Taboo Musings

If you ever wanted to set a Canadian citizen off on a frantic search for some cotton to stuff in his or her ears, all you have to do is to mention two words together in the same sentence: 'private' and 'healthcare'. Canadians must have been frightened out of their wits earlier this month when the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, struck down a Quebec law banning private healthcare. As Canadians, we have been trained to boast of our public healthcare system as our proudest accomplishment, yet, paradoxically, it is widely acknowledged that the system is broken (Thus Paul Martin's pledge to "fix healthcare for a generation".) The supreme court merely confirmed this by ruling that being forced to wait ad nauseam for public health services is a violation of a patient's rights to "life, liberty, and security" as guaranteed by Quebec's Charter of Rights.

This isn't really "news" per se. Healthcare has for a long time been a major election issue, yet the debate on how to improve the system has generally been confined to discussing how much money should be pumped into the system. Mention anything about the possibility of private healthcare and the guillotine drops. In April 2004, Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew (who has since taken over the Foreign Affairs ministry) said that "the Canada Health Act does not preclude delivery of services by private elements as long as there is a single public payer." The next day he was forced to retract the comment and clarify, "[My comment] left the impression that I favour increased private delivery within the public health system. That was in no way my intent, nor is it the intent of the government of Canada." A year later, Preston Manning and Mike Harris released a joint report calling on the federal government to get out of healthcare. The report made headlines, but there was no discussion on the issues presented, just a shrill Prime Minister in the House of Commons fending off invisible invaders with a cry to "fight tooth and nail" to defend medicare.

And that is the current state of the debate. One side is determined to fight tooth and nail against any presentation of logical arguments, and the other side is losing its voice.

But, being just an average Joe writing a blog, I might be able to present some logical arguments without being drowned out by declarations that I am out to destroy Canada's soul. (I doubt most people would even read up to this point in the article, but I shall continue regardless.)

Here goes...

The federal government should leave healthcare to the provinces. After all, the Constitutional Act of 1867 defines as one of the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures "The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals..." Meanwhile, the only effect that a nationally-enforced public monopoly on healthcare has been to stymie any experimentation on delivery methods.

Consider an analogy. Shortly after the French and Dutch voted not to adopt the European Constitution, the Economist analyzed the source of Europes woes, "...opponents of the constitution have displayed contradictory views - some wanting more economic liberalism and freer markets, others a social Europe with more fettered markets." It concludes, "...the only way to accommodate such diversity of views is to give countries a choice. If Britain, say, wants to keep its labour markets free of unnecessarily burdensome rules..., it should be allowed to do so; if France prefers to do more to protect those who are in work, it should be free to do that too. Neither side should be able to impose its policy on the other." In other words, rather than having the EU impose its methods on member countries, it is often better to have countries lead by example. Let Britain and France determine their own economic policy and then see whose economy does better.

The same reasoning applies to our healthcare system. Throughout Canada there are divergent views on how healthcare should be handled. In Quebec, the provincial government instantly considered using the notwithstanding clause to overrule the Supreme Court decision. In Alberta, the provincial government has been contemplating healthcare reforms. Unfortunately, since experimentation is virtually outlawed by the Canada Health Act, our monolithic health system has prevented our country from discovering more effective ways to deliver health services. It is with good reason that our Constitution alloted hospital management as the prerogative of provincial legislatures; by providing for a diversity of delivery methods for health services across the country, provinces can lead by example, allowing healthcare systems to evolve.

The Economist, however, does not argue for a complete free-for-all in Europe. It adds that a referee is still necessary, for instance, to police the EU single market. Similarly, the federal government's role in healthcare should be restricted to the role of referee. Their role should be limited to enforcing adherance to the principle of universal access to health services. Nothing more.

In the near future, the most urgently needed action is to break the taboo on discussing alternatives to the public health monopoly. We need to have an earnest debate on how to fix the system. There is no need for biting and scratching.

Dryden's Grand Vision

The national childcare program was first promised by the Liberals in their 1993 Red Book. Now the plan is finally coming into fruition, with the Liberals pledging more than $5 billion to the program. So far, five provincial governments have signed childcare deals with the federal government. The minister in charge of the program, Social Development Minister Ken Dryden, envisions publicly funded childcare centers opening up across the country. When asked how much he thinks the program will end up costing in the long term, he replies, "You really don't know. In fact, you don't need to know because the future's going to decide it."[1] I did not expect that Dryden would have an answer to such a question, but I never expected him to admit it candidly.

His statement only underscores the deep reservations I already have about the new national childcare program. Considering the huge commitments our federal and provincial governments already have for funding healthcare and education from elementary to post-secondary, one has to wonder if our governments need the financial burden of another expensive social program. As Dryden admits, the costs are unpredictable. Despite this uncertainty, I would still venture a guess. If one looks at the costs of other social programs, such as healthcare in Ontario, whose costs have ballooned to over 40 percent of the provincial budget, or even the childcare program already being run in Quebec at an annual cost $1.5 billion, a logical guess would be that the long term costs will be unpredictably high.

