# Tommy Douglas: Still Dangerous!?



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*CSIS won't open full Tommy Douglas file*





> Canada's spy agency is pulling out all the stops to block the release of decades-old intelligence on socialist icon Tommy Douglas.
> 
> In an affidavit filed in Federal Court, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service argues that full disclosure of the file on Douglas could endanger the lives of confidential informants and jeopardize the agency's ability to conduct secret surveillance.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He's already done his damage. No more danger there.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

I think the 'damage' would be in disclosing the practices that CSIS / RCMP employed to dig up dirt on Tommy Douglas.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

With his son and grandson still on the loose, one never can tell. Next, his standing as the #1 Canadian will be taken away ............... then, Medicare will be disbanded and health care will be given over to the private sector .............. then all mention of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) will be stricken from the history books ............... then Weyburn, SK will be stricken off the maps of Canada .............. and then TD will be stricken from all publications within the borders of Canada.

Sad ................. such a great man. Canada owes a true debt of gratitude to this fine person.

Still, with apologies to Richard Blaine in "Casablanca", "We'll always have Mouseland." Paix, mes amis.

"But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea."

Saskatchewan New Democrats - NDP - Standing Up for Saskatchewan Families


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Another Era*

I will bet that unlocking those records would open a snakes nest. This was the McCarthy Era, everyone a communist etc. I am sure that Tommy Douglas was watched 24/7 and there may have even been documents about "eliminating" him after he came to power in Saskatewan.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lichen Software said:


> I will bet that unlocking those records would open a snakes nest. This was the McCarthy Era, everyone a communist etc. I am sure that Tommy Douglas was watched 24/7 and there may have even been documents about "eliminating" him after he came to power in Saskatewan.


My mother told me that during the McCarthy era she and my father hid a copy of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina", along with an album of Russian folk music. I recall cleaning out a closet of "stuff" for my mother in 1979 after my father died (she had lived in the same apartment for 42 years). I came across the two books and the old album (a 78rpm) way in the back of the closet, wrapped in layers upon layers of newpaper and placed in a pillow case. My mother thinks that she did this sometime during the 1953/54 McCarthy witch-hunting investigations in the US Senate.

Yesterday, 60 years ago, McCarthy came to national prominence when he gave a Lincoln Day speech to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia. In this speech, he produced a piece of paper that he claimed contained a list of known Communists working for the State Department.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Lichen Software said:


> I will bet that unlocking those records would open a snakes nest. This was the McCarthy Era, everyone a communist etc. I am sure that Tommy Douglas was watched 24/7 and there may have even been documents about "eliminating" him after he came to power in Saskatewan.


Not to mention the ridiculous things that the "evil enemy agents" may have thought important enough to document. How they surveilled his comings and goings. It might be actually a funny read if it weren't such a sad thing to do to such an honourable man.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Douglas was truly the greatest Canadian of them all. I am proud to have met him briefly when he was Premier of Saskatchewan. I was a kid on a school tour from Saskatoon. He shook hands with each of us and introduced us to the legislature as we sat in the visitor's gallery.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Tommy Douglas and Grant MacEwen are two politicians who somehow managed to earn my respect. I can assure you that is indeed a rare feat.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I recently watched a film called "Keeper of the Flame" about this remarkable man. A bit of Canadian history I (like most Americans) did not know, but am very glad I know now.

Having recently had a small encounter with the Canadian healthcare system, I realise how much I am indebted to him. For personal reasons I won't go into the whole matter, but I was treated with a genuine humanity and compassion that I rarely saw when I lived down south.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*I *love* the Raging Grannies!!!*



(Raging Grannies International)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CM, you would love the Raging Grannies. I would like to see your CSIS file ............... or your CIA file for that matter. Wait until you see what might happen to you when you try to reenter Canada ............ just be sure NOT to have a stopover in the US.  Paz, mi amigo.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Heh... I'm sure I have a file... though I'd probably be disappointed at how slim it is. I've hobknobbed with Cuban ambassadors and other consular officials, the daughter of Che Guevara (Dr. Aleida Guevara - who has been in N.S. on two occasions), made some 19 annual visits to Cuba with extended stays, etc. Unfortunately for CSIS, I'm squeaky-clean 

Sadly, we lost one of our Raging Grannies last year... eternal peace activist Muriel Duckworth:



Muriel was 100 years old at her death. A former Oxfam board member and Quaker, she has an extensive profile at Wikipedia.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Tommy Douglas and Grant MacEwen are two politicians who somehow managed to earn my respect. I can assure you that is indeed a rare feat.


