One of the most telling points against the increasingly decrepit Alberta government of the late 1960s was that we were exporting raw coal to Japan and receiving only 10 cents per tonne in royalties. Peter Lougheed used this point to advantage to end 36 years of Social Credit rule and usher in his Progressive Conservative party. While there has been significant improvement in adding value in Alberta through, for example, development of a petro-chemical industry, far more could be done and it is to our embarrassment that we are still exporting huge quantities of crude oil and, yes, raw coal [2010 royalties amounted to 75 cents per produced tonne]. (1)
President Obama's scuttling of the Keystone XL pipeline could be a favour to Alberta if we respond to it as an opportunity to dramatically enhance our capacity to add value to our petroleum resources and end the short sighted policies of exporting our raw resources. [Canadian economic history is characterized by the over reliance on primary products: fish, fur, forest, and farm production exported in its raw form without consequent economic diversification and capital accumulation.] Alberta should respond with an immediate tax on crude oil exports to incentivize refinery and petro-chemical construction here, and encourage further tertiary production. The income from such a tax should be targeted to enhance our highways and streets, and reduce the provincial tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.
In the late 1960s, Albertans were proud to have the best highways in Canada. Bill Hawrelak swept into the mayor's chair in Edmonton on a promise to pave every street in Edmonton. [Exciting stuff to those of us who drove on the gravel trail through Jasper Place (today's 156 street)]. Today we are relieved if some of the major potholes have recently been patched, but we should be embarrassed it has come to this. We should also be embarrassed that more often than not gasoline can be bought in Toronto at a lower price than in Alberta (not to mention in Houston).
[As of this date Houston = 81.9 cents/liter vs Edmonton = 105.9 cents per liter]
These figures should cause us to ask why we should be so enthusiastic about supporting the Keystone XL pipeline which would export not only our crude oil but the consequent capital investment, job creation, and economic spin-offs to Houston rather than retaining all of these in Alberta.
It is surprising that the Wildrose has been such a vocal supporter of XL. A recent press release (2) claims that the XL pipeline somehow would reduce the gap between West Texas Intermediate and Brent crudes! [This is the implication of what is said, if one reads the press release. However, while there is a gap, the relevant gap is between the various spot prices in Western Canada, say Hardisty Heavy (3) and the imputed "world price" which traditionally has been considered the WTI price.]
As someone who grew up in the original Heavy Oil belt around Lloydminster, I know that there are many factors which contribute to the lower spot prices in Western Canada. These have more to do with the composition of the crude or blend, distance from markets, and so on. Thus, increased pipeline capacity is no more likely to increase the spot price for Lloydminster crude than did twinning the railroads (itself) result in increased spot grain prices for Lloydminster farmers.
The vision we should have is of an Alberta 10 years from now where we again have the best roadways in Canada, where Albertans pay the lowest prices in Canada for diesel and gasoline, where our export of unprocessed primary products has been eliminated, and Albertans have a reduced tax burden - all helping to make us truly "strong and free" - not just the most efficient exporters of our natural resources.
(1) http://www.energy.alberta.ca/coal/643.asp
(2) http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/keystone-delay-costs-alberta-treasury-billions
(3) http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/
Friday, November 11, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Saskatchewan Votes
I was contacted recently by a member of the Lloydminster media for some commentary on the upcoming Saskatchewan provincial election (November 7). Since few of my comments survived to appear in the media, I record the actual context of my remarks below.