And it is important to think about the long term. After committing to a publicly funded national childcare program, the costs will be immovable. No government in dire financial straits would be able to touch childcare funding when trying to balance the books. Any cut to childcare funding would leave facilities around the the country strapped for cash with no other means to raise revenue, since tuition prices would surely be fixed. (In Quebec's public childcare program, which has been cited by the federal Liberals as an example, tuition is fixed to a mere $7 per day.) So, when money becomes tight, governments will be forced to choose between going into deficit, or -- since revenue for childcare centers would be entirely dependant on government -- drastically lowering the quality of childcare services.

There will be no turning back on this one. The federal government really ought to reconsider before it proceeds with its usual routine of trampling over provincial jurisdiction.



[1] See article from Canada.com

Electoral Reform: In Defence of First Past the Post

A stated priority of the New Democratic Party in the 2004 election was to hold a national referendum on electoral reform, namely a referendum on replacing the current first past the post system with some form of proportional representation. In my opinion, such a move would be a mistake. Canada needs to keep its first past the post system in order to maintain stability and accountability.

The first past the post system provides more political stability because it more easily delivers majority governments. There are several advantages to this. First of all, majority governments can actually get things accomplished. Minority governments, on the other hand, tend to get bogged down in partisan bickering (or in the case of the current Liberal minority, filibustering its own legislation). Also, coalition governments, as are likely in a proportionally representative system, usually result in bloated budgets due to all of the compromises that must be made in order to garner support. (To see an example of this, look no further than the $4.5 billion the Liberals added to the budget bill to ensure the support of the NDP.) To make matters worse, proportional representation would allow the rise of many small parties, each demanding concessions in return for their support.

The economy also benefits for the political stability of first past the post. In the days leading up to the confidence vote in the House of Commons in late May, a time of great political uncertainty, one could virtually track the political developments by observing the fluctuations in the exchange rate. The value of the Loonie erratically rose and sank with the government's chances of surviving. Turbulence like this is the exception to the rule in our current system. With the perpertual minorities of proportional representation, it would be the norm.

Moreover, changing the electoral system would degrade the accountability of government. A majority government (which is much more likely with the current system) is judged based on the execution of its platform. A majority government that does not fulfill its commitments would have no excuses to offer and would (ideally) be voted out of office.

More worryingly, the use of party lists in proportional electoral systems (such as in New Zealand, which has a mixed system of both regional and proportional representation), creates a system of party patronage. Rather than have MPs be accountable to their constituents, Parliamentarians would need to earn their spot on the list by impressing the party's top brass. A program on electoral reform aired on CPAC today featured a journalist from New Zealand complaining that it is impossible to vote out MPs who are doing a lousy job. They could lose their riding, but still end up in parliament via a high position on their party's list.

Certainly, the current system is not perfectly representative of the population's will. The major attraction of a proportionally representative system is that it would ensure sufficient diversity in Parliament, representing all conceivable segments of the population. However, it is far more vital for our government to be functional and accountable than it is for it to be politically correct.

Corruption

In the 1872 federal election, Sir John A. MacDonald accepted $350,000 in campaign funds from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and, in exchange, granted a contract to build a transcontinental rail line to British Columbia. As Aislin points out (See cartoon), not much has changed. We now know through the Gomery inquiry that vast sums of money were doled out in advertising contracts with some of the money funnelled back into the Liberal Party's coffers. However, as damning as the Gomery inquiry has been so far, some may still view Adscam as an isolated incident. Moreover, some see it as an unfortunate relic of the Chretien era -- something that no longer exists in the Martin era.

It is my contention that this is not the case. It is hard to believe that Paul Martin, as Finance Minister in the Chretien government, could have spent a decade in such a powerful government position, yet all the while remain oblivious to the schemes hatching around him. It is even harder to believe after considering some of his history with Canada Steamship Lines (CSL), the company he owned until 2003, when he handed it over to his sons.

At the earliest opportunity, Paul Martin exploited his position as Finance Minister to create a technically legal way for his company to evade its taxes. In the 1993 election, the Liberal Red Book promised to prevent Canadian companies from using off-shore tax shelters. Paul Martin's 1994 budget did actually address this issue. However, the budget bill also included an obscure clause that created a loophole, allowing companies to locate their headquarters in Barbados. By the next year, CSL moved its headquarters there, where it enjoyed a tax rate between 1 to 2.5 percent, as opposed to the 28 percent rate in Canada. (See insanely long article from The Walrus magazine, "Blind Trust".)

Even with the technically legal loophole, the evasion's legality is still murky. CSL's office in Barbados only had one "employee" (there was a lawyer there responsible for the CSL file). Meanwhile, the loophole required that the foreign subsidiary be "active", with at least five employees, for it to qualify. (Again, see "Blind Trust".)

