more screwy right-wing market language from the so-called left.

hiring decisions are not determined by profits. that is reaganomics - thoroughly debunked. rather, they're determined by demand. cutting wages (or increasing them, as you may) can consequently never lead to layoffs, as that does not affect demand. in fact, that would actually decrease profits by making it harder to reach demand; that is, it would send patients elsewhere and reduce total profits in the process. simply put, it would be stupid. almost nobody will do this, and those that do deserve what they get.

reducing doctor's wages will have no effect on anything except reducing doctor's wages, which i think they can handle just fine. and, if they don't want to see a total decrease in pay? i suppose they'll just have to see more patients.

if they cut staff, they'll have to do the same amount of work with less people. there's no logic in this; it's just right-wing scare-mongering.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadia-alam/ontario-liberal-healthcare-plan-problems_b_8211512.html

Nadia Alam
Hi Jessica, thank you for reading. I did want to point out a few things:

1. Cutting physician wages does lead to layoffs. Like I said, a physician's office is like a small business. When you cut a physician's wage, they can no longer afford the "extras" of paying for administrative staff, secretaries, nurses, etc. Before a physician closes their office, they will try to make do with less so that they can at least continue to pay for the physical space of the office. And when that doesn't work, they will close the office. Just like some of the family physicians' offices that have closed north of northern Ontario; just like some of the addiction centers that have closed in Toronto; just like some cardiology centers and radiology centers have closed in Southwestern Ontario. This is already happening. Saying that "it isn't so" doesn't change the fact.

2. Physicians cannot work more to earn more. When we see more patients, we bill more, and the government has told us we are not allowed to bill more. The Liberals have put a cap, a limit, on our services, one that we are not allowed to go over. What do you think will happen when we reach this set limit? Physicians will stop seeing patients.

3. There's no logic in doing the same amount of work with less people. You're right. But physicians will try for a little while. The majority of us aren't in this for the money. To be honest, there are other jobs that pay just as well and are much less stressful. However, medicine is a calling for many of us. We love our patients. We love our work. So we will try to make do -- up to a certain point. When we can't bear watching our patients struggle under office inefficiencies resulting from "doing the same amount of work with less people", we will eventually exhaust ourselves and give up.

This happened in the 1990s during the Rae days. It is happening again. Stop trying to deny it.

jessica amber murray
that's not how small businesses work, either. maybe you're bringing up a valid point: maybe doctors ought to take courses in business management, so they don't make these kinds of management errors.

to be blunt, i do not think that you are making an honest argument and don't wish to waste my time on somebody that is being disingenuous. but if i am wrong, and you are serious, i would advise you take some courses in small business management.

i do, however, agree that a cap is a bad idea. i mean, i could see how it might be a good idea if there was concern that doctors were shuffling people in and out, but i'm not aware of that being brought up by anybody and think it's sort of outlandish. i may even argue that it's unconstitutional. if the government is that concerned, it needs to raise revenue and/or cut salaries even further. caps should be a non-starter.

Nadia Alam
We have been tracking how the cuts have affected physicians since they were escalated on October 1. Despite your assertions Ms. Murray that this would never happen, as office revenue (euphemistically called "salary" by the government) drops, physicians are cutting costs to keep their offices open so that they can continue to see patients. When that fails, they cut down on all non-essential staff. When that fails, they close their office. Here is a link to a page that shows which offices have closed in Ontario as of October 10.

https://www.facebook.com/concernedontariodoctors

Please note, this map shows what's happened in less than a month. What do you think will happen if the government continues the cuts to healthcare?

jessica amber murray
they're not cutting health care. they're cutting your salaries. you're cutting health care.

i think we need to take a step back, though. you were arguing that reductions in doctors salaries will lead to cuts in administration jobs. i pointed out that that did not make any sense, because it would not come with a decrease in demand. in response, you've sent me an infographic that suggests that some practices are closing altogether. that's a different argument, and i wouldn't have argued against that as strenuously; i might have suggested that it would be minimal, under the assumption that most doctors are not that greedy. and, i might suggest that you rethink your pr strategy. the idea that what remains a six figure salary is too low to bother practicing reflects very poorly on your profession, especially considering the economic reality right now in this province.

regarding policy, i would suggest that the provincial government work with the federal government to recruit more doctors from outside the country. there's lots of people in the world that would jump at the opportunity to practice medicine in ontario. i'm sorry that what we have to offer is not good enough for you.

Rohan Patel
Do you think you can cut people's salaries and have there be NO effect on healthcare?

jessica amber murray
yes.

they're overpaid.

