Miles Lunn's Views on the Issues

Cultural Policy

2007-03-04T10:50:00.000-08:00

Okay, I haven't been on this one for a while, but with new major political news to write on my other blog, I thought I would write on the next topic although not exactly timely. The only thing here is it might show I am not a hardcore Liberal, but rather a soft Liberal who supports the party on many issues, but also disagrees with them on many.

CBC

As mentioned earlier, I generally don't believe the state should be in the business of running business at the same time, almost every developed country has a public broadcaster. I would support making it a private non-profit corporation where the board would be appointed by members of the Canadian public who choose to purchase a $10 membership, rather than by the PM. At the very least in the interim they should be appointed by an all party committee, not the PM so that CBC can remain objective and not appear biased towards one party, even if they aren't. The CBC would be free to show what they wished provided they meet three conditions
1. Provide service to all communities across Canada.
2. Provide service in English, French, and Aboriginal languages wherever a noticeable minority from that community exists or they are the majority.
3. Maintain a minimum of 60% Canadian content and also at least half of that must be Canadian shows that no private sector company will show.

The CBC would continue to get government subsidies.

CRTC

The CRTC does have a role, but it still continues to operate in a 1968 world, rather than 2007 world. The rule that says you can only have one speciality channel of any type should be dropped and instead allow more competition including more foreign channels. The minimum amount of Canadian channels required would continue to exist, but those who wish to access HBO, ESPN, and MTV should be able to do so. Since Canada prides itself in being multicultural, we should drop all restrictions on allowing stations in neither English or French to be broadcast so that our cultural communities can continue to maintain ties to their homeland. In terms of satellites, it should remain illegal to sell grey satellites in Canada, but not illegal to purchase or import them. Instead those importing them would pay a tariff, which would go to fund Canadian culture. Canadian content quotas on television should remain since due to economies of scale, we likely wouldn't have many Canadian shows without the quotas, but Canadian content quotas on radio should be repealed, since while they were necessary in 1968, we have enough homegrown talent such as Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, Shania Twain etc., that we can continue to see Canadian artists succeed both at home and abroad. I believe Canadian content quotas should be used as an infant industry argument in economic terms, which is where the government offers assistance to the industry until it is well established and can compete, but not beyond that. Canadian musical industry is no longer an infant industry, whereas Canadian television still is.

Foreign Ownership

I support lifting foreign ownership restrictions on cable and telecommunications as recommended by the Industry committee in 2003, but keeping them on the media as recommended by the Heritage committee in 2003. I'll leave telecommunications for another section, but on cable, I don't think it really matters who owns the cable lines in a more competitive market, so long as they are bound by all Canadian laws, which all foreign companies wishing to do business in Canada are. I essentially agree with just about everything written in the majority report here. At the same time I do think it is important Canadians have a place to hear things from their perspective. I have no problem with American channels like CNN being available, I just think Canadians should have an area to hear things from their perspective. I should note I almost always only watch the Canadian news.

My next topic will be on foreign policy and security, which is quite relevant today and is an area I am slightly to the left of the Liberals.

Environment

2007-01-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year to all my faithful readers. My next topic seems timely as the environment has supplanted health care as the number one issue. This year global warming is especially important when one considers how little or in some cases no snow the Eastern half of the country has received. When I moved to Toronto, I expected cold and snowy winters, not mild and wet winters like I was use to in Vancouver, yet so far to date that is what we have been experiencing.

Now I should note that global warming is a very important issue to tackle, but not the only component of a successful environmental policy

Kyoto Protocol

I believe the science behind global warming is quite strong and don't doubt we must take action. While Kyoto Protocol is one way of achieving this, my main goal is what we deliver, not through what mechanism. I would rather we not sign Kyoto Protocol and dramatically reduce GHGs then sign it and do nothing. However not signing it and doing nothing as the current government is doing is clearly not acceptable. I was opposed to Canada signing Kyoto Protocol for two reasons
1. I believe you develop a plan before you sign, not sign and develop a plan after.
2. No one region or sector of the economy should be unfairly targeted.

Had Paul Martin as opposed to Jean Chretien been PM, I probably would have been more supportive since I know Paul Martin would never unfairly target Alberta, whereas I was less sure about that on Jean Chretien. I am also confident Stephane Dion would not single out any one province.

