Alberta's Third Way

Today Alberta has unveiled its first glimpse of what is new health care will look like. Much like the Quebec plan, it plans to expand the number of procedures one can buy private health insurance and plans to go even further by allowing doctors to work in both the public and private systems. While these plans are controversial, I believe it is a step in the right direction. Our health care system is eating up way too large a share of our budget, so we must look at alternatives including the establishment of a parallel private system. My only concern is that doctors who work in both the public and private systems have strict limits on how long they can work in the private system. I would prefer that they be required to work as many hours as they do now in the public system and only be allowed to work overtime in the private system unless they completely opt out. For example if a doctors works 40 hours in the public system, but then decides they went to put in an extra 20 hours in the private system, I see nothing wrong here. In most jobs, you cannot fail to show up for your shift to work at another job, however there is nothing to stop one from working at another job once their shift is over, so I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to doctors. Also all doctors working in the private system should be required to work in stand alone private clinics, otherwise no use of public facilities or adjoining facilities to a public facility. I know some morally object to the idea of the rich jumping the queue, but lets remember there is no system anywhere in the World where the rich don't get quicker service. It is regrettable, but it already happens as they always have the option of going south of the border so I would much rather they jump the queue here in Canada then go to the United States. As for what the federal government should do, I really don't think it matters is Alberta has a large enough surplus they could always opt out of the national health care program, which is perfectly legal. The Canada Health Act doesn't prohibit a parallel private system, it only says provinces who violate the act won't get federal funding, but all provinces have the right to forgo federal funding.

As a side note I was glad to hear Liberal leadership potential Martin Cauchon thinks we should stop treating health care as a sacred cow and be open to debate on how to improve the system. While he didn't say how he wants to change it, if it all, I do think we need a rationale debate on health care, rather than simple fearmongering. He is not my first choice for Liberal leader, but certainly this is a debate that every party ought to have regardless of what position they formally take.

Canada's Best Winter Olympics

Okay, this is probably my first non-political post and maybe my last for some time, but I really felt I had to comment on Canada's outstanding performance at the Winter Olympics in Turin. While I know many were disappointed that Canada's Men's Hockey didn't medal or world champion speed skater, Jeremy Witherspoon didn't either, we won 24 medals coming in third place ahead of both Norway and Russia while only one medal behind the Americans and 5 behind the Germans. This is our best ever showing in the Winter olympics and our second best ever in any olympic (our best was 44 medals in 1984 in Los Angeles, but that was because the Eastern bloc countries boycotted the games). This is great news for Canada and I am optimistic we will do even better when Canada hosts the games in 2010 right here in Vancouver. Our goal for 2010 was to have the most medals of any country and to win 30 medals. Based on how well we did here, I believe we can do it. More importantly, I am positive Canada will end its reign as being the only country to host an olympic games that didn't win a gold medal when hosting it. Certainly we were strong in speed skating, but I also want to pay tribute to how strong the women did compared to the men. Back when Nancy Greene medalled in 1968, women competing in the olympics was rare and even rarer to medal. Today, almost half of our olympic team are female. More importantly 2/3 of Canada's medal were won by female athletes, so bravo to the women. If only our men performed as well as our women we would have come first in medal standings. On a final note, I should send my congratulations to all medalists regardless of which country they represented. The olympics is not just about winning, it is also about sportsmanship and peace between nations through sport. Finally congratulations to all those who just made it to the olympics. Very few people make the olympics. Being an olympian requires incredible sacrifices in the amount of time one must give up to spend training, yet despite the time, most athletes live below poverty unlike the millionaires in professional sports. Finally on a political note, I fully agree with what Denis Coderre said a week ago in response to Peter Julian who said funding to the olympics should be to the point that it comes at the expense of our social programs. His rebuttal was funding the olympics actually provides savings to health care in the long-run as the more people become involved in sports, the healthier people are and the less likely they are to use our health care system.

BC's Budget

Yesterday, Finance minister Carole Taylor brought down her first budget. On the whole I thought it was a well rounded budget. When one considers right wing groups and left wing groups were both complaining that is a good sign it is a pretty middle of the road budget. More tax cuts would be nice, but they are not urgent since our tax rates our quite competitive compared to other provinces whereas in 2001 they were considerably higher than other provinces leading to many talented people moving elsewhere. Certainly more funding for important social programs makes logical sense. I also think it is important to remember the BC Liberals are a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives so I've argued that the party needs to keep both sides happy. Since Campbell governed like a conservative in his first term, I think it is logical to govern like a Liberal in the second term. This is not about flip-flopping, rather about keeping the big tent together. Chretien did the same thing by being centre-right in his first-term thus keeping the Blue Liberals happy, while being centre-left in his third term thus keeping the progressive Liberals happy. I know some were disappointed that the PST wasn't cut, but while a PST cut is certainly a plus, I would rather see income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, or capital gains tax cuts, which do more to stimulate economic growth than a sales tax cut. If we are going to cut the PST, I support the idea of reducing it to 4% in areas within 100km of the Alberta border so as to reduce the incentive to shop in Alberta in order to save on the PST.