Grant McEwan is another great Canadian with whom I had a memorable encounter. My wife is an alumna of Grant McEwan Community College in Edmonton. She was involved in organizing an alumni event, and I happened to be with her. The guest of honour was Dr. McEwan - to make a long story short, he was early for the event and I was able to have him all to myself for a long conversation. What a guy! He's gone now, but we still have his many books to remember him by.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I find it hard to mesh his support for eugenics with his ideas on health care.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> I find it hard to mesh his support for eugenics with his ideas on health care.


Granted Tommy Douglas never acted on his university thesis, but placing "subnormals" in state-funded camps because of low intelligence, moral laxity or venereal disease and sterilizing the "mentally defective" are pretty ugly ideas.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Gramted Tommy Douglas never acted on his university thesis, but placing "subnormals" in state-funded camps because of low intelligence, moral laxity or venereal disease and sterilizing the "mentally defective" are pretty ugly ideas.


Even given his relatively young age (at the time he wrote the thesis), it still comes across as rather shocking. For someone renowned for going so clearly against the flow with regard to health care, that he fell in line with some of the more radical elements of medical care is a surprise.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Obviously eugenics was a bad idea, but it was fashionable at the time - you could paint all sorts of famous folks with that brush. 

Universal government funded medical care, however, has proved to be a clear winner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerbill said:


> Universal government funded medical care, however, has proved to be a clear winner.


No it hasn't. It has just proved to be the solution chosen by most governments.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> No it hasn't. It has just proved to be the solution chosen by most governments.


Maybe for a reason similar to what Churchill said about democracy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Maybe for a reason similar to what Churchill said about democracy.


I don't really think so. Socialized medicine serves two needs:
1) to make sure each member of society receives a basic type of health care and pays for it without noticing.
2) to ensure that nobody can receive better care than than the person mentioned in number 1, above.

It's the myth of getting it for free and the class envy promulgated by number 2 that keeps socialized medicine alive. There's no other reason to force wealthy people to accept socialized health care.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't really think so. Socialized medicine serves two needs:
> 1) to make sure each member of society receives a basic type of health care and pays for it without noticing.
> 2) to ensure that nobody can receive better care than than the person mentioned in number 1, above.
> 
> It's the myth of getting it for free and the class envy promulgated by number 2 that keeps socialized medicine alive. There's no other reason to force wealthy people to accept socialized health care.


Why would anyone believe health care is free. 

With a service so basic for the security of the person, why would anyone want something as important as health care to be at the whims of miserable shysters only interested in enriching their insatiable avarice?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> With a service so basic for the security of the person, why would anyone want something as important as health care to be at the whims of miserable shysters only interested in enriching their insatiable avarice?


Why would I want something so important as my own health entrusted to anyone but me?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why would I want something so important as my own health entrusted to anyone but me?


If you can do it all yourself then you are the exceptional exception.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> If you can do it all yourself then you are the exceptional exception.


Just like my ancestors before they gave up much of their freedom for a little security.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why would I want something so important as my own health entrusted to anyone but me?


I had no idea you were a medical professional. But even the greatest surgeon can't preform surgery on herself, so you inevitably have to entrust your medical care to someone else. The question is, why should rich people get better care than poor people? I certainly won't argue with the fact that they do, but the question is do we want to exaggerate that in our society?

I don't.

Consequently, I support the idea of all members of society contributing to a fund that pays for the medical care of anyone who needs it. Socializing medical care also has the added benefit that, by removing the profit motive, we can reduce the the tendency of a for-profit system to metamorphose from health-care into sickness-care. Healthy people do not generate profit for HMOs, and are therefore not desirable to a for-profit system. Consequently, there is little systemic intensive to employ the vastly preferable preventative medicine strategies that a not-for-profit system favours. Furthermore, by simple mathematics, it is obvious that any profit taken by medical providers will be a cost that is not born by a non-profit system. The only downside I can see to socialized medicine is that it does not select for monetary efficiency as well as a profit-driven system. However, having experienced the American HMO system first hand, I will eagerly accept our somewhat less financially lucrative system over their system of extracting maximum money out of desperate sick/injured people.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As I have mentioned before, the HMO system in the U.S. is designed by the federal government explicitly to favour insurance companies. It is not a feee market system.