First, I was asked for a general prediction of the election outcome. [I've learned that despite being an Historian, I'm more often asked to predict the future than explain the past.] The simple headline version of my prediction was - "Wall Wins - Big". This was based on some polling showing the Saskatchewan Party running over 60%. These levels are enough for them to make substantial gains over their 38 - 20 seat lead at dissolution. I was asked whether the NDP promises, such as the recently announced rent control regime, would excite voters. My response was that I thought such policies hearkened back to the days of the NDP 30 years ago. I questioned how relevant they are to today's Saskatchewan. I ventured that the mood in Saskatchewan was much more optimistic these days about individual achievement with a new emphasis on upward social and economic mobility rather than reliance on government. I gathered that this general line was not exactly what the media person was expecting or wanting. The follow up question was to comment on the strengths of the NDP. I offered that in Mr. Lingenfelter they had an experienced leader [first elected to the legislature in 1978] but that still didn't seem likely to bring about NDP electoral success. Did this mean the NDP needed a shake-up? I said they might well but those prospects did not seem likely if my assessment of the changing nature of the Saskatchewan elector was correct. If it is true that Saskatchewanians are more entrepreneurial, independent, and optimistic than they were 50 years ago, then an NDP pasting at the polls is likely to move the NDP in the opposite direction. The reason for this is that when a party is far from power it attracts more ideological, issue centered supporters making it less representative of the province generally. I observed this years ago when the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan. Those attending party conventions seemed like people you would meet at any function across the province. [My cousin was party president!] At the same time, in Alberta, the NDP were lucky to have one or two MLA's and party conventions were dominated by union leaders and spokespeople for various and sundry single issue causes. The people attending seemed far from ordinary folk and appeared to like it that way.
The next question was about the prospects for the Greens. Would they make a breakthrough? My response was that, in terms of the election, they were irrelevant (standing in the polls as they were around 3%).
As a sort of consolation prize after this thorough vetting of any possible opposition, I was asked what I thought the interesting issues in the election were. I put forward two.
1. Whether the Saskatchewan Party would continue to increase its representation in urban ridings. [Some may remember the 2003 Saskatchewan Election when the distribution looked like this:]
This was the most remarkable rural urban split ever seen. In the 2007 election the Saskatchewan Party made enough inroads into the urban vote to win a comfortable majority. That trend, of urban voters supporting the more conservative approach of the Saskatchewan Party will need to continue if the prediction of "Wall Wins -Big" is to come true.
2. Whether the Aboriginal vote will show signs of "maturing". The term "immature voting bloc" was sometimes used in the early 20th Century to refer to immigrant voters who tended to vote as a bloc, usually for the party in power. The assumption was that voters were not versed in the issues or process so they followed the advice of their leaders. A good example of this was the so-called "Boss System" in many cities in the United States. [Some political scientists have pointed out that although the system was roundly criticized there was an element of democracy about it. Bosses had to deliver at least some benefits to their group and because they were able to deliver a bloc of votes they often could negotiate for such benefits.] That such a "system" is in place is one way of explaining that votes in recent Saskatchewan elections in some First Nations communities have seen NDP support as high as 98%. The argument is that it is almost impossible among "mature" voters to exceed 80% on anything. As well, the NDP have invested heavily in courting the Aboriginal vote, calculating, correctly, that Aboriginals are a large and rapidly growing demographic. So the question is, will Aboriginal voters still represent a monolithic bloc vote and help the NDP win 5 or 6 seats, or will Aboriginal voters be more diverse in their support or even transfer support to the Saskatchewan Party in light of their presumed victory?
.
First, I was asked for a general prediction of the election outcome. [I've learned that despite being an Historian, I'm more often asked to predict the future than explain the past.] The simple headline version of my prediction was - "Wall Wins - Big". This was based on some polling showing the Saskatchewan Party running over 60%. These levels are enough for them to make substantial gains over their 38 - 20 seat lead at dissolution. I was asked whether the NDP promises, such as the recently announced rent control regime, would excite voters. My response was that I thought such policies hearkened back to the days of the NDP 30 years ago. I questioned how relevant they are to today's Saskatchewan. I ventured that the mood in Saskatchewan was much more optimistic these days about individual achievement with a new emphasis on upward social and economic mobility rather than reliance on government. I gathered that this general line was not exactly what the media person was expecting or wanting. The follow up question was to comment on the strengths of the NDP. I offered that in Mr. Lingenfelter they had an experienced leader [first elected to the legislature in 1978] but that still didn't seem likely to bring about NDP electoral success. Did this mean the NDP needed a shake-up? I said they might well but those prospects did not seem likely if my assessment of the changing nature of the Saskatchewan elector was correct. If it is true that Saskatchewanians are more entrepreneurial, independent, and optimistic than they were 50 years ago, then an NDP pasting at the polls is likely to move the NDP in the opposite direction. The reason for this is that when a party is far from power it attracts more ideological, issue centered supporters making it less representative of the province generally. I observed this years ago when the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan. Those attending party conventions seemed like people you would meet at any function across the province. [My cousin was party president!] At the same time, in Alberta, the NDP were lucky to have one or two MLA's and party conventions were dominated by union leaders and spokespeople for various and sundry single issue causes. The people attending seemed far from ordinary folk and appeared to like it that way.