As a side note, I noticed the Liberals chose their shadow cabinet today. Although I was surprised by many of the individual portfolios since few members were given the same portfolio as they had in government, I now doubt believe they have a far more experienced and talented team. Hopefully they can not only hold this government to account, but also propose positive solutions as well.

Harper's new method of appointing Judges

Well it looks like the Conservatives have made their first major move, which is to change the Supreme Court appointment process. While I am not totally sure how to react, I must say I generally don't like the changes. When you have many from the legal community condemning this, I think one should be concerned. I am also concerned that this is part of Stephen Harper's wanting to Americanize just about everything in Canada. I am not saying an idea should automatically be rejected because it is American, however I believe with each policy if we can find an example of it being adopted, we should look at the results. This was the reason I opposed the Liberal hand gun ban since it failed in Britain and Australia and likewise this method of appointing judges has been a disaster in the US. Rather than de-politicizing the judiciary, it has politicized it more. Judges are asked what their position is on abortion and a whole host of other issues, while it really shouldn't matter what judges personally opinions are if they follow their proper constitutional role. Unfortunately Stephen Harper and many of the social conservatives see the judiciary as an obstacle to implementing their socially conservative agenda. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court would block any socially conservative legislation. Governments have the right to implement their platform so long as it complies with the Charter. As far as I am concerned the current appointment process works fine, however if Harper wanted to make reforms to reduce the power of the PMO he could have asked the legal community to submit a short-list which the PM and justice minister would choose from therefore ensuring the appointments would be non-political. I just hope the fact the committee will have more non-Conservative MPs than Conservative ones will in the future block any socially conservative judge who plans to permit the government override the Charter. I for one wish the Liberals had made the appointment before the election so we wouldn't have to go through this circus not to mention this would lengthen the time it would take for the Conservatives to stack the judiciary with social conservatives. I know Canadians are in no mood for another election, but I personally am not impressed with the current government.

Anyways I will comment tomorrow on the provincial budget which comes down tomorrow.

Speech from the Throne

Most of my past posts have been on federal issues, but this one is on the provincial speech from the throne as the legislature reconvenes. The big headline is the BC government wants the Canada Health Act overhauled, but in reality its a little more complex than that. There were many other things in the throne speech such as protecting the Spirit Bear, which I fully support. What the provincial government promised to do was travel to Europe to look at countries with mixed systems and see whether going to such system could help improve health care. I am off course all for going to such system, but lets remember this is only being discussed. Alberta and Quebec both have more immediate plans to make reforms that involve more private sector involvement so I think the results in those two provinces should be examined closely. Also one cannot ignore the Supreme Court ruling in the Chaoulli case. Since such challenge is almost certain to be launched against BC at some later date, it is incumbent upon the provincial government to find ways to reduce waiting times so such challenge preferably isn't launched, but at least doesn't cost us a lot in legal fees. This certainly will be interesting for prime-minister Harper who is generally more open to private involvement in Health Care, but wants to be careful not be brought down over the growth of private health care. However, it should be noted that since the Supreme Court ruling, the Liberals have changed their tone on the issue. For example, it wasn't raised during the last campaign and their platform said no two tiered system within the public system rather than no two tiered system period as it said in the 2004 platform.