I believe everyone should have the medical care they want to pay for with no top limit. If a person believes they could save their own life by selling their home in order to pay for an operation not sanctioned by the government, they should be free to do this. 

I can still see the reasonableness of setting a slate of services that the government can offer, while not quashing the freedoms of people who want to work harder to purchase health care beyond that. Their aspirations ought not to be crushed to suit someone else's view of the world.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Macfury said:


> As I have mentioned before, the HMO system in the U.S. is designed by the federal government explicitly to favour insurance companies. It is not a feee market system.
> 
> I believe everyone should have the medical care they want to pay for with no top limit. If a person believes they could save their own life by selling their home in order to pay for an operation not sanctioned by the government, they should be free to do this.
> 
> I can still see the reasonableness of setting a slate of services that the government can offer, while not quashing the freedoms of people who want to work harder to purchase health care beyond that. Their aspirations ought not to be crushed to suit someone else's view of the world.


Maybe I'm missing something - seems to me that if I were rich and wanted to pay for some medical procedure to be done right away instead of waiting in line for it, I'd just have to take a bus to Seattle and check myself into a private hospital - which is exactly what rich people here in BC do. So what's your problem?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It is not a feee market system.


What is this "free market system" of which you speak? Can you give me an example outside of a textbook?

But seriously, do you really want health care to be subject to the free market? If you're in danger of dying of a ruptured appendix, what would be the 'supply/demand' value of a timely medical intervention?

Cheers


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What is this "free market system" of which you speak? Can you give me an example outside of a textbook?
> 
> But seriously, do you really want health care to be subject to the free market? If you're in danger of dying of a ruptured appendix, what would be the 'supply/demand' value of a timely medical intervention?
> 
> Cheers


To continue with bryanc's ruptured appendix and "value" concept...

I can see the credit card ad now  :

Plate of Lasagna $12.95
Glass of Chianti $$6.50
Collapse with abdominal pain - free!
Ambulance ride $300
Seeing your next birthday - priceless


Imagine the interest charges on that!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerbill said:


> Maybe I'm missing something - seems to me that if I were rich and wanted to pay for some medical procedure to be done right away instead of waiting in line for it, I'd just have to take a bus to Seattle and check myself into a private hospital - which is exactly what rich people here in BC do. So what's your problem?


Because I prefer to spend my health care dollars at home, and because I don't like to depend on athe existence of a system that is currently under attack by the U.S. federal government.



bryanc said:


> But seriously, do you really want health care to be subject to the free market? If you're in danger of dying of a ruptured appendix, what would be the 'supply/demand' value of a timely medical intervention?


Yes, I would. There have been many times where I would have paid more to get faster service. If I could push my ruptured appendix care to the top of the list I would.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> There have been many times where I would have paid more to get faster service.


Would you really like to live in a society where the rich person's sore throat takes priority over the poor person's ruptured appendix? Because that's what a free market will yield. The market has no compassion, no morals, no anticipation of future costs... it doesn't even have enlightened self interest.

In my estimation the free market does a great job optimizing the provision of a significant majority of products and services, but it is not a panacea, and it demonstrably does not do a good job of managing certain kinds of products and services.

Horses for courses.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Would you really like to live in a society where the rich person's sore throat takes priority over the poor person's ruptured appendix? Because that's what a free market will yield. The market has no compassion, no morals, no anticipation of future costs... it doesn't even have enlightened self interest.


Of course it doesn't. The people involved have compassion and morals which wolud be translated into care. Under the current system I've watched sporting figures jump to the head of the line, and entire sports teams and hospital boards of directors receive flu inoculations ahead of the general population. Knowing an influential person at a hospital can knock months off your waiting time. The free market and socialism both rely on the morals of those in charge.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Purpose of Government*

I keep seeing free market economy rearing it's head. It does have it's place, but I figure that the purpose of government is to provide common goods. So to me:

Health
Defense
Education

Are pretty much at the forefront and are properly the business of the government of the day, not the business of business.

Gifts to Samsung, GM, Chrysler don't turn me on. I am paying for something I will never have any benefit from. People in Oshawa had a real good ride for many years. They should have money in the bank. The girl working at Horton's should not be asked to help pay for their lost life style.

Loans in times of total chaos are another thing. They get paid back .. or not. But the idea is to stem chaos that can infect the rest of the system. It is worth a try.

Maybe if government stayed to truely common goods, there would be more money left and no health care queue.