The Puzzle Palace
I have no proof, and its only an opinion, but I suspect Harper set up Mulcair by trying to turn the niqab into an election issue.

Harper knew how unpopular the niqab was in Quebec - the NDP's current strong hold - and knew that Mulcair would come out in support of a woman's right to wear the niqab.

Looks like it worked, whether it was intentional or not. NDP are down in the polls from what I've seen.

jessica murray
you're no doubt right, but in the end it will likely prove a foolish strategy. it's the same ballot question as the last election in quebec (the quebec charter), and the pq lost the election on it. also, but the situation in context: the pq had just won the election on the backs of the student strike. marois should have had an easy ten years in power, at least, after that fiasco. but, she blew it by trying to force people to not wear the niqab.

i haven't seen the question. but, it's a good example of why we have a clarity act. because the following statements are going to yield vastly different responses:

1) i don't like the niqab. that will yield high agreement.
2) the niqab is oppressive. that will also yield high agreement.
3) i think people should be forced by law to take off the niqab, and face penalties if they refuse to. that will yield broad disagreement.

if you commission a poll measuring 1 or 2, it can easily confuse you into deducing 3. further, it's very hard to campaign on 1 or 2 without having voters conclude that what you mean is 3.

the reality is that a large amount of federal conservative voters just voted against the charter in the last provincial election, and if this ends up framed the same way it's going to hurt them.

so, wait for the dust to settle. it may hurt the ndp, but then the bloc gain. and, any influx of caq voters is likely to be more than offset by a loss of liberal voters. in the end, it hurts the conservatives.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075

bob h.
Lets talk about the real, biggest issue for a second.

Justin's father sold Canada out to private banks. We used to print our own money interest free for infrastructure before Justin's dad came into office. Then he illegally changed it so OUR BANK OF CANADA borrows AT INTEREST (instead of interest free as is mandated in the banks charter - See COMER v. Bank of Canada) from foreign private bankers instead of making our own cash like we did before Trudeau (1974). ALL of our tax dollars now go to foreign private bankers just to try and pay off illegal odious interest (debt), then if we want to do anything we have to borrow more at interest again, and again, and again. Forever debt slaves. P. Trudeau sold Canada out to banksters who then control the policy making through lobby/threats, and they also control much of the media narratives these days too.

Justin saying he wants to run a deficit is him pledging to continue selling us out to those foreign banking "elites" by borrowing more from them at high compounding interest; which will just increase our taxes, sale of Canada's land/resources/services to them at penny's on the dollar, and austerity. Those pricks make trillions from OUR TAX DOLLARS for doing nothing but bribing/buying/blackmailing/bullying our politicians.

Those that know, know Tom and May are aware of this scam and want it stopped. That's why they're slammed on CBC and Canadian MSM regularly. There hasn't been a positive story/light from CBC for anyone other than Justin/Harper for a long time. They're both bankers boys

jessica murray
this is a myth created by paul hellyer. canada has always financed most of it's deficit spending with private money. the bank of canada only funded specific types of infrastructure development. and, in fact, trudeau is proposing more bank of canada borrowing through his new green infrastructure bank.

there was a mild shift from public to private borrowing in the 70s as a consequence of a global agreement that took place after the collapse of bretton-woods. in canada, the shift was from around 20% to around 10%. minor.

and, in fact, trudeau rejected this logic in favour of traditional keynesian ideas on the relationship between employment and inflation. the actual reason that the debt exploded after 1975 is that interest rates were set very high (over 20% sometimes) in order to fight inflation, which was the mainstream economic theory of the day. the cause of this was the opec oil embargo.

there was never a structural debt-to-gdp imbalance during the trudeau years. we just ended up with huge interest payments because the interest rates were ridiculous. and even looking back, today, it's hard to provide a better answer.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075

Animal Farm
only Justin Trudeau has the guts to stand up for a woman's right to choose. Harper and all his niqab BS refuses to declare his stance. he cares nothing about women's rights and everything about the politics of fear and bigotry.

