge and some sort of standards or requirements to incent doctors to administer quality health care to those who make less money.

 

Health Meter

Loading poll. Please Wait...

What did you think of my lens?

  • nightcats Jun 7, 2010 @ 9:43 am | delete
    This is a great lens. I'm giving it a lens roll to one of my Canadian lenses.
  • Apr 8, 2009 @ 9:50 pm | delete
    Eye-opening lens! I never thought twice about Canadian politics, but I'll start keeping an ear on its news from now on :) Great lens!
  • Braiden Mar 29, 2009 @ 7:08 am | delete
    Hey,
    Great lens!
    Good content.
    Inspirational, and well written.
    I've just finished updating my lens that outlines controversial topics such as Homosexuality, Religion, Love and Anorexia.
    Anyone feel free to take a look if you have the time.
    Thanks again for an amazing lens =]
    Xx
  • skizzle Mar 22, 2009 @ 11:11 pm | delete
    Love it!
  • Kylyssa Mar 11, 2009 @ 3:07 pm | delete
    Great lens! I learned a bunch about Canadian politics I'd never known. Five stars.
  • Load More

Love This Lens?

Go Ahead and Vote

by

MikeMoore

I'm in love with the written word. My main passions are reading and writing, although I have many more.
I'm also the father of two beautiful children...
more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!