Of course, let's not forgot the biggest CSL scandal. Figures released in 2003 suggested that CSL had received $137,000 in federal contracts during Martin's tenure as Finance Minister. By 2004 it was revealed that the actual value was $162 million. That's an accounting error of over %100,000. Or you could just call it fraud.

The point is that Paul Martin is poorly cast for the role of Innocent Bystander in Chretien era corruption and graft. He claims that he will clean up the Sponsorship mess, but as long as he stays in power we won't know how big the mess really is.

What To Do When You Are Caught Red Handed

Pretend that no one saw you. If you really believe it, it will become the truth.

Well maybe not, but that is certainly what the Liberal Party seems to think. In the days preceding the budget vote, Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Tim Murphy, were negotiating with Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal in order to get him and his wife (also a Conservative MP) to either abstain from the vote or defect to the Liberals. Grewal, who recorded the conversations, recently made his audio tapes public. (The audio and transcriptions can be downloaded from Gurmant Grewal's website.)

Having read through the transcriptions, all I can say is that no one involved comes off looking good. Dosanjh and Murphy are clearly coaching Grewal about how a deal can be made without it actually being a "deal". Tim Murphy explains the manner in which a deal can be made.
"The point I was making is, obviously the key is something like this happened, the first question people will ask you is, well what were you promised, did you seek it out or did they seek you, were you promised anything, did you ask for something. I think, we want answer to all those questions to be ‘no’. Then we can be honest about that, right. So that we can be able to say, actually that can be a better position for you to say that you will be principled. Then you can say that no, I took the principled position. No one bought me with anything, right.
...look what Scott Brison did, that is how it exactly happened with him, right. He was able to say no. that there is no promise made, obviously he hope to he can play an important role. And over time that is exactly what happened, right. I think we need to do on that basis."
In response to Grewal's bluntness over what exactly would be included in a deal, Dosanjh protests, "…I do not care to use deal as a language because when you are asked you do not want to say no there is no deal because I do not think it is good for either of us, but I think we all understand what we are talking about."

Grewal does not come off clean either. He certainly seems to have been in full-fledged negotiations. Throughout the transcriptions, it seems apparent that had the Liberals met his price with clear guarantees, he would have jumped the Conservative ship. I have only slightly more respect for him at this point than I do for Belinda Stronach.

Even still, The Liberals have a lot of explaining to do. Originally, their version of events was that Grewal approached them, and persistently attempted to get them to agree to a reward in exchange for him and his wife's defection. To these attempts they claim their response was unequivocally no. While the tapes do not shed any light about who approached who, the directly contraction the Liberals' assertion. Does this sound like no to you?
"...I don’t think that but for all the advance of that explicit discussions about senate, not senate, I don’t think are very helpful and I don’t think frankly can be had in advance of that abstention tomorrow. And then we will have much more detailed and finally new discussions after that with some freedom and I think what that allows is negotiating room for you either direction." -Tim Murphy

The Prime Minister also claims that while he knew there were discussions going on, he was not prepared to make any offers. Sadly, this is only plausible if both Dosanjh and Murphy compulsive liars, for they repeatedly mention speaking to the PM and that he would be ready to have a phone conversation with Grewal once a deal is in place.
"I talked to the PM moments ago. He said he is going to Regina right now and he said he will be happy to talk to you over the phone tonight or in person if you want to move. I think you should have through conversation with Tim. Tim is the Chief of Staff, its just like talking to PM." - Ujjal Dosanjh
"[Paul Martin] is going to get a plane to see the Queen but he is prepared to depending on how the conversation is unfolding but he will be prepared to talk to you directly both by phone and subsequently in person as we see it fit.
...I think, as you will see the PMwill say we are not offering and making no offers. And I think that is the narrative we have to stick to it. Or make the PM a liar. I don’t say that’s what we are doing. I think it is important that we are honest about it. But there also think that those people who take risk, are ought to be rewarded for the risk they take." - Tim Murphy

So, caught with their arms elbow-deep in the cookie jar, what are the Liberals doing? Preposterously, they have sent their colleagues to appear on television saying that nothing was offered, no deals were proposed, and that there is no evidence to support any such claim. Someone better get a fire extinguisher to put out all of those smoldering pants.



UPDATE! (June 14, 2005)
Audio experts have recently suggested that the Grewal tapes may have been edited, which confirms my earlier suspicion that Gurmant Grewal is just as sleazy as his negotiating partners. However, there is no way you could mangle the Grewal tapes to make either Ujjal Dossanjh or Tim Murphy look innocent. The sheer volume of incriminating sound bytes is too staggering.

In the wake of allegations of tampering with the recordings, Grewal has decided to take a "stress leave" from Parliament. I'm glad he's gone, but I'd be more pleased if Dossanjh and Murphy joined him.