The U.S. is notorious for their "Eat Their Own" policies. The great idea was "Trickle Down". If the rich get richer, some will flow out to the poor. It has become quite clear that the real name is not Trickle Down but P*ssed Upon. Average age of death for the states should be lowest in the world based on the fact that they are the highest percent of GDP by a huge margin on health care. It is not. I think they are down at about 25th. A general measure of a country's overall health is the average height of the population. That honour now goes to the Netherlands. The U.S. is no where in the running.

I am old enough to have grown up without government medical. I remember having ear aches and chronic ear infections and my parents going for the hot ear oil drops or anything to not have to go to the hospital and pay for that penicillan shot. I am the one who paid - I was 60% deaf in one ear and 40% deaf in the other. My kids were never subjected to that and I do not think any kid should be subjected to that.

If government health care was the only thing that Tommy Douglas ever did ( and it is not), he should be revered throught the country. No, he did not bring it in federally, but if the Liberals had not, the people would have turned against them.

Back to where I started ... I do believe that the purpose of government is to provide common goods. If that interferes with the free market system - too bad. If it is a common good, rationing through the availability of money is saying that the folks are not as good as the people.

If you want to pursue the argument on free market as the great god... The rich should pay 95% plus for defense. They get by far the greatest benefit from a civil society and basically get it for free all things being considered.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lichen: My three: Defense, education, judiciary. I agree that the government would have plenty of money for basic health care if it stopped handing out corporate welfare to which I am opposed. However, I resent having choices taken away from me. If I want to get a particular treatment I don't believe I should be prevented from spending my own money to buy it, just because people who chose not to buy it are offended. I don't believe a private health care provider should be thrown in jail for offering people an MRI in one day on a fee basis, instead of in three months through taxes. Decide which procedures are covered by the government and let people buy anything above that. Let them pay their taxes, which pay for health care, then let them choose to spend more if they want to.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lichen Software said:


> I figure that the purpose of government is to provide common goods. So to me:
> 
> Health
> Defense
> Education


Add the protection of the environment, and assuming you include police/fire/ambulance, and we're in violent agreement :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Add the protection of the environment, and assuming you include police/fire/ambulance, and we're in violent agreement :clap:


Where's the scientific research funding?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Add the protection of the environment, and assuming you include police/fire/ambulance, and we're in violent agreement :clap:


I was trying to hit the top three. There are ones where you will have universal agreement. As you go down the list people will start falling off on one thing or another. 

The basic principal was what was being illustrated. When you deviate from it, you are providing government services for "Special" people or conversely, not providing services to all that are really to the benefit of all. 

Governments "Like" to get re-elected, so there is always an incentive to violate that principal to curry favour from particular groups at the polls. In Ontario here, all day Kindergarden is I think a good example. It is not education, but rather really high priced babysitting for two income families.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Lichen: My three: Defense, education, judiciary. I agree that the government would have plenty of money for basic health care if it stopped handing out corporate welfare to which I am opposed. However, I resent having choices taken away from me. If I want to get a particular treatment I don't believe I should be prevented from spending my own money to buy it, just because people who chose not to buy it are offended. I don't believe a private health care provider should be thrown in jail for offering people an MRI in one day on a fee basis, instead of in three months through taxes. Decide which procedures are covered by the government and let people buy anything above that. Let them pay their taxes, which pay for health care, then let them choose to spend more if they want to.


So what is "basic" healthcare? In your estimation, which items fall into that basket of goods and services?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> So what is "basic" healthcare? In your estimation, which items fall into that basket of goods and services?


What falls into it now?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What falls into it now?


I don't understand your view of what is basic healthcare would look like and how add on's (extra purchase options) would work in your view. For that matter what a system you invision would look like.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It would look like this. You get what you get right now, but if you want to pay extra for faster service in a private clinic in Canada, nobody will fine or arrest you.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*You have that now*



Macfury said:


> It would look like this. You get what you get right now, but if you want to pay extra for faster service in a private clinic in Canada, nobody will fine or arrest you.


The only thing is they have to decide up front - are we public or are we private. They can't suck and blow at the same time. 

There is no law against private clinics. Lets be clear, the reason they are not there for a particular service at a particular time is that there is a lot of gravy in the public system ... Enough such that they do not make the switch to private only.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> The only thing is they have to decide up front - are we public or are we private. They can't suck and blow at the same time.
> 
> There is no law against private clinics. Lets be clear, the reason they are not there for a particular service at a particular time is that there is a lot of gravy in the public system ... Enough such that they do not make the switch to private only.