The next question was about the prospects for the Greens. Would they make a breakthrough? My response was that, in terms of the election, they were irrelevant (standing in the polls as they were around 3%).
As a sort of consolation prize after this thorough vetting of any possible opposition, I was asked what I thought the interesting issues in the election were. I put forward two.
1. Whether the Saskatchewan Party would continue to increase its representation in urban ridings. [Some may remember the 2003 Saskatchewan Election when the distribution looked like this:]
2. Whether the Aboriginal vote will show signs of "maturing". The term "immature voting bloc" was sometimes used in the early 20th Century to refer to immigrant voters who tended to vote as a bloc, usually for the party in power. The assumption was that voters were not versed in the issues or process so they followed the advice of their leaders. A good example of this was the so-called "Boss System" in many cities in the United States. [Some political scientists have pointed out that although the system was roundly criticized there was an element of democracy about it. Bosses had to deliver at least some benefits to their group and because they were able to deliver a bloc of votes they often could negotiate for such benefits.] That such a "system" is in place is one way of explaining that votes in recent Saskatchewan elections in some First Nations communities have seen NDP support as high as 98%. The argument is that it is almost impossible among "mature" voters to exceed 80% on anything. As well, the NDP have invested heavily in courting the Aboriginal vote, calculating, correctly, that Aboriginals are a large and rapidly growing demographic. So the question is, will Aboriginal voters still represent a monolithic bloc vote and help the NDP win 5 or 6 seats, or will Aboriginal voters be more diverse in their support or even transfer support to the Saskatchewan Party in light of their presumed victory?
.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Political Questions
Let's try some collaborative journalism. We know a few things. We need to find out more things. Can you help?
What we know:
1. Danielle Smith, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance, has had a very successful tour of Alberta over the past 3 weeks. As Don Braid commented in the Calgary Herald one of the things that has made this tour both useful and unusual is that Smith has met with a number of town, city and municipal councils to review their concerns. As Braid put it, "Until Wildrose came along, most councils were terrified of the blowback from the government if they paid any opposition party such respect. Liberals couldn't get in even if they brought the doughnuts."
2. Smith's tour organization had set up (and publicized) a meeting with the city council of Cold Lake for 4:30 pm on August 9, just prior to the council's regular meeting at 6:00 pm.
3. In the interval between the scheduling of Smith's meeting and it taking place, Lloyd Snelgrove, Progressive Conservative MLA, president of the Treasury Board, and Minister of Finance and Enterprise, contacted the City of Cold Lake to inform them that he could meet with them and the meeting was set at 4:00 pm on August 9. Cold Lake officials after accepting the meeting with Snelgrove said that the meeting with Smith would be "re-scheduled" to a later date.
4. Cold Lake has had long running financial difficulties as the cost of providing services to the rapidly growing community has outstripped the city's tax base. There has even been consideration of dissolving the City and adopting a set up analogous to Sherwood Park which is an unincorporated community in the County of Strathcona. A similar arrangement for Cold Lake would give them access to the oil related revenues of the surrounding municipal district.
What we don't know:
1. The purpose, content, and outcome of the Snelgrove meeting with Cold Lake council.
2. Whether Snelgrove was aware of the scheduled meeting of Smith with council before asking for his own meeting and whether another day or time would have been possible for him.
3. Whether anyone suggested including Smith in the meeting of Snelgrove with council.
4. Whether the citizens of Cold Lake are better off because of the meeting that took place or whether they will be better served after the "re-scheduled" meeting takes place.
If you can provide information about the things we don't know, please comment below. If we get informed, useful, and accurate comments - we can continue to construct the story together.
