Privatization

Okay, this is one of my favourite topics and I am sure any Conservative bloggers who stumble upon this blog will wonder why the heck I am not a Conservative, while many Liberals will wonder why the heck I am a Liberal. Let me just say this: I never have and never will fully agree with the policies of any party. I will support whichever party has the greatest number of policies I agree with, which may mean in certain areas I will still have fundamental disagreements with them. So lets dig into this topic. Since it is such a broad area, I will focus only on Canada at a federal level, only BC at a provincial level, but be more general at a municipal level since the programs delivered are pretty similiar across the board. I will say though provinces like Saskatchewan and countries like France who have high levels of state ownership need to begin doing some serious privatization.

Federal

There are different methods of privatization. The most common method is a P3 or contracting out as it is sometimes known. In this case, I believe the most responsible decision is to look at each program and figure who can better deliver the program at a lower price. There are a few cases such as the RCMP, Supreme Court of Canada, and military which should be off limits to P3s. Most other areas however P3s are fair game if and only if they can deliver the best value for taxpayers and still provide as good if not better service.

As for Crown Corporations, in 1984 we had way too many crown corporations and I fully support the decision of the Mulroney and Chretien governments to divest of the many that didn't work. Today I would argue that the majority of crown corporations don't need to be privatized, whereas I certainly wouldn't have said this 20 years ago. Of the main ones in Canada, I believe VIA Rail could be privatized as passenger rail is not essential since there are other modes of transportation and some such as The Rockymountaineer here in Western Canada have turned money losing routes into money making routes. I support opening Canada Post up to competition with the private sector, but privatization should only be considered if it is possible for a private company to deliver mail to all areas including remote and rural areas. In terms of the CBC, I support making it an arms-length private non-profit corporation that would continue to get government funding and have to meet a minimum Canadian Content Quota, but the board would not be appointed by the government, but rather any Canadian could become a member of the CBC and therefore vote in choosing the board. Likewise it would no longer be an asset or liability on the government's balance sheet as airports now are, but still operate much the same way it does today. Finally in terms of airports, I think they should be sold off outright as done in most European countries. Some completely private airports such as Heathrow in London are amongst the best in the world. In terms of social programs, I shall discuss that elsewhere, as I did with health care.

Provincial

Here in BC, despite the fact we've had more right of centre governments than left of centre ones, we still have more crown corporations than most other provinces. I support privatization of the liquor stores as buying booze is not an essential need. The government would still regulate it heavily though. In addition the stores would be open on Sundays and at later hours which would be a big convenience to many consumers. As for ICBC, I also support privatization. I should note that a year ago I would have paid more in Alberta and Ontario for insurance than BC, but this year less, since I turned 25. However, my main reason for favouring privatization is not because it subsidizes the higher risk drivers, but rather it would contribute approximately $300 million to the provincial coffers (Dalton McGuinty in the 2003 election pointed out auto insurance companies contribute $1 billion to Ontario coffers, so adjusting for our population difference is how I get that number). Whereas now ICBC largely operates on a break-even basis. As for BC Rail, I support complete privatization, much like CN Rail while BC Ferries and BC Transit should remain crown corporations but individual routes contracted out where cheaper. As for BC Hydro, I know privatization would be political suicide, but I would support it under one condition only: every dollar raised go towards paying down the debt. Since BC Hydro is worth around $7 billion, this would be approximately a 20% reduction in the debt and since BC spends around 33% of its revenue on servicing its debt, it would free up much money to use elsewhere. In fact even the left leaning African National Congress privatized many state owned companies in South Africa in order to fund more social programs.

Municipal

There are few things that can be outright privatized, but in most cases such as road maintenance, libraries, garbage collection, park maintenance, transit, and water, contracting out is possible, but should only be done if it is more cost effective and can deliver better outcomes in terms of service. It shouldn't be done for ideological reasons nor should it be opposed for ideological reasons, but done on a case by case basis.

Next topic will be on our social programs excluding health care and education. This seems appropriate in light of the Conservative spending cuts.

Electoral Reform

Electoral Reform has been a hot topic in recent years for a number of reasons. As we saw in the most recent New Brunswick election, there have been a few elections that have resulted in the winner not winning the popular vote. Likewise in the 90s, the Liberals won three back to back majorities despite the fact almost 60% of Canadians voted against them. In the West, the Reform/Alliance won the overwhelming majority of seats even though the majority of Westerners voted against them and likewise the Liberals won almost 100% of the seats in Ontario with only 50% of the popular vote. This leads to the question should we move to some form of proportional representation or not. Off course proportional representation has a number of disadvantages such as permanent minority governments, fringe parties winning seats, and possibly lack of constituency representation under some forms of PR. I have divided this into two sections, House of Commons and Senate.