You're wrong about that. There are plenty of laws that prevent the operation of private clinics for many services. Remember the mobile MRI clinic that was offering service to Ontarians a few years back? Dalton McGuinty made it illegal for private businesses to own an MRI--unless you were a veterinarian. If I ask my doctor to perform a procedure not listed by the Ontario government and want to pay him in cash for that service, we are both in trouble.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You're wrong about that. There are plenty of laws that prevent the operation of private clinics for many services. Remember the mobile MRI clinic that was offering service to Ontarians a few years back? Dalton McGuinty made it illegal for private businesses to own an MRI--unless you were a veterinarian. If I ask my doctor to perform a procedure not listed by the Ontario government and want to pay him in cash for that service, we are both in trouble.


I stand corrected


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You're wrong about that. There are plenty of laws that prevent the operation of private clinics for many services. Remember the mobile MRI clinic that was offering service to Ontarians a few years back? Dalton McGuinty made it illegal for private businesses to own an MRI--unless you were a veterinarian. If I ask my doctor to perform a procedure not listed by the Ontario government and want to pay him in cash for that service, we are both in trouble.


Interesting! But what about these websites: 

IRM Ottawa, Gatineau, Hull clinique IRM médicale privée - Imagerie par résonance magnétique ;
Ontario MRI Centres - Mississauga and Toronto ;
Kingston MRI .

Are you saying there are no private clinics at all in Ontario. No one providing plastic surgery of any kind because it is illegal?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Interesting! But what about these websites:


The few MRI clinics you listed operated under a contract to the provincial Conservatives. They are allowed to take "private" clients from such organizations as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. However, they can't take individual clients off the street. If I were to walk in with a requisition for an MRI it would be denied. The provincial Liberals have threatened to shut them down, asked them to sell their assets to the province, or become non-profit entities because they're wary of the legal battles involved in breaking the contract. They continue to operate under the original contract.

Since McGuinty's election, he has declared the mobile MRI clinics illegal and has prevented the establishment of new private clinics.



BigDL said:


> Are you saying there are no private clinics at all in Ontario. No one providing plastic surgery of any kind because it is illegal?


I'm not saying there are no private clinics. They merely aren't allowed to compete with hospitals.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Interesting! But what about these websites:
> 
> IRM Ottawa, Gatineau, Hull clinique IRM médicale privée - Imagerie par résonance magnétique ;
> Ontario MRI Centres - Mississauga and Toronto ;
> ...


In spite of its name - the first one you've listed is actually located in Quebec. I don't know the other two - my daily commute has never taken me through Kingston or Toronto.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, I seem to be at risk of "re-hijacking" the thread back to CSIS's file on Tommy Douglas and it's refusal to release details about his file. Usually I'm the one going off on Tangents ... oh well.

Anyway, I don't think CSIS is particularly worried about what they have on Tommy Douglas becoming public. I'm pretty sure it's about something else that they want to keep under wraps, and that they want to protect "someone" other than the RCMP (which was Canada's Spy Agency before a spy scandal in Quebec ... the short answer is stuff about the RCMP spying domestically on separatists in Quebec, and there's this thing about burning down a barn. That's plenty of info if anyone wants to look further).

You see, one of the things Tommy Douglas' CCF administration in Saskatchewan had as a platform prior to election, and that they implemented once elected in 1944, is Premier Douglas wanted to shake up how government approached administration, and in particular how government tended to constantly re-employ the same solutions to the same problems, with little effect.

Note: no-one would call you crazy if you re-read that previous paragraph, and noted the date. There was some sh*t going on then, and people, especially people in Government all over the world, were kind of uptight about a lot of stuff; "new ideas" was not necessarily a popular approach to anything. "How soon can we get back to things we know, and business as usual" was perhaps a more common sentiment.

Anyway, part of that approach Tommy Douglas implemented was to hire consultants, from academia, to advise the Government of Saskatchewan about this thing or that. This was a sharp contrast to letting the same Civil Servants to run the show, with the usual resistance to change, etc.

Now, before I go further, I just want to get it out of the way right now ... I'm a believer in a professional Civil Service that is competent (due to experience) and apolitical (because governments change, but the Post Office just keeps on delivering mail). Canada has, broadly speaking, a very competent civil service in that regard.