What we know:
1. Danielle Smith, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance, has had a very successful tour of Alberta over the past 3 weeks. As Don Braid commented in the Calgary Herald one of the things that has made this tour both useful and unusual is that Smith has met with a number of town, city and municipal councils to review their concerns. As Braid put it, "Until Wildrose came along, most councils were terrified of the blowback from the government if they paid any opposition party such respect. Liberals couldn't get in even if they brought the doughnuts."
2. Smith's tour organization had set up (and publicized) a meeting with the city council of Cold Lake for 4:30 pm on August 9, just prior to the council's regular meeting at 6:00 pm.
3. In the interval between the scheduling of Smith's meeting and it taking place, Lloyd Snelgrove, Progressive Conservative MLA, president of the Treasury Board, and Minister of Finance and Enterprise, contacted the City of Cold Lake to inform them that he could meet with them and the meeting was set at 4:00 pm on August 9. Cold Lake officials after accepting the meeting with Snelgrove said that the meeting with Smith would be "re-scheduled" to a later date.
4. Cold Lake has had long running financial difficulties as the cost of providing services to the rapidly growing community has outstripped the city's tax base. There has even been consideration of dissolving the City and adopting a set up analogous to Sherwood Park which is an unincorporated community in the County of Strathcona. A similar arrangement for Cold Lake would give them access to the oil related revenues of the surrounding municipal district.
What we don't know:
1. The purpose, content, and outcome of the Snelgrove meeting with Cold Lake council.
2. Whether Snelgrove was aware of the scheduled meeting of Smith with council before asking for his own meeting and whether another day or time would have been possible for him.
3. Whether anyone suggested including Smith in the meeting of Snelgrove with council.
4. Whether the citizens of Cold Lake are better off because of the meeting that took place or whether they will be better served after the "re-scheduled" meeting takes place.
If you can provide information about the things we don't know, please comment below. If we get informed, useful, and accurate comments - we can continue to construct the story together.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Health Care Quality Council?
Health Care Quality is a pressing issue. In Alberta, a government mandated and appointed committee has been studying this since 2003. Results so far are meagre. The committee, since 2006 known as the Health Quality Council of Alberta has, according to their website ( http://www.hqca.ca ) lots of the Mission, Vision and Values statements familiar to those of us who spent our careers in bureaucratic organizations. A recent press release (June 29, 2011) sounded promising but a careful reading of it reduced its "News" to 4 points:
1. We've had some meetings.
2. We've talked to some people in the medical establishment.
3. We'll give you a similar report this fall.
4. We may have an actual report in 2012 (after the next election?).
This despite the fact that one of the important issues dates back to 2001, viz.
"Efforts continue to validate the presence of a waitlist for lung surgery in 2001, including patients that died while on that waitlist many of whom had cancer."
There is a definite need for measuring quality of outcomes and ensuring more accountability but the Council's language is not encouraging there either, viz
“Health care is delivered by a complex and interconnected set of service areas. Our experience and knowledge show us that lasting gains in quality health care and patient safety are possible when the focus is on system improvements rather than individual components or care providers.”
Health Quality Council of Alberta, 2009 – 2010 Annual Report, p. 19 http://www.hqca.ca/assets/pdf/Annual_Reports/HQCA_AR_2010.pdf
Can we actually improve a "system" without addressing its components and the individuals who make up that "system"? The "system" is an abstract concept, merely allowing us to talk about the entirety of the complex arrangement of component individuals involved. Efforts to improve the "system" are as vague and ideologically weighted as efforts to reform "society" without blaming any individual or organization within it.
Check out the website and other work of the Health Quality Council and see whether you think they are on the right track to bring real life improvements to the quality of health care and patient safety in Alberta.
1. We've had some meetings.
2. We've talked to some people in the medical establishment.
3. We'll give you a similar report this fall.
4. We may have an actual report in 2012 (after the next election?).
This despite the fact that one of the important issues dates back to 2001, viz.
"Efforts continue to validate the presence of a waitlist for lung surgery in 2001, including patients that died while on that waitlist many of whom had cancer."