House of Commons

There are a variety of forms of proportional representation ranging from pure proportional representation as used in the Netherlands where whatever share of the popular vote one party gets, thats how many seats they get. Since this would mean no local representation, I disagree with adopting this system. There is MMP, which is used in Germany, whereby you elect constituency representatives, but then additional MPs are chosen from lists on top of constituency representatives to ensure results are proportional. Below I will explain my view on this in more detail. Finally there is STV (known as single transferable vote) where there are multi-member districts and one ranks the candidates and then if one candidate gets above the quota, their surplus is transferred to their second choice. Likewise the bottom candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to their second choice. This system is currently used in Ireland and was proposed in the most recent BC election by the Citizen's Assembly. I voted NO and plan to vote NO in the next referendum since this system is simply too complicated and therefore I don't believe it is appropriate to use a system where voters don't understand how their vote is being counted. Some countries have no minimum threshold, while others have a minimum threshold to keep fringe parties out, usually 5%. While proportional representation has many advantages to it, I am concerned about two things

1. Stability of government: While some countries like Germany have a long history of forming stable coalitions, no such political culture exists here and it would likely take ten to twenty years before rival parties were finally willing to work together. There is just too much animosity between parties and I cannot see this disappearing anytime soon.

2. Local representation: Any system that increases the size of ridings should be rejected in my view. Rural MPs already have enough trouble representing large ridings with varying interests so making ridings larger will mean even less local representation. In a country as large as Canada, local representation is absolutely essential if we want to ensure the best policies get adopted and ones that are regionally divisive don't.

The only acceptable form of PR for me would be to have the Senate done by PR as done in Australia, although not using STV. Another reform which isn't PR, but should be looked at is IRV (instant run off vote) as done in Australia. Here one ranks their candidates and the lowest is dropped off and their second choices are redistributed. This is done until one candidate has over 50%. In some cases such as rural Alberta, there would likely be no need to go to the second choices since in the case of Rural Alberta, the Conservatives almost always get over 50%. The benefit of this is it would reduce the need for strategic voting. If one is left of centre and likes the NDP, but is fearful of the Conservatives, they might vote Liberal to stop the Conservative candidate. Under this system they could vote NDP as their first choice so they can clearly show their preferences but at the same time block the Conservatives by having the Liberals as their second choice. Elections should be about voting for someone, not against someone. This system is one that should seriously be considered. At the same time it would be best to try at in one province first before adopting it federally.

Senate

There has been much debate as to how to reform the senate. My preference is to abolish it, but I will summarize briefly my opinions on other possibilities.

Triple E Senate: I can understand why some from the smaller provinces want this to block legislation that is harmful to their region. However, I am against the idea of one person's vote being worth more than someone else's. Already votes are heavily skewed in the House of Commons. This would just skew them even more.

Elected Senate: This may sound appealing on the surface, but I oppose it for two reasons
1. The senate would exercise their power more, meaning more legislation would be blocked leading to greater deadlock.
2. The West is grossly underrepresented. This would further not reduce Western Alienation.

Status quo: The status quo hasn't caused any major problems, but it is open to abuse. I believe anyone who has the power to make laws, ought to have some mechanism to hold them accountable. Under the current system, it relies on the goodwill of the senators.

PR Elected Senate: If we are to have an elected senate, this would be my preferred method.

I believe the best solution is to abolish it due to its high cost and the fact that we could do just fine without one. Our provincial legislatures work without upper houses, so why can't we at the federal level.

My next topic will be privatization. I am sure some Liberals will wonder why I am not a Conservative when they read my views here.

Federalism

The issue of what belongs under federal and provincial jurisdiction has been a hot topic in the last few elections. The Bloc Quebecois and Conservatives generally favour a more decentralized federation and in the case of the BQ outright separation, while the Liberals and NDP are generally supportive of a more centralized federation. The Constitution essentially defines what is under federal and provincial jurisdiction, however the federal government can still indirectly intervene in provincial jurisdiction by funding provincial programs and attaching strings to the programs.

My view on federalism is that as a nation we need to have certain things that are the same across the board and devolving too much power to the provinces will make Canada nothing more than a country in name. I don't support a EU style federation where the federal government has very limited powers, but neither do I support a highly centralized state such as France where almost everything is done by the federal government. As a country we are too large to have everything done out of Ottawa. Rather I believe decisions ought to be done where they can be executed the most efficiently. In addition, federal and provincial governments should work together to avoid overlap since this just cost taxpayers more money. I also believe that a strong federal government is one that works with the provinces to achieve our common goals, not one that pits one province against another for electoral gain.