Now that we've signed Kyoto Protocol we have an obligation to do the best we can to meet our targets and if we fall short, as we likely will, that means we must take even more aggressive efforts in our second phase, otherwise we will have some catch up to do.

I don't pretend to be an expert on how to meet our targets, but these are some things that I think would help go a long way.
1. Bring in a revenue neutral tax that lowers taxes on green companies and raises them on high polluting ones.
2. Remove the GST on hybrid cars while slap a pollution tax on SUVs and gas guzzling cars
3. Work with industry to seek voluntary targets where possible, but if industry refuses to go along, then introduce mandatory reductions.
4. Put more into R&D in green technologies so as we can shift our economy towards a greener one.
5. Finally last by not least, individuals should make a more conscious effort to do their part since governments alone cannot do all the lifting, we as Canadians must do our part. I do my part by taking the streetcar everyday to work and back

I believe we can have a strong economy and a clean environment at the same time, it is not an either or. Any party that says we must choose between one or the other should be rejected.

Other Environmental Issues

While global warming is the most pressing one, there are other important ones to deal with. We should take action to reduce smog which I've heard is quite bad here in Toronto in the summer. We also need to work with the Americans to clean up the Great Lakes. In terms of water diversion, there should be a moratorium on major diversions and bulk water exports until such time as a proper study can be done on its effects. I am not outright opposed to bulk water exports if they are properly controlled, but until such time as we can figure out how to do that, we should leave it off the table since it will be very difficult to turn back the clock if we do it wrong.

We should also work with developing countries on developing cleaner energy by helping encourage a stronger green export sector. We also need to work with other countries including the United States on cleaning up the environment. Even though the US record is not very good, bashing them to score political points doesn't do any of us good. Rather we need to be more forceful in trying to establish better environmental management and even signing similiar treaties such as the Acid Rain Treaty, which was signed under the Mulroney government. We also should work with state governments interested in reducing GHGs since despite the resistance on the environment file by the Bush administration, many state governments such as California have been showing leadership here so we should work with them. Here in Canada we should also work with each province to see they do their part in areas that fall under their jurisdiction.

My next topic will be on cultural policy, which although not relevant to anything major today, it is an area I am definitely to the right of the Liberal Party but not as right wing as most Tories.

Law and Order

2006-12-17T07:46:00.000-08:00

For the last two months I have been busy in my move from Vancouver to Toronto due to my new job so that is why I haven't posted anything here. Anyways here is my next topic which is on law and order and this seems appropriate since much of the Tory agenda has centered around this. When it comes to law and order I take a pragmatic middle of the road approach which is laws should be based on prevention, rehabilatation, and punishment. For minor crimes I lean more towards the former two, while for more serious crimes I lean more towards the latter. In terms of sentencing, I don't believe in longer sentences just to score political points, but do believe there are certain crimes where it may be appropriate. Longer sentences should only be done if it is found to be a deterrence, which studies say really isn't the case, or if the person cannot be rehabilatated i.e. Clifford Olsen in which case I support them spending the rest of their life in prison

Victimless Crimes

Victimless Crimes are crimes in which there are no victims. I am here specifically referring to drugs and prostitution. I support legalization of both marijuana and prostitution. This way we could regulate both of them and have some control rather than relying on the black market. Much like alcohol and tobacco are legal, but heavily regulated, the same would apply to marijuana and prostitution. Only licenced dealers could sell marijuana and only those with licences could be prostitutes. Prostitutes would be required to have regular check-ups to ensure they don't have STDs. Only those over 19 could purchase marijuana and only those over 19 could be a prostitute or have sex with one. In the case of prostitution this would make it safer and greatly reduce the chances of having several going missing like what happened in the Robert Pickton case on the East side of Vancouver.

For harder drugs, I support keeping them illegal, but believe treatment, not jail time is the proper course of action for drug users. Only drug dealers and smugglers should face prison time. I also support allowing safe injection sites in cities where the community is supportive of one, but I would make one change, which is to provide the addicts with the drugs at the site rather than have them bring their own drugs. Since few of them have jobs, they likely have to steal to get the money to buy drugs, so providing it on the site would help lower property crime.