There is a definite need for measuring quality of outcomes and ensuring more accountability but the Council's language is not encouraging there either, viz
“Health care is delivered by a complex and interconnected set of service areas. Our experience and knowledge show us that lasting gains in quality health care and patient safety are possible when the focus is on system improvements rather than individual components or care providers.”
Health Quality Council of Alberta, 2009 – 2010 Annual Report, p. 19 http://www.hqca.ca/assets/pdf/Annual_Reports/HQCA_AR_2010.pdf
Can we actually improve a "system" without addressing its components and the individuals who make up that "system"? The "system" is an abstract concept, merely allowing us to talk about the entirety of the complex arrangement of component individuals involved. Efforts to improve the "system" are as vague and ideologically weighted as efforts to reform "society" without blaming any individual or organization within it.
Check out the website and other work of the Health Quality Council and see whether you think they are on the right track to bring real life improvements to the quality of health care and patient safety in Alberta.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Democracy Needs to be Delegated
All the political parties seem to talk about "listening to the people" and the opposition parties also propose various "democratic reforms". Sometimes, though, one wonders if there is a clear idea of what "democracy" really means. The new Alberta Party has proposed a term limit of 10 years on a premier. With a little thought, this can be clearly seen to be anti-democratic. If democracy means anything it means "power to the people" - that is, the people as a whole having the power to change the rules of a society. Term limits give one group, at one point in time, the power to limit the choice of another group, at a different time. [Hazel McCallion has been Mayor of Mississauga for 32 years and the electorate recently confirmed their opinion that she was still the best choice.] Premiers are, of course, not directly elected - another problem with the AB Party proposal, it encourages the false notion that we have a presidential rather than a parliamentary system in Canada.
The term limit idea also perpetuates the notion that the basic problem is that we have the wrong people in office. We all know that when we elect a new crew, it does not take long before they are behaving just like the old crew. What are needed are reforms to the processes. We need greater transparency, accountability, and better means for citizen input into decision making. In short, we need to delegate decision making to "the people". New technologies are enabling much more exercise of direct democracy. If 7 plus million people can vote for Jose Bautista to be in the MLB All-Star game, surely it is time we could do at least plebiscites on issues. Citizen initiatives and referenda are useful steps forward. Individual MLA's could do more by way of developing processes to allow feedback on emerging issues. Political parties can continue to develop meaningful processes for input into their own agendas.
Overall, there are many ways, especially through the new technologies, that we can have input. However, we also need to keep in mind the words of John Adams - democracy can only survive where there is "a wise and virtuous populace".
The term limit idea also perpetuates the notion that the basic problem is that we have the wrong people in office. We all know that when we elect a new crew, it does not take long before they are behaving just like the old crew. What are needed are reforms to the processes. We need greater transparency, accountability, and better means for citizen input into decision making. In short, we need to delegate decision making to "the people". New technologies are enabling much more exercise of direct democracy. If 7 plus million people can vote for Jose Bautista to be in the MLB All-Star game, surely it is time we could do at least plebiscites on issues. Citizen initiatives and referenda are useful steps forward. Individual MLA's could do more by way of developing processes to allow feedback on emerging issues. Political parties can continue to develop meaningful processes for input into their own agendas.
Overall, there are many ways, especially through the new technologies, that we can have input. However, we also need to keep in mind the words of John Adams - democracy can only survive where there is "a wise and virtuous populace".
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Rural Development in Chains?
A FB friend recently lamented the arrival of Tim Horton's in Nipawin, SK. Part of the argument was a distaste for the products and ambiance of Tim's. The other part of the argument was that familiar to the anti-Wal-Mart element, about how big chains would over power the local merchants. As someone interested in rural development, I had the following thoughts:
1. Choice. If one doesn't like Tim's, one has the option of not attending the premises. I, too, find the appeal of Tim's illusive. I find them too small, usually not very clean, and the service level unpredictable. Then again, I don't like coffee. However, whenever I do accompany my wife to one, it is invariably full of folks who seem to be enjoying their experience. I suspect the same thing will occur in Nipawin.
2. Jobs. One of things rural communities need is jobs. Tim's will provide these - all the way from part-time high schoolers up to the franchisee. [The franchisee is often forgotten. Here is someone bravely betting that they can create, manage, and sustain a local business. One of their main challenges will be finding enough people (among those who claim to want "jobs") who can be sufficiently motivated to show up punctually and regularly, and deliver a level of customer service which will sustain the business. I wish them well.]