Federal Jurisdiction

Military, immigration, and foreign affairs should continue to be exclusively under federal jurisdiction. I am not against consulting the provinces if the issue is one that affects them, for example if Canada is seeking closer ties with China it would make logical sense to consult BC who would be most affected. However, no province should have a veto over those issues nor should they be decided based on what the majority of provinces want. In areas such as health and the environment those are shared jurisdictions and should remain so, however there should be better coordination to ensure that there is less overlap. I also believe there are many economic advantages to doing things at a federal vs. provincial level. Just as Wal-Mart can produce things cheaper than a mom and pop operation, the federal government through economies of scale can do things cheaper than provinces can alone. Therefore from a purely economic stance more power to the federal government makes sense, however due to the large variances across this nation regionally sensitive issues should be left to the provinces. I also support the federal government creating a national securities regulator instead of having ten provincial ones as this would make investing in Canada far cheaper by having to deal with only one regulator versus ten different ones. I likewise support eliminating all trade barriers between provinces which are completely out of date for any modern country. In fact very few developed countries still have trade barriers within them. The agreement signed between BC and Alberta to eliminate all trade barriers should be expanded to all provinces.

Provincial Jurisdiction

Certain things such as running schools and hospitals are best done at the local level closest to the people affected rather than by some distant bureaucracy. The federal government can set overall objectives, but should not try to interfere in the day to day management in those areas and for the most part they don't despite the rhetoric from some. I also believe provinces should have some leeway on economic policies to reflect the different values of the province. Conservative provinces like Alberta should be allowed to adopt more pro-free enterprise policies while more socialistic ones like Quebec shouldn't be hindered from having a larger social welfare system, off course within reasonable limits.

Equalization

Equalization is something we hear about a lot, yet most Canadians including myself understand very little about it. I support maintaining it, but I believe to avoid future provincial-federal showdowns a standard formula should be established by a non-partisan entity. I also believe barriers to mobility need to be eliminated. It should be much easier for someone to move from one province to another. If Canadians were more mobile there would likely be less inequality between the regions.

Bilingualism and Language Policy

Perhaps this should be a separate topic, but I thought it would fit in best here. I support maintaining bilingualism in the federal government and providing bilingual services in all regions where numbers warrant. Every ten years, this should be updated to reflect areas that may have previously been predominately Anglophone or Francophone but now have a larger linguistic minority. For example, I think parts of Manitoba should be added as bilingual areas. In addition I support the government providing services in non-official languages where numbers warrant, but this should be left to the discretion of the individual agency. Already most consulates and embassies abroad provide service in both English, French, and the language of the country they are located in. At the provincial level, I believe the decision should be left to the provinces unless the federal government is willing to foot the bill. New Brunswick is obligated to provide bilingual services as are all provinces in education, but beyond that, it should be up to each province. I also think beyond essential labelling on products, language in the private sector should be determined by the market, not the government. Indeed most major Canadian companies already provide their websites in both languages and when it comes to labelling, many companies exceed bilingual requirements. I don't support Quebec's Bill 101 since while I understand the desire to protect the French language, I cannot accept another language being treated as inferior. However, this should ultimately be up to Quebec and the courts to determine whether this stands or not. I believe more emphasis should be put on teaching students the other official language via exchanges. In Europe, knowing three languages is the norm, so I see no reason why Canadians cannot learn both official languages, plus one another since in a globalized economy, French and English aren't the only languages used. However, without daily exposure to a language it is very difficult to learn it, this is why I support exchanges in conjunction with the provinces. Much of the opposition to Bilingualism in the West is largely due to the fact few Westerners are bilingual and many feel it essentially shuts them out of serving in government. I agree with this sentiment, but I don't support the Reform Party's position of scrapping bilingualism, rather I support making more Canadians bilingual so as to open up more government jobs to Westerners.

Quebec's role in Canada

Last by not least is the issue of Quebec's role in Canada. Over the summer, this has been debated widely in the Liberal Party. While it is regrettable Quebec didn't sign the constitution, considering the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords nearly tore the country apart, we should not re-open it. I am for recognizing Quebec as a distinct society due to its cultural differences, but I oppose giving special status to Quebec. All provinces should be treated equally while recognizing that diversity is our strength. I would rather we avoid the issue of whether Quebec is a nation or not. The problem here is the word "nation" has a different meaning in the French language over the English language. In French, it means a cultural group, so Quebec is a nation, but in English it means a separate political entity so Quebec is not a nation. Since it has different meanings in different languages lets avoid falling into the separtist trap who are no doubt using this for their own good. I also fully support the Clarity Act. I believe the fiscal imbalance is largely a myth and therefore should be ignored.