As a side note, there have been two other issues brought up, which are the child care issue and Campbell's support of Emerson's defection. In the case of the Tories cancelling the childcare agreements, I believe Campbell wants to try and solve the issue without getting into a federal/provincial battle. Unlike other premiers, he has generally avoided show downs with Ottawa so I suspect he will try and maintain the same tone even with a different government. However, unlike Paul Martin who was more open to negotiations, Stephen Harper tends to be less flexible so he should be willing to stand his ground if Harper refuses to compromise. Childcare is really not a big issue for me, however I do believe it is important for both Tories and Liberals to work together at a provincial level in order to keep the NDP out of power so I am somewhat concerned this issue could cause some division within the party, whereas if Harper honours the agreements this would avoid this division. Even though I don't agree with Emerson's defection, I believe Campbell (both Kim Campbell and Gordon Campbell) is right that Emerson's defection will be good for BC. He brought a lot to BC as a Liberal and I am sure he will as a Tory, however my opposition to his defection is for other reasons. Unlike Stronach's defection, I find it hard to believe it was over a serious disagreement with his party, but also Stronach defected in a riding that almost went Liberal whereas the Tories came in a distant third in Emerson's riding. Had Raymond Chan, Don Bell, or Blair Wilson crossed the floor to the Tories, they could at least claim they could win those ridings as a Tory since the Tories came in a strong second in each of those ridings, while in Emerson's riding they didn't. That is not say I would be particularly pleased. The point is here from a strictly non-partisan view, Emerson's defection is good for BC, which is why I can understand many in the business community supporting it as well as Municipal and Provincial politicians, but from a partisan perspective, I am not happy about it since I unlike the others do have a bias towards the federal Liberals although I do have my disagreements with them from time to time.

Anyways, it should be an interesting session. I hope the unions agree to the bonus Carole Taylor offered in exchange to settle early, but knowing how much they dislike the BC Liberals, I suspect some will strike for political reasons regardless of how good a deal they get since they care more about getting their friends in the NDP back in power than about helping their members.

Parliamentary Secretaries and more on Cabinet

Now that Harper has chosen his parliamentary secretaries, I thought I would give a few comments on them. Before I give the negative, I mention the few positive choices. I thought James Moore was a good choice for parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works and government services. He is a very competent member so I am sure he can answer all questions fielded on the department well in the House of Commons. It is too bad he wasn't given this ministry since there would be no need to appoint an un-elected senator Michael Fortier or David Emerson (James Moore is closer to Vancouver than Jim Flaherty is to Toronto). However I have two major criticisms. Rob Moore as parliamentary secretary to justice and attorney general is a staunch social conservative like Vic Toews and once again shows Harper's contempt for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Helena Guergis is a very strong MP but her appointment as parliamentary secretary to International Trade and 2010 olympics when she has been one of the most vocal critics of floor crossing seems quite suspicious. She was about to issue a news release that she would re-introduce a bill to require floor crossers to seek a by-election when Harper then appointed her to the position. Seems like he wanted to shut her up.

On the Cabinet, after having a few days to think about it, I thought I would add a few more thoughts. I know there has been a lot of criticisms over Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty, and John Baird. While they are certainly controversial for some, they do have experience not to mention they were elected as Conservatives in their respective ridings. Also anyone who voted Conservative and is complaining about those three getting cabinet posts obviously wasn't watching the campaign closely since it was obvious to me that those three would get cabinet posts if they won their seats. Besides John Baird is more of a libertarian than staunch conservative so I am okay with him and Tony Clement is not quite as hard core a right winger as Jim Flaherty. On health care, I am all for a parallel private system, which would happen no matter who got in due to the Supreme Court ruling in Quebec, so I am not worried here. My only concern with Jim Flaherty is his rigidness and past confrontational attitude, which I don't see as good for a minority government, but besides Monte Solberg, they really had no other choice and having an Albertan for the top two positions would have been bad optics. As for Gordon O'Connor, this is a tough one. Having a former military person definitely makes sense for a defence minister, however has past lobbying efforts could be problematic. On the whole it is not really a big deal for me thought. As for Stockwell Day, my opinion is he should have been kept out of cabinet altogether, but at least Public Safety is a minor improvement over Foreign Affairs, still I am not too happy on this one. With Vic Toews I am less concerned about his violation of the election laws in Manitoba than I am about his contempt for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I value the Charter quite highly and worry that the Harper government wishes to undermine it so he can impose a socially conservative agenda should he someday form a majority government. On Law and Order I am conservative in terms of supporting tougher sentences for violent crimes, but on the issue of drug laws, I am quite liberal as I believe tougher drug laws only lead to a larger black market and more crime as seen in the United States.

Harper's Cabinet

On the whole, the majority of picks were generally experienced, moderate, as well as a regionally balanced cabinet. However, there were three very bad picks and those bad picks more than outweigh all the good picks for cabinet, so I would say on the whole the Tories are off to a very bad start.

David Emerson: He is no doubt highly qualified for the ministerial position he was given, but I do have some serious reservations here. It is one thing to defect to another party due to a disagreement over their direction, but it is quite another thing to defect only two weeks after an election. I also think it is even more hypocritical to condemn people like Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach for defecting ot the Liberals, yet then turn around and do the same thing yourself. I understand Harper wanted representation from the three largest cities, but considering he choose Jim Flaherty to represent Toronto (Whitby-Oshawa is a good 45 minute drive east of Toronto), there is no reason why James Moore who is fully qualified, from the GVRD, and elected as a Conservative couldn't be a cabinet representative for Vancouver.

