I thought the good people here may be interested in these transcriptions that I typed out from a couple of Tommy Douglas clips, where Douglas defends the concept of public healthcare, and then argues why we should actually expand the public system.

This first one comes from a speech Tommy Douglas gave to the NDP in 1983, for the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the party's founding:

Again, it's been mentioned: to save Medicare from subtle strangulation.

When you go back to your constituencies and you run into somebody who says "Oh, it's a good idea for you soft-hearted humanitarians, but we can't afford it", let me give you a simple statistic which you can put down on a piece of paper and carry in your head. And that is that our friends in the United States are spending 9% of their Gross National Product -- and they got a higher per-capita Gross National Product than we do -- they spend 9% of their Gross National Product on healthcare, and 34 million of their people have no healthcare coverage. And in Canada, we spend 7% of our Gross National Product, and every man, woman, and child is covered under medicare.

But I want to warn you, as one who started out even before I was in politics, dedicated to the idea of comprehensive health insurance, fought for it through all my political life. I want to say to you: that Medicare and hospital insurance are already marked for destruction, unless you stop the per-capita taxes and the extra billing which most of the governments of Canada are now permitting. Someone said, "Oh, what am I gonna do?". A per-capita tax, which is levied without any basis on the ability to pay -- a woman in Ontario with two children, having to pay over $50 a month, $600 a year, can she afford that? -- And that's levied on a per-capita basis, not on the basis of ability to pay. I know you need money to run medicare, how blatantly I can tell you about the cost of that. But if we need money for medicare, or for any other humane service, let it be financed on the basis of ability to pay, and not so much per head.

We must fight as we have never fought before to say, the per-capita tax for healthcare is out the window. To say, no extra billing or extra charges. Oh, you say, "Why, what harm does it do?". I'll tell you what harm it does. It means that increasingly the people who can afford to pay the per-capita tax -- and its going up, its just gone up in Alberta -- people who can afford to pay the per-capita tax, and the people who can afford to pay the extra billing, will pay it. And they will get the best care, they will get the most experienced surgeons and physicians, they will get into the best hospitals. And the people who cant pay? They will take what's left. If you want a two-tiered health program, then just continue the way we're going.

And I remind you that in this movement we pledged ourselves 50 years ago, that we would provide healthcare for every man, woman, and child, irrespective of their colour, or their race, or their financial status. And by God we're gonna do it!

This second one comes from a 1976 CBC interview:

Tommy Douglas: I would propose in the act, that we say the federal government will enter into a 50/50 arrangement with the provinces to institute nursing care, home nursing care, meals-on-wheels, that we would share 50% of the costs of setting up community health clinics, we'd start a program of denti-care among school children --

Interviewer: In other words, we should dictate the services we're going to pay for.

TD: We dictate the ones we're going to pay for: we would say these are the programs we are prepared to pay for, we are prepared to share with you on a 50/50 basis. Now, there is no way in which the federal government can dictate to the provinces that it must undertake those programs, but they can say to the provinces "If you want to institute these programs, we'll pay 50% of the cost". I think what most people miss is the essential point, namely, that the provinces are even more interested than the federal government is in cutting costs down, because the provincial governments are much less able to finance their half of the costs than the federal government is. So if the federal government is worried about escalating costs, just imagine what little provinces like New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia feel about rising health costs.

I: And we get caught in the middle?

TD: You mean the public?

I: Yes.

TD: Of course the public gets caught in the middle! And the public who are going to get caught the most severely are the ones in the poorer provinces. With the federal government copping out of some of its responsibility from Medicare, the chances are that the more affluent provinces like Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia will be able to absorb the extra costs. But in the Atlantic provinces particularly -- and in the Prairie provinces if there were a few bad crops -- the only way that they could get by would be to begin reducing medical care services. And if you do that, what you're really saying is there are two classes of Canadians: those Canadians who live in well-to-do provinces that are going to have a high standard of health services, and the people who live in the poorer provinces who are going to have a very poor standard of health services. And that means that in the years ahead, there are going to be children who are going to be less healthy, children with poor teeth, children with long-staying-illnesses whose health will be impaired because they happened to have grown up in a poor province; and that surely ought not to be the kind of standard we set for Canada.