Next topic will be electoral reform.

Childcare

Up until the last few elections, childcare has been a relatively minor issue, however in the last two elections it has been a major national issue. While the role of providing childcare falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government can help finance it and attach whatever strings it wants. The Liberal Plan is for a national childcare program, which would cost $5 billion over five years. This was done by signing agreements with all provinces, but providing flexibility to each province to meet their unique demands. The Tory plan is a $1,200 cheque to all parents with children under 6, which has been by its supporters called a truly universal plan, while by its critics called nothing more than a tax cut since this works out to $3/a day, well short of the amount needed to cover the cost of childcare or have one parent stay at home. Quebec has already implemented its own childcare program that costs $7 a day, but it still has long line-ups and lacks spaces. Other countries, especially in Europe have early learning and childcare programs, however they have been expensive and depending on who one asks, their success rates have been mixed. Here in Canada, a truly national universal childcare program would cost around $10 billion a year, meaning it would pretty much eat up all of our surplus. If our economy slows down, we would go into deficit unless spending was cut elsewhere or taxes were raised. If we are going to debate whether we should have a national childcare program or not, we should at least know the true costs.

I believe a truly national childcare program is not the most efficient use of taxpayer's dollars. Before creating new social programs, we should try and fix the ones we already have. In addition I don't believe that families making $100,000 a year should be having their day care subsidized or have monthly $100 cheques sent out to them. They can pay for their own childcare. Unlike health care where one doesn't choose to be sick or education where the benefits in a more productive society clearly outweigh its costs, childcare is different since one can choose to have a child or not. While there have been numerous studies on its benefits, these cannot be taken in isolation. All external factors must also be considered. The only way to truly see whether it creates benefits or not is to take ten 3 year olds and put them into childcare and take another ten 3 year olds and have them stay at home with their parents. In 20 years time, see how many from each group went to university and what type of careers they had. Off course I like most Canadians am not interested in studying the issue for another 20 years.

My solution is that any funding by the federal government for childcare spaces should be done under only two circumstances

1. Early learning: If the childcare society is not just babysitting, but actually providing early learning, I think it is reasonable for the government to pay a portion of the cost just as they do for post secondary education.

2. Assisting Low-Income families: Families that cannot afford childcare and/or to have one parent stay at home should receive government assistance. This should come in an expanded form of the national child tax benefit as Jean Chretien introduced. I also like Stephane Dion's idea of instead of cutting the GST one percent, use that to help poor families. This will ensure they do have the funds to actually pay for childcare if they so choose, which the Tory plan doesn't, but at the same time still grant choice to parents. It also is affordable unlike a truly national childcare program.

Since childcare falls under provincial jurisdiction, provinces like all social programs under their jurisdiction can always forgo the money, however I do believe the federal government has the right to ensure all transfers for childcare are used only for childcare, however I don't support the NDP idea of mandating they must be for public unionized non-profit centres. I think if a province wishes to fund stay at home nannies, for profit centres, or any other form of childcare, should be allowed to do so as the Liberal plan did in some provinces.

My next topic will be on federalism and the role of provincial vs. federal governments.

Health Care

Poll after poll has shown that health care is the number one issue for Canadians. Yet despite several increases in funding for health care at all levels of government, long wait times continue. In fact waiting times have become so bad that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Chaoulli case that the ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional. Below I will summarize my views in three sections: Federal, Provincial, and Private sector

Federal

Although health care is primarily a provincial jurisdiction matter, I believe the federal government has a role to play here beyond First Nations health care, RCMP, and military. Regardless of what province one lives in, they should all have access to similiar services therefore I support the federal government continuing to transfer money to the provinces. The federal government also has the right to set standards that provinces must meet if they wish to receive funding. Now provinces should be free to ignore those if they wish to forgo the funding. However, there are a few other things I believe the federal government could do. In coordination with the provinces, they should set up a database of wait times for surgeries that normally have long waiting times so patients can see whenver there is an opening in other provinces. They should amend the Canada Health Act to allow provinces to establish a parallel private system so long as the doctors working in the private system operate in separate facilities and work either exclusively in the private system or do a minimum of 40 hours a week in the public system before working in the private system. Punishments on the Canada Health Act should be results based as opposed to legislative based. Otherwise if a province institutes a system that undermines accessibility then they should be punished, but if a parallel private system emerges that doesn't undermine accesibility or any of the five principles, they shouldn't be punished. The federal government should also work with other countries to establish a standard criteria for medical schools, so that foreign trained doctors won't have to go back to training again when they immigrate to Canada and they can begin practicing immediately. We also need to increase the number of doctors by providing more funding to universities for medical school, but also accepting more immigrants who wish to go into medicine. This should be done in tight coordination with the provinces.