People complain here in Canada, but if you take a hard look around, most nations don't pull this off as well as we do, not the least because interfering with that tradition is the fastest way for the latest "Big Cheeze" to make sweeping changes in his or her own fashion. So, it's not easy. The Brits lead by example, but the list gets shorter very quickly.

Back to Tommy and the CCF in Canada's Sunshine State.

A lot of these "experts" provided good advice and very much helped with CCF reforms, and helped establish a tradition with the CCF and the NDP in Saskatchewan that exists to this day: These are governments that, despite their political philosophies which are very much aligned with Social Democrats, are very fiscally conservative.

Almost without exception, it's the CCF and NDP administrations in Saskatchewan who pay the bills, don't implement things they can't pay for, balance budgets and inevitably pay down the debt that the "conservatives" (up until the 70's in Saskatchewan, they were Liberal Governments; now the same people fly the Conservative banner) run up during their times at the helm.

Very much contrary to the conventional wisdom (and difficult to replicate ... Bob Rae failed miserably to grasp the concept in Ontario, for example).

So, what does all this happen to do with CSIS?

Well, it turns out, through Freedom Of Information requests over the years, particularly since about 1980, in the 'good old USA', we know that the CIA actively recruited these academics or experts in their fields, who were employed by the Government, as agents and encouraged them to spy on the CCF Government of Saskatchewan during the 1950's.

This is a fairly sensitive issue. The US was not "supposed to be" actively planting it's agents within the highest levels of "friendly" governments, regardless of whatever spies they could recruit in the normal course of their dirty (but necessary) business. Apparently the number of CIA operatives recruited from US Universities who were given the task of actively applying for these positions was at a scale unheard of before, or since, at least with regard to a Canadian Government.

It's my own opinion that the refusal to release "everything" that CSIS inherited from the RCMP and the unprecedented level of infiltration within a democratic government of a friendly power by the CIA prevents the disclosure of these files.

The timing's not right; perhaps if 9/11 hadn't happened when it did there would be fewer objections, but the parties that could be hampered are still hoping to keep the paranoid from going "I told you so", when so much work, especially government-to-government cooperation, is yet undone.

It's practically guaranteed that simply having Tommy Douglas's name associated with any such disclosure would cause a very unwelcome light to be shone on some of this stuff. This is a guy who made #4 on the National Poll of who was "The Greatest Canadian", after all. There are people who just want it to go away, not make headlines.

I learned about it in University more than 20 years ago ... it's not a secret within some circles, and it's well documented; complete with naming agents and disclosure of the payroll. The world has moved on, and it's not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. But, no need to stir the pot, so to speak; there are a lot of people to whom this would be news, and it's practically guaranteed that some new info would be part of any release of the file. Yes, undoubtably, he's "still dangerous".


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

He was dangerous then, too, by the way.
YouTube
Turn it up a bit, it's a very old recording.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gordguide said:


> He was dangerous then, too, by the way.
> YouTube
> Turn it up a bit, it's a very old recording.


Good one, gg. It's true ........... "you can't lock up an idea." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tommy Douglas's intelligence report missing pages*





> Dozens of pages from a decades-old intelligence file on socialist icon Tommy Douglas have mysteriously disappeared.
> 
> The disappearance came to light during a lengthy court battle over the federal government's refusal to fully disclose the RCMP dossier on the former Saskatchewan premier and one-time federal NDP leader.
> 
> Library and Archives Canada, which currently holds the 1,142-page dossier, initially released just over 450 heavily censored pages in response to a request by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.





> The government assured the court "no actions were taken" to remove pages before responding to the access request. And it concluded there is no remedy "because the pages can not be found in the existing file."



(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps Tommy Douglas himself was missing a few pages, and the report reflects this.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps Tommy Douglas himself was missing a few pages, and the report reflects this.


Gordguides explanation is far more likely.

We would not want to upset the Paranoid State of America.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps Tommy Douglas himself was missing a few pages, and the report reflects this.


Macfury, may your life bring about as much social change and positive results for many people as did the life and work of Tommy Douglas. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, may your life bring about as much social change and positive results for many people as did the life and work of Tommy Douglas. Paix, mon ami.


Certainly the rationing of care makes it more affordable, but I'm thankful Douglas stopped where he did before he brought more such "change" to the country.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Certainly the rationing of care makes it more affordable, but I'm thankful Douglas stopped where he did before he brought more such "change" to the country.