Death Penalty

I am not opposed to the death penalty per se, but I oppose re-introducing capital punishment for the simple reason you can never be 100% certain the person is guilty. If it were possible to create a system whereby there was absolutely no chance of executing an innocent person, I would support re-introducing it for first degree murder. However, the reality is there is no example today and likely never will of a system where there is no chance of executing an innocent person. Even if it is only a 1 in a million chance of executing an innocent person, that is still too high for me. Lets remember if we accidently send an innocent person to prison, we can always release them, whereas if we accidently execute an innocent person, we cannot bring them back to life. It is for this reason I support maintaining Canada's moratorium on the death penalty and also support ensuring all those facing extradition will not face the death penalty.

Violent and Repeat Offenders

I generally support light sentences for first time minor offences since people do sometimes do dumb things and they shouldn't have their life destroyed because of this. More importantly locking them away will not reduce their chances of recidivism and it will also mean they are less likely to be contributors to society in the longer run. However, violent or repeat offenders, I do support long jail sentences. Murder and rape are violent crimes that should be punished harshly and for the most part they are. Likewise for repeat offenders of property crimes, I do support longer jail sentences, although not your California three strikes and you are out. The reason for supporting longer sentences is if someone is continuously breaking the law, they likely cannot be rehabilatated over a short period of time, but require a longer period of time for it to occur. Also keeping them behind bars means they cannot commit crimes.

My next topic will be on the environment.

Agriculture

2006-10-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

For the last few weeks I have been busy preparing for my move to Toronto so I have been unable to update this one and considering I will be busy once I arrive in Toronto, I expect to post here less frequently. However, I thought it was appropriate to write on agriculture in response to the Conservative proposals to change the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board

International Trade and Subsidies

I am a supporter of free trade and believe agriculture should be no exception, but in order for free trade to be truly free trade that means all other countries must eliminate tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and subsidies. Until that happens, agricultural products cannot compete without government subsidies and/or tariffs. However, Canada needs to be more vigorous at the WTO in encouraging the United States and the European Union to cut and eventually eliminate agricultural subsidies. We should also work with the United Kingdom and new members from Eastern Europe who are more open to cutting agricultural subsidies in encouraging them to abandon them. The biggest pushers of farm subsidies in the EU are France and Germany. I do support aid to farmers when events in the market occur beyond their control, but I don't support permanent subsidies to farmers or shielding them from competition if other parties play by the rules.

Canadian Wheat Board, Supply Management, and Marketing Boards

Although a staunch supporter of free enterprise, I do not oppose farmers coming together and forming marketing boards to give farmers greater clout on a global level. However, I believe individuals who don't wish to participate in these boards should be able to opt out, while allowing the board to maintain whatever restrictions they wish on future membership. For example, I would support saying once one leaves a marketing board, they can never use it again when prices fall, so as to avoid undermining it and the freerider problem.

In the specific case of the Canadian Wheat Board, I support moving to a dual marketing system similiar to Ontario and Australia. Contrary to what critics say, opening the Ontario Wheat Board up to a dual marketing system has not led to it being undermined. In fact some healthy dose of competition has led to a stronger Ontario Wheat Board since it must deliver for the farmers if it wishes to keep them using it. However, I believe such change should occur through two steps.

1. Make all fifteen board of directors, directly elected by the farmers.
2. Hold a plebiscite amongst farmers.

Unlike many politicians, I believe it is quite possible the farmers would vote in favour of a dual marketing system just as they did in Ontario in 2003. If the single desk is maintained, I believe the Wheat Board should be made a private non-government operation, where it would be responsible for levying fines against the farmers as opposed to jailing them.

In terms of supply management, I support it until all agricultural subsidies are eliminated globally. Supply management doesn't cause the same distortions as agricultural subsidies, but it is not free trade. Charging outlandishly high tariffs for dairy, poultry, and egg products and using the quota system cannot be said to be free trade. Instead as someone who took economics this creates what is a called an insider-outsider theory. For those who hold the quotas, they definitely benefit from supply management, but those who don't are unable to enter the dairy, egg, and poultry sectors. In addition to that, consumers pay higher prices at the grocery store, so it is bad for Canadian consumers. Therefore we should insist at the WTO the Canadian will not abolish supply management until agricultural subsidies are completely eliminated by the EU and United States, but we should not continue our current position of keeping supply management under all circumstances. Jeffrey Simpson, who is no Conservative, has a great article on supply management

Next will be on law and order, whenever I get the time to write on it.