Provincial

Provinces should decentralize hospital planning decisions to local health authorities which cover a geographic area that is similiar in its features but of significant size. Here in BC, having 30 regional health authorities was costly and unnecessary, but having everything done by one province wide health authority prevents there from being adequate responses to local needs. Doctors should continue to remain funded on a fee for service basis. Provinces who currently ban the sale of the private health insurance for medically necessary services should repeal this while, like Quebec introduce strict measures to ensure private health insurance doesn't undermine medicare. There should be a wait times guarantee and if a patient goes above this, the province will pay for them to go outside the province, outside the country, and even to a private clinic. Contracting out of laundry and food should be considered if the wages the unions demand are unrealistic, however to keep labour peace, this should be done as a last resort as it had to be in BC, but not necessarily in other provinces. Also more funding should be put into medical schools to increase the number of spaces. All licencing requirements should be harmonized nationally to ensure all medical professionals can freely move between all provinces.

Private Sector

The private sector contrary to myth already plays a large role in health care. Around 30% of health care spending is in the private sector. This is about where I think it should be, but with some adjustments. There should be better coverage of prescription drugs which would reduce the role of the private sector, but individuals should not be prevented from paying for private health care or taking out private health insurance for medically necessary services. Many complain a parallel private system would undermine our public system, but this has not been the case elsewhere. In fact Canada is virtually alone in the developed world in not allowing a parallel private system yet our health care ranks 30th by the WHO. We obviously shouldn't copy the American system which doesn't work, but countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, and France all allow private and public systems to co-exist and have overall better outcomes in health care. Some may say this is morally wrong, but the reality is our system has never been 100% equal. Those with money have always had the option of going south of the border, while third party payers such as the WCB have frequently used private clinics to get faster services for their clients. The important thing here is that there are limits on how many doctors can practice in the private system so as to ensure that we are taking people out of the queue and shortening for everyone, not shortening it for the rich while lenghthening it for the poor. I also believe the private system for medically necessary services should only be about 5-10%, which is already what it is for diagnostic services. In terms of delivery, I believe this should be left to local health authorities to judge on a case by case basis. I have neither a preference for private or public delivery, rather whichever works the best in each scenario should be used.

My next topic will be Childcare.

The Role of government

Okay, now that I have set up my new blog on the issues, I will try whenver possible to each day give my viewpoint on a different issue. I thought a good starting point would be to give my view on what the role of government should be both here in Canada and more specifically here in BC.

I believe government plays a very important role in any society, however all too often governments get involved in areas where they really shouldn't be involved. More importantly when there is a problem that needs fixing, often the solution considered as another government program or more government intervention when in fact some of our problems are caused by too much government as opposed to too little. Now I don't support the Libertarian view that we should essentially strip government right down to its bare minimum, but neither do I support the conventional view that our present government is at its optimal size.

For me government has three primary purposes which it should base its decision to intervene or not intervene around

1. To protect and defend the rights of all Canadians both from governments and other individuals who wish to infringe on their rights.

2. To provide programs that are essential to the country's well being and to help those who cannot help themselves.

3. To intervene in the market only in areas where the free market doesn't work and cannot work.

These are three important guiding principles that I apply to each government program to decide whether the government ought to be involved or not. Now I realize nothing is black and white and therefore from time to time, I may go against these principles if there is a compelling reason to do so. I also understand that others may have different views as to what defines a market failure or not, when is one interferring with another person's rights or not, and who are those that cannot help themselves.

The issue on divisions of power is something I will discuss later. My next topic will be on health care.

Introduction

Many of you who have read my regular blog posts at Miles' Blog are probably quite familiar with my viewpoints on the day to day issues, but I thought I would start a separate blog to give my opinions on various issues in a more general sense. Unlike my other blog, this will not be highly partisan. Rather it will be my own opinion, which in many cases will differ from the Liberal Party of Canada. I set this blog up not as place for partisan talk, but rather as a place for civil debate on major ideas. I welcome all feedback from anyone regardless of their partisan affiliation. All day to day events as well as any highly partisan blog will be posted at my regular blog.