3. Opportunity. The other businesses in town in similar lines have the opportunity to compete on the basis of quality of product and level of customer service. As mentioned above, Tim's has their vulnerabilities. Perhaps, the local bakery can put in a couple of tables, brew some good quality coffee, and welcome their customers to "set a spell" and have some fresh baked goods with their coffee, or tea. Is there a market for a tea house, for those who find Tim's a glorified cafeteria? The other area of opportunity is in increased clientele for all. Like Wal-Mart, I suspect Tim Horton's in Nipawin will bring in new customers from a wider geographic area and bring existing customers out more often. Studies and experience have shown that this is usually the result of an addition to a community's retail sector. It is the phenomenon that some call "increasing the size of the pie" rather than assuming there will be increased competition for a fixed sized customer base.
4. Affordability. I grew up in Lloydminster in the days before "the chains" came to town. Groceries, for example, were provided by a couple of independents and the local Co-op. Prices were always 10 - 15 % higher than in Edmonton, service was unpredictable, especially if you were not one of the in crowd, and some of the produce [especially at the Co-op) was of such poor quality it had no business being on the shelves. So, we welcomed the day when Safeway came to Lloydminster. Thanks to intelligent management, the Co-op eventually reacted and now-a-days competes well, including having a range of fresh produce which doesn't take a back seat to any of its competitors. All of this is an example that overall, the cost of living improved because prices went down and the quality of products and services went up. The same can happen in any small town - including Nipawin.
So, in conclusion, I say welcome to Nipawin, Timmy. The vast majority of folks will find you a positive addition to the community, even if you are not exactly my cup of ... er ... coffee.
1. Choice. If one doesn't like Tim's, one has the option of not attending the premises. I, too, find the appeal of Tim's illusive. I find them too small, usually not very clean, and the service level unpredictable. Then again, I don't like coffee. However, whenever I do accompany my wife to one, it is invariably full of folks who seem to be enjoying their experience. I suspect the same thing will occur in Nipawin.
2. Jobs. One of things rural communities need is jobs. Tim's will provide these - all the way from part-time high schoolers up to the franchisee. [The franchisee is often forgotten. Here is someone bravely betting that they can create, manage, and sustain a local business. One of their main challenges will be finding enough people (among those who claim to want "jobs") who can be sufficiently motivated to show up punctually and regularly, and deliver a level of customer service which will sustain the business. I wish them well.]
3. Opportunity. The other businesses in town in similar lines have the opportunity to compete on the basis of quality of product and level of customer service. As mentioned above, Tim's has their vulnerabilities. Perhaps, the local bakery can put in a couple of tables, brew some good quality coffee, and welcome their customers to "set a spell" and have some fresh baked goods with their coffee, or tea. Is there a market for a tea house, for those who find Tim's a glorified cafeteria? The other area of opportunity is in increased clientele for all. Like Wal-Mart, I suspect Tim Horton's in Nipawin will bring in new customers from a wider geographic area and bring existing customers out more often. Studies and experience have shown that this is usually the result of an addition to a community's retail sector. It is the phenomenon that some call "increasing the size of the pie" rather than assuming there will be increased competition for a fixed sized customer base.
4. Affordability. I grew up in Lloydminster in the days before "the chains" came to town. Groceries, for example, were provided by a couple of independents and the local Co-op. Prices were always 10 - 15 % higher than in Edmonton, service was unpredictable, especially if you were not one of the in crowd, and some of the produce [especially at the Co-op) was of such poor quality it had no business being on the shelves. So, we welcomed the day when Safeway came to Lloydminster. Thanks to intelligent management, the Co-op eventually reacted and now-a-days competes well, including having a range of fresh produce which doesn't take a back seat to any of its competitors. All of this is an example that overall, the cost of living improved because prices went down and the quality of products and services went up. The same can happen in any small town - including Nipawin.