Well, let's hope that when and if "The Greatest Canadian" television program is ever revived, that you shall find yourself amongst the likes of Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A, Lester Pearson, Sir Frederick Banting, Pierre Trudeau, Terry Fox and Tommy Douglas as having had a great impact upon the people of Canada. Bonne chance, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, let's hope that when and if "The Greatest Canadian" television program is ever revived, that you shall find yourself amongst the likes of Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A, Lester Pearson, Sir Frederick Banting, Pierre Trudeau, Terry Fox and Tommy Douglas as having had a great impact upon the people of Canada. Bonne chance, mon ami.


Douglas had an impact, I grant him that.

I have a lot of respect for people like Bell and Fox, who used their own resources to bring about change, instead of appropriating the resources of others.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Douglas had an impact, I grant him that.
> 
> I have a lot of respect for people like Bell and Fox, who used their own resources to bring about change, instead of appropriating the resources of others.


Douglas used the resources and the means of production of the people for the benefit of the population instead of a few of the elite and their profits as you might prefer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Douglas used the resources and the means of production of the people for the benefit of the population instead of a few of the elite and their profits as you might prefer.


No, he arranged to take by law what people used to have a choice about. That is nothing to be celebrated.

The money is being taken from the people.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Douglas used the resources and the means of production of the people for the benefit of the population instead of a few of the elite and their profits as you might prefer.


Amen, Brother BigDL. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> No, he arranged to take by law what people used to have a choice about. That is nothing to be celebrated.
> 
> The money is being taken from the people.


Douglas, a Baptist minister turned politician, deeply believed in the CCF's slogan of "Humanity First," a comment on the party's belief that the common good should supersede private interests. Yes, you are correct that people have the right to choose to die by ill health and malnourishment. His time in Weyburn, SK allowed Douglas a first hand perspective of the harshness of the Depression in the prairies. Douglas knew that something had to be done for "the common man". His experience with the vast unemployment and poverty transformed T.C. Douglas, the clergyman, into a social activist.

"In 1944, the CCF, under Douglas, won the provincial election to become the first socialist government in North America. The CCF election slogan was "Humanity First" and his government’s budget was to have 70% of expenditure to social services. Douglas’s emphasized that his brand of socialism depended on political and economic democracy. Saskatchewan listened. In 1944, the old age pension plan included medical, hospital and dental services. Douglas’ government radically changed the education system and established larger school units and provided the University of Saskatchewan with a medical school. In his first four years in government, Douglas paid off the provincial debt, created a province wide hospitalization plan, paved the roads, and provided electricity and sewage pipes to the common man."

I guess the bottom line is one of priorities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hurrah! Power to the people--except for "defectives." Remember, however, that even after sterilization, a defective can still have intercourse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, he arranged to take by law what people used to have a choice about. That is nothing to be celebrated.
> 
> The money is being taken from the people.


you forgot to finish the sentence...



> The money is being taken from the peopl_e and given back to the people._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Hurrah! Power to the people--except for "defectives." Remember, however, that even after sterilization, a defective can still have intercourse.


Please tell me that this is a bad example of humor in very bad taste, Macfury? I hope that I am misreading your comment and the overt/covert point. While we don't agree on certain things politically, I can't believe that you are trying to be this insensitive to people with exceptionalities.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I fear you may be a tad too gracious in your expectations of MF, Dr. G.; the man prides himself on the sterling rigidity of his ideology.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

or, the convenience of...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Please tell me that this is a bad example of humor in very bad taste, Macfury? I hope that I am misreading your comment and the overt/covert point. While we don't agree on certain things politically, I can't believe that you are trying to be this insensitive to people with exceptionalities.


These are the words of Tommy Douglas, Dr. G. He was a supporter of eugenics and favoured sterilizing people he referred to as "defectives." He noted, however, that even when sterilized, defectives could still have intercourse.

I am not a supporter of eugenics.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macfury once again, fails to spot what has changed, since 1930.

Probably part of all that pent up desire for muskets, revolution, power to the people stuff.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TD recanted his own master's thesis, and when he became premier had SK as one of the first provinces to implement progressive training and educational programs for persons with challenging needs.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> TD recanted his own master's thesis, and when he became premier had SK as one of the first provinces to implement progressive training and educational programs for persons with challenging needs.


not only that but even rejected the chance to implement it when presented the opportunity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

M-hmmm. The object lesson of seeing those progressive policies in action in Nazi Germany took the wind out of a lot of sails.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> TD recanted his own master's thesis, and when he became premier had SK as one of the first provinces to implement progressive training and educational programs for persons with challenging needs.