Bogmer
I'm not a Harper supporter but Harper has killed a number of Bills from his own party on banning abortion. He even set up world wide clinics and paid for it so that women can do it safely around the world.

jessica murray
harper has actually cut funding for what is called "family planning" overseas. this is an extremely complex issue that has to take into account a variety of factors on both perspectives that are outside of the traditional western debate on the sanctity of life: the legacy of colonialism, the effects of local culture (including the import of colonial religions), global overpopulation, contraception, the greater prevalence of rape and general lack of gender equality, etc. i'd feel most comfortable with a policy that seeks to encourage changes in local governance, and pushes for contraception over abortion. but, i'm not comfortable with pulling funding for abortion on the basis of pulling funding for abortion, either.

that said, i'm not really concerned about harper regarding the question of abortion rights in canada. i *am* concerned about jason kenney, though. and, harper has indicated that he will not carry out this term. voters should not be lulled into a sense of complacency regarding harper's insistence on short-term moderation on social issues, while he tries to change the culture from the top down to create great public support for his policies. his successor will not be so patient.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075

duceppe is a good debater, and he zinged all three of them. mulcair is again great at articulating a terrible set of arguments that don't belong attached to the ndp, and trudeau is again saying the right things, if at times unconvincingly and often times smugly. and i couldn't care less what harper says. same old same old.

the duceppe factor is what is important, here. see, he can take positions the others can't because he's not actually running for prime minister. so, letting him into the debate immediately changes the narrative. he also has different swing issues with each of the other parties, fighting with harper for caq votes, trudeau for liberal votes (however unlikely) and mulcair for pq votes.

he got a few good ones in on trudeau, particularly relating to his more right-leaning positions. corporate taxes. free trade. these are the reasons that people like me would *like* to vote for the ndp, if their leader wasn't such an obvious conservative. then again, we all know the liberals are a bay street party. they're just unique, in being a fair bay street party. if that helps anyone, it's mulcair.

but, remember: everything is upside down in quebec. trudeau has little to gain from duceppe, but a lot to gain by sucking right-leaning provincial liberal support away from harper and mulcair. it's the right argument to make, in quebec. even if it leaves people like me gritting my teeth, and wishing the ndp hadn't fallen down the rabbit hole.

something strange happened about halfway through the debate, though. duceppe seemed to begin to subtly indicate, several times, that he was endorsing trudeau. it's just the way he presented things, to make trudeau appear in a more favourable light than mulcair. subtle? very. who knows if it gets picked up. but, it's there, and is likely reflective of internal bloc calculations. if you want to call them that. the bloc campaign at this point is not exactly highly funded.

so long as duceppe is showing up at these things, he is going to win almost every debate. he's just not as restricted in what he can do, and it gives him a massive advantage. but, i'm not convinced he's going to win very many seats. it's hard to guess how a four way split like this turns out....

i don't see an obvious winner, otherwise. duceppe maybe hit trudeau harder than he hit the other two. but, the nature of the quebec spectrum is such that it might actually help him. he seems to have hit harper off guard repeatedly, leaving him without any kind of coherent response: he just stated things unconvincingly. and, while mulcair was maybe most prepared, his responses were quite often cringeworthy from a left-of-centre perspective.

i don't see it affecting the unfolding of existing trends

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075

those laws brought in with the transfer agreements need to be overturned, although if somebody is being arrested for "illegal hunting" after marshall it must be under a specific loophole. most canadians have no idea. if they did, they'd be shocked at the lack of economic freedom that we grant the indigenous peoples of this country.

this is never an election issue. but, it's the meta-issue.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-elder-calls-for-federal-election-boycott-1.3252638

mario dumont got 31 percent...

i don't know any study that tries to map things. it would be useful. i can use logic to conclude a few things, including that the ndp was necessarily attracting adq support in at least a few places. you can't map the quebec liberals to the federal liberals; a lot of quebec liberals will vote conservative, federally. if you're naive, you could even get close to quebec liberal numbers by simply adding up recent federal liberal and conservative numbers, although that's no doubt wrong [as some are surely voting ndp]. further, you'd expect quite a few adq supporters would support the bloc, so you can't just go back to 2008 and try and sync up pq and bloc totals.

the bloc's strategy seems to suggest that it's internal polling suggests to it that most of it's remaining voters are at least adq-pq swing voters, if not mostly adq voters, otherwise they wouldn't be nailing it so hard. which means that quite a bit of what the conservatives are attracting must be quebec liberals.

it follows that it would be reasonable to suggest that half of adq voters are supporting the bloc, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. further, it would be reasonable to suggest that a half of quebec liberal voters are supporting the liberals, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. these are *extremely* rough numbers*. yet...

....when i suggested this a few weeks ago, i was thinking about ontario. in quebec? if my calculations are anything close to right, it could be that, when the dust settles, he may have merely shot himself in the foot by pulling in adq support from the ndp at the expense of aligning the provincial and federal liberal vote. if i was stephen harper, the absolute last thing i'd want to do is find a way to align the federal and provincial wings of the liberal party in quebec in voting intentions...

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/02/fasts-office-denies-tpp-auto-deal-reached/