So, in conclusion, I say welcome to Nipawin, Timmy. The vast majority of folks will find you a positive addition to the community, even if you are not exactly my cup of ... er ... coffee.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Health Care in Canada - 1945
Charlie Leech was a dairy farmer who lived near Newboro, Ontario in 1945. He worked hard to support his family, milking more than 20 cows twice a day, growing corn, haying and doing all the other chores on a family farm. In addition that spring, his mother had died and he had been the one to take care of all the matters of the estate. Worn down perhaps, he developed a bad cough and the periodic chest pain he experienced became more severe. On May 19, 1945, he went to visit the family's doctor in nearby Westport, Ontario.
This was in the days before Canada had a "free" "Health Care" system so Charlie had to pay $3.00 for the office visit. Dr. Goodfellow was troubled by the increasing chest pain and recommended Charlie see the best cardiologist in the region, Dr. W. Ford Connell at the Kingston General. So, on June 13, 1945, Charlie drove in to Kingston and met with the well regarded specialist. Dr. Connell did an examination, talked to Charlie about his family, extended his condolences regarding Charlie's mother, and sent Charlie down stairs for a chest x-ray. That cough was a miserable one too. Charlie paid $6.00 for the x-ray.
Back he went to Dr. Connell who wrote a prescription for three medications to deal with both the cough and the chest pain.
Charlie thanked Dr. Connell, and, because he liked to pay promptly, settled the bill for his visit directly with Dr. Connell.
On his way home Charlie picked up his medications. Their total cost was $1.65. Now it is common to quote prices from "the old days" without adjusting them to reflect cost of living and purchasing power in the time period they took place. Charlie was a dairy farmer so one comparison would be that the retail price of milk at the time was about 60 cents a gallon. The price of milk in 2011 is approximately 7 times what it was in 1945. Therefore, the total cost to Charlie of his medical adventure had been $20.65 or about $150.00 in current funds. In return, Charlie had seen (promptly and on time) a family doctor who actually knew his family, been referred in less than one month to the top cardiologist in the area, had had a x-ray and paid for three medications.
Charlie farmed for another 20 years. His cough was never "cured" but that was because he was a heavy smoker. That didn't help the heart either. Less than two years after he retired, he succumbed to a heart attack, aged 70. Charlie Leech was my father-in-law and coming across these documents in some old family papers caused me to reflect that perhaps health care was not so bad, back in the day.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Health Care debate growing
There was an interesting exchange on Twitter last evening between Doug Griffiths, (@GriffMLA) MLA and Progressive Conservative (PC) leadership candidate, and Rob Anderson, (@RAndersonMLA) MLA and Wildrose Alliance (WR) insider, about the "health care" situation in Alberta. While Twitter is not the best medium for a sustained, in depth debate, it was refreshing to see some potential political heavywights engaged in a probing examination of where we are and what might be done.
One of the things that initiated the debate was Griffiths' recent suggestion that health care premiums be reintroduced. Anderson countered that "premiums won't do squat to fix our system". Griffiths conceded that "Health needs many [other] reforms" but wondered how we are going to pay for the ever growing cost of our present system.
I agree that reintroducing premiums is definitely not an answer, especially if there is no fundamental change in the philosophy and processes characteristic of our present "system". On the other hand, Anderson's contention that "family docs are All private providers competing for publicly insured patients", as an example that we already have an element of private enterprise in our system, suggests a superficial analysis. There is a huge difference between competing for fully autonomous customers (i.e. where patients control their own funds) and "competing" for government funding, which is a political process.
Perhaps the major problem with our "health care system" is that it has become entirely "political". What does that mean? Over my years of teaching political science, I developed an excellent definition of politics as "the struggle for the power to set the rules for a society". The key word in this definition is "power". There are many sources of power. Among them are influence and money. Influence can change the rules of a society by, say, allowing PC insiders to jump health care queues. Money can change the rules by allowing the wealthy to fly to the Mayo clinic for an MRI they would have to wait months for in Alberta.