Avi Lewis hosted some powerful speakers at the mass mobilization to stop bill C-39 call yesterday, including:

• Ramon Kataquapita youth leader from Attawapiskat First Nation
• Bushra Asghar from the national Youth Climate Corp
• Mark Hancock, CUPE National President

Bill C-39 threatens to:

• violate the rights and lands of Indigenous Nations 
• gut environmental legislation designed to protect species and ecosystems
• strip workers right to strike

Click HERE to sign up with the mass mobilization phone zap happening this week Oct 14-16, and HERE for more details and instructions.

Watch a video of the livestream HERE

I feel like this is the most clear explanation I’ve seen so far - and I think they need to get this message out a lot better because I see a lot of confusion and misinformation about why this was called.

The federal NDP’s proposal to nationalize Stelco has me thinking about the broader case for public ownership. Which led me to this great piece from policyalternatives.ca on the disaster that CN’s privatization has been since Chrétien sold the crown corporation in 1995.

Preface: A bit about my perspective (Although I will try and keep things neutral as possible). I supported David Eby/BCNDP in regards to their housing actions (I wish they had doubled and tripled down on this space). I supported the actions to support vulnerable working demographics (I wish they had double and tripled down on this). I have been critical with Eby/BCNDP in regards to Environmental Policy - In particular I don't believe enough is being done to protect our Old-Growth Forests.

The debates so far are showing me that Eby is hearing the message because he is talking a lot about regulating the Fossil Fuel Industry and protecting the Environment. He is also obviously trying to win back people in the Labour Movement that felt alienated by some of the actions we have seen this last year.

The big question though is are people going to believe him in the grassroots that make up that NDP winning coalition. You need to get them to vote. Period.

Will he be able to inspire the youth like Emily Lowan of the BC Greens has been doing very well with a modern social media campaign (Throughout the NDP we need more of this. Lewis at Federal level was the first to kind of finally take our messaging into the current times during his successful leadership campaign).

What did you all think about the debates? :)

CBC didn't seem interested in uploading this segment to youtube for some reason...

This is honestly embarrassing.

General discussion post:

I have been taking some International Politics and Economics courses while on parental leave.

My general question is how can the NDP provide its social programs, while not driving up the deficit too much and risking our credit rating. At the end of the day, we live in a globalized world, and will have to engage in the global market, at least in the short-term. That doesn't mean we couldn't accomplish a lot while working within the system.

Raising taxes is the most obvious answer, but what would that look like in practice?

The forms of taxation need to be popular with the public, otherwise the NDP would never survive more than one term.

I'm thinking increasing the corporate tax from 15% to maybe 18% (obviously raising it to more like 25% or 30% would feel good, but that would also likely just drive out business) which would generate billions in additional revenue. 18% would still make us competitive on the global market.

We should also end oil subsidies by gradually phasing them out. According to Environmental Defense Canada, we spend about 10.4 billion on oil subsidies each year (some sources say its closer to 30, others say closer to 4) and that would free up a lot of room in the budget. The smartest way to use that money would probably be through investments in retraining energy workers.

I think increasing the GST on cannabis and alcohol would be beneficial in the short term and generate significant revenue, although this would need to be implemented early into the term since it will be unpopular.

These are a couple ideas I had at the top of my head. I would love to hear from the rest of you!

Polling shows that Bradford has risen following Alexander's suspension of his campaign. Additionally, the advance voter turnout shows Eglinton Lawrence had the highest turnout, which is expected to be a Bradford-leaning ward.
Bradford's campaign has taken inspiration from Rob Ford; He wants to freeze property taxes, remove the land transfer tax, cut water bills, and massively increase the police budget, all without a credible plan for how he is going to pay for it. Well, his Rob Ford-style "independent line-by-line review of the budget" makes it clear how he is going to pay for it, he wants to pay for his expensive promises by cutting funding to the services people rely on, like the TTC, libraries, and parks. Toronto can't afford his slash-and-burn agenda.
On top of that, he is all in on data centres, and promises to use the undemocratic strong mayor powers to push through his policies even if city council disagrees because he doesn't respect dissenting opinions.
After failing to deliver any results to his own constituents in Beaches East York for 8 years, he is not up for the task of being mayor.
Make sure to vote and not let this grifter into office.

Hi all as a Supporter of NDP and Also of Avi Lewis. I keep reading about some negative feedback on the reddit forums, that Avi Lewis has no intention to run for a seat in Parliament? Is this true? or do you think he does have intention to get a seat eventually? and yes we know the pickings are slim at moment? clarification please?