Social Programs

2006-10-02T17:11:00.000-07:00

To many Canadians, our social programs is what defines us as a nation, at the very least in relation to the United States. Yet in reality, Canada has one of the least generous social safety nets among OECD countries
So the question becomes how generous should our social programs be. I've already covered my views on health care and childcare and will later on education.

In any civilized society, there is an obligation to ensure that all person's have a minimum standard of living, which is why we have a social safety net. However, a social safety net should be about helping those who cannot fend for themselves, not about creating a nanny state or encouraging dependency on government. I also do not define subsidies to corporations, non-profits, and advocacy groups as social programs, so my opinions on those will be discussed in a different topic, although generally in most but not all instances I oppose government funding in that area. Below I will summarize my views social welfare programs

CPP

Having security after retirement is essential to one's being, which is why I support CPP, however with an aging population, major re-structuring was needed to keep it stable. Thankfully it can now last until 2075. However, despite CPP's existence, I believe where possible individuals should be encouraged to personally invest and save for their retirement. RRSP limits should be indexed to inflation so they will rise annually in order to ensure Canadians can enjoy the maximum benefits of RRSPs. I support the elimination of the foreign content limit. Some have discussed the possibility of allowing individuals to opt out of CPP, however my concern is the poor who cannot afford RRSPs would not be covered due to lack of revenue. At the same time CPP rates should be kept reasonable and should be kept in a separate fund rather than going into the general revenue as done now.

EI

Should one have the unfortunate consequence of becoming unemployed, I believe EI should be there for them, at the same time to prevent abuse EI should be limited to those who lose their jobs involuntarily and those on EI should not be allowed to use it year after year as well as they should be actively seeking employment. I understand EI is important for seasonal industries, especially in Atlantic Canada so governments should work to diversify the economy so those in seasonal industries can work in other sectors during the off season. Most seasonal workers would much rather be employed year round if they could rather than just seasonally. Like CPP, EI contributions should go into a separate fund rather than general revenue and rates should reflect the cost of operation, it should not be used as a slush fund.

Welfare

Those who have disabilities and are unable to work should be allowed to be on welfare permanantely, however all other individuals should be limited to 2 years at a time and 5 years in a life unless exceptional circumstances warrant being on it longer. This reform was done by Clinton in the United States and by the BC government. The idea of workfare may work for younger unemployed individuals, but I am still skeptical about its widespread use. However, it certainly has the ability to provide the best bang for the buck. However, it effectively prevents welfare recipients from actively searching for a job or upgrading their skills by enrolling in a vocational school or post-secondary institution. If implemented, it should only be for those who refuse to look for work or upgrade their skills, not used to the extreme as it was in Ontario under the Harris government. Governments should also allow welfare recipients to work whereby for every $1 they earn, only 50 cents will be clawed back. This will help people get over the welfare wall since currently minimum wage pays less than welfare and those who do find part-time low paying work are penalized. I believe those on welfare who find part-time work should get more than those who don't, which is why I support clawing back only 50 cents per dollar earned, not the whole dollar.

Homelessness and Social Housing

As someone who lives in Vancouver within walking distance of the Downtown Eastside, I am all too familiar with the problem of homelessness. I support a national housing strategy as well as efforts to create more social housing. In addition, provinces and municipalties should work to ensure more homeless shelters are open during the winter when sleeping on the streets can be fatal. Although I generally favour less government, I don't believe investing in social housing is a waste of taxpayer's money. I do however oppose rent controls as those usually create shortages if rents charged are below market rates. It is more efficient to keep rent at market rates, but subsidize those who cannot afford rent at market rents than to institute rent controls. For anyone who understands the concept of supply and demand, this can easily be understood. There should also be screening so people cannot abuse social housing, but at the same time the cutoff should vary from city to city based on cost of living, i.e. it should be higher in Vancouver than St. John's due to a higher cost of living in Vancouver. I would propose that the lowest rent charged in the city be used to decide who qualifies or not. Anyone whose monthly income is more than 55% of what the cost of the lowest rent is would qualify for social housing.

Next topic will be on agriculture, which the Liberals just released their platform on. Note that mine will be more pro-free market than any of the party platforms.

Privatization

2006-09-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-24T21:18:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-22T15:05:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-21T15:41:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-20T19:05:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-20T17:45:00.000-07:00

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.