Michael Fortier: I am not opposed to making senators cabinet ministers, but appointing someone to the senate after clearly campaigning against senate appointments shows hypocricy. In addition, it should have been a junior cabinet post, not something as major as Public Works and Government Services. That person ought to be a member of the House of Commons. Had Harper been shut out of Quebec this may have made sense, but he won 10 seats in Quebec, so he should have chosen amongst them. As for the argument of not winning seats in Montreal, rather than ignoring the problem, the party should figure out why voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver rejected the Conservatives and then make the appropriate changes. Then next time around they would have representation from those cities.

Vic Toews: I am extremely concerned about his strong social conservatism. While I would have been okay if he was given a different cabinet post, I think having him as justice minister should be of great concern to people who value minority rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Hopefully the more moderate faces in cabinet help keep him in check.

As for the rest of the cabinet picks, most of them were decent ones, although one concern was lack of women. I understand that 22% of cabinet picks were women vs. only 12% of MPs were women, but while an improvement, it is still not good enough. That number needs to go up if Harper gets another shot at picking the cabinet.

As a final note I've heard the Tories first plan is to push through their child care allowance which all opposition parties oppose. I am no fan of the Liberal day care plan, but this is a minority government and Harper must understand he has no mandate to proceed on areas which don't have the support of at least one other party. He should instead bring forward a motion supporting the child care allowance and should it pass, then proceed, but if voted down in the House, then he can say to his supporters he tried, but failed. Hopefully some compromise is found on this. Harper should not assume the Liberals will blindly support all confidence votes simply due to fear of going to an election. The Liberals will try to cooperate, but stand by their principles. Minority governments made both sides making compromises, not just one.

Emerson's Defection

Well it looks like only a mere two weeks after the election, the first defection has occurred. Since I defended Belinda Stronach's defection, I am not going to slam David Emerson's defection, but all I will say is at least Belinda Stronach waited a year before defecting so I think the case for defecting at least seems more legitimate in the voter's eyes if done a year after the election than only two weeks. At least Belinda Stronach will say the party turned out differently than expected. The one good thing though is Harper is no longer shut out of the big three cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal), although considering the history of Vancouver-Kingsway, I think Emerson will have a tough time winning re-election. Mind you I expect him to run in a different riding. As a final word to my Tory friends, I expect to not hear anymore criticisms of Belinda's defection unless you are willing to criticize Emerson's defection. Anyways I will have more on the cabinet this evening. The only criticisms I will make now is Vic Toews was a bad choice for Justice minister due to his social conservatism as well as there should have been a deputy prime-minister who would off course take on another ministry. Without one, it looks like Harper is too much of control freak. I'll comment on the individual appointments this evening as I have to head off to work.

Allan Rock not Running

Well it looks like Allan Rock has bowed out, and all I can say is good riddance. If the party wishes to renew itself, the last thing it needs is a Trudeau type Liberal who still believes in big government. We lost votes to both the NDP and Conservatives so we must get someone who is fiscally conservative but socially progressive. We need someone who can appeal to the broad middle in order to bring back centre-right votes we lost to the Conservatives and centre-left votes we lost to the NDP. If we focus too much on one side, we'll lose the next election. Chretien was successful since he was able to draw people from both those groups and the next leader needs to be able to do the same.

Bill Graham as Interim Leader

I would like to congratulate Bill Graham on being the next interim leader. I've always had a high respect for him as both the foreign affairs minister and defence minister so I believe he will do a good job of holding the government to account while at the same time proposing positive solutions. In addition he is neither a strong Chretienite or Martinite so hopefully he can keep the two factions together.

As for handling the next parliament, I don't believe the Liberals should try to trigger another election at the earliest moment possible. The party needs time to re-build, but also I suspect an early election unless there was a good reason for it would result in an even stronger Conservative minority or possibly a Conservative majority. At the same time, the Liberals shouldn't give Stephen Harper a free pass. They should cooperate where they can, but clearly set clear parameters. On individual bills, they should vote as they normally would since all bills except budget bills and main estimates are not motions of confidence, so the government can continue if they lose one. As for the budget, they should not automatically endorse it, but they should instead try to work to improve it and only vote against it if the Tories refuse to compromise. If the Tories refuse to compromise, then I believe they have a legitimate reason to bring down the government as this is a minority government and the Conservatives do not have a mandate to proceed on issues that don't have the support of other parties.