Meanwhile the Atom Smasher sleeps with his beloved autographed copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged from his college days, next to his pillow every night.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

perhaps it's some pent up rage, or, rather, fury, about anyone bringing up that Harper was part of a group that wants to do away with the Canada Health Act, or, references to the firewall around Alberta.

Except none of this was in this 1920s.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> perhaps it's some pent up rage, or, rather, fury, about anyone bringing up that Harper was part of a group that wants to do away with the Canada Health Act, or, references to the firewall around Alberta.
> 
> Except none of this was in this 1920s.


You need to state your ideas more clearly. The above is a word salad.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You need to state your ideas more clearly. The above is a word salad.


I really couldn't care less actually.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I really couldn't care less actually.


This is evident. Thanks for your input.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Judge troubled by censored Tommy Douglas files*





> In his strongest language yet, Judge Simon Noel ordered Library and Archives Canada to review its decision to conceal sections of a newly declassified file on the father of medicare, calling the office’s approach “troubling” and “worrisome.”
> 
> A portion of the 1,142-page dossier, which revealed the Mounties had spied on the former Saskatchewan premier beginning in 1939, was first released to Canadian Press journalist Jim Bronskill through a 2005 access-to-information request.
> 
> Personal files maintained by the RCMP can be released 20 years after a person’s death — the first federal leader of the NDP died in 1986 — but the dossier sent to Mr. Bronskill contained just 400 heavily censored pages.


(National Post)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Tommy was a saviour, not a threat. The only real threat to this country is the dinks who withhold this type of information years later.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hold Douglas in minimal regard, but what the hell--release the papers. Why be so worried about something that happened in a different era?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> Tommy was a saviour, not a threat. The only real threat to this country is the dinks who withhold this type of information years later.


:clap::clap::clap:

Very true, Sinc.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> M-hmmm. The object lesson of seeing those progressive policies in action in Nazi Germany took the wind out of a lot of sails.


Probably. This is a good example of how the left learns from history; the right continues to apply social and economic theory that has failed to work over and over and over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Probably. This is a good example of how the left learns from history; the right continues to apply social and economic theory that has failed to work over and over and over.


byranc: I could demolish that argument, but would rather carry it on in another thread.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tommy Douglas secrecy order appealed by Ottawa*





> The Harper government is appealing a court order to lift the shroud of secrecy over a decades-old RCMP dossier on socialist trailblazer Tommy Douglas.
> 
> Federal Court Justice Simon Noel ordered the government in August to reconsider its decision to withhold at least one-third of the 1,142-page security intelligence file and heavily censor the rest.
> 
> He gave Library and Archives Canada 90 days to determine what additional information ought to be released in response to a six-year-old Access to Information request by The Canadian Press.





> Throughout the lengthy court battle over the Douglas dossier, the government strenuously maintained that full disclosure could give away secrets of the spy trade and jeopardize the country's ability to detect, prevent or suppress "subversive or hostile activities" — *even though the intelligence on Douglas was gathered as long as 70 years ago.*


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeepers, let the old coot's files clear.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Tommy was a saviour, not a threat. The only real threat to this country is the dinks who withhold this type of information years later.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Can you believe this is still going on?_

*Fight over secret Tommy Douglas file goes to top court*





> The Supreme Court of Canada is being asked to settle a seven-year battle to lift the shroud of secrecy over a decades-old intelligence dossier on socialist trailblazer Tommy Douglas.





> "Our simple position is that information that's gathered for intelligence or national security should not be hidden away from Canadians for all time. At some point, that information can and should become available to historians and journalists and the Canadian public so that we can better understand our history."





> The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which replaced the Mounties' security service and advised Library and Archives on release of the Douglas file, has argued strenuously against full disclosure.
> 
> Although some information in the file dates back almost 80 years, the agency maintains uncensored release of the dossier would reveal secrets of the spy trade, which could jeopardize the lives of confidential informants and compromise the agency's ability to conduct secret surveillance.





> Champ said he believes the government is going to the wall over the Douglas file primarily because CSIS fears embarrassment from further revelations about the extent to which one of Canada's most beloved political figures was spied on.
> 
> Documents released thus far show the Mounties spied on Douglas from the late 1930s to shortly before his death in 1986.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The guy is spent force--open the file already.


----------