As usual, the key to understanding a situation is to "follow the money" and especially the power to control the money. One of the most corrupting characteristics of a "political" system is that a few insiders are able to control the money of others. Taxation, we need to be reminded, is the confiscation of one person's money by a state apparatus which allows that money then to be spent by others for their own purposes. Health care premiums are simply another tax (i.e. confiscation of money). One attractive element of the WR position is that it proposes "funding following the patient" which one hopes means that the individual would be able to control how their funds are expended. Such a system would allow more of the private enterprise approach which, as it operates in, say, the food industry, would allow truer competition which, in turn, tends to allow the improvement of customer service and product quality. There can only be competition if there is real choice by "clients" who have true power to control their own money.
On that topic, we need much more transparency. Whatever happened to informing us about what money is actually being spent on our behalf in health care? In the early days of "health care" we would get an annual statement of what funds had been spent on our account, itemizing, for example, how many visits we had made to doctors and the charges associated with each visit. Why do we no longer get this information? Who audits doctors? Are we to believe that no doctor in Alberta ever bills for a phantom patient visit? I haven't heard of one, have you?
In summary, we need to re-examine our basic assumptions and processes. The Anderson - Griffiths exchange is a mildly encouraging example of that. I see that @RajShermanMLA has also challenged "any/all PC candidates to a healthcare debate". The more we engage in probes of our existing situation the more likely we are to correctly diagnose its problems and the more likely we can prescribe some remedies that will lead use to a healthier economic and political condition in our Alberta.
One of the things that initiated the debate was Griffiths' recent suggestion that health care premiums be reintroduced. Anderson countered that "premiums won't do squat to fix our system". Griffiths conceded that "Health needs many [other] reforms" but wondered how we are going to pay for the ever growing cost of our present system.
I agree that reintroducing premiums is definitely not an answer, especially if there is no fundamental change in the philosophy and processes characteristic of our present "system". On the other hand, Anderson's contention that "family docs are All private providers competing for publicly insured patients", as an example that we already have an element of private enterprise in our system, suggests a superficial analysis. There is a huge difference between competing for fully autonomous customers (i.e. where patients control their own funds) and "competing" for government funding, which is a political process.
Perhaps the major problem with our "health care system" is that it has become entirely "political". What does that mean? Over my years of teaching political science, I developed an excellent definition of politics as "the struggle for the power to set the rules for a society". The key word in this definition is "power". There are many sources of power. Among them are influence and money. Influence can change the rules of a society by, say, allowing PC insiders to jump health care queues. Money can change the rules by allowing the wealthy to fly to the Mayo clinic for an MRI they would have to wait months for in Alberta.
As usual, the key to understanding a situation is to "follow the money" and especially the power to control the money. One of the most corrupting characteristics of a "political" system is that a few insiders are able to control the money of others. Taxation, we need to be reminded, is the confiscation of one person's money by a state apparatus which allows that money then to be spent by others for their own purposes. Health care premiums are simply another tax (i.e. confiscation of money). One attractive element of the WR position is that it proposes "funding following the patient" which one hopes means that the individual would be able to control how their funds are expended. Such a system would allow more of the private enterprise approach which, as it operates in, say, the food industry, would allow truer competition which, in turn, tends to allow the improvement of customer service and product quality. There can only be competition if there is real choice by "clients" who have true power to control their own money.
On that topic, we need much more transparency. Whatever happened to informing us about what money is actually being spent on our behalf in health care? In the early days of "health care" we would get an annual statement of what funds had been spent on our account, itemizing, for example, how many visits we had made to doctors and the charges associated with each visit. Why do we no longer get this information? Who audits doctors? Are we to believe that no doctor in Alberta ever bills for a phantom patient visit? I haven't heard of one, have you?
In summary, we need to re-examine our basic assumptions and processes. The Anderson - Griffiths exchange is a mildly encouraging example of that. I see that @RajShermanMLA has also challenged "any/all PC candidates to a healthcare debate". The more we engage in probes of our existing situation the more likely we are to correctly diagnose its problems and the more likely we can prescribe some remedies that will lead use to a healthier economic and political condition in our Alberta.
Friday, June 24, 2011
U of A follow-up
Well - the U of A response to the plagiarism issue (see post below) earns a C. Fairly prompt - the Dean resigns - BUT only as Dean. He remains in faculty and, after a summer off, will resume teaching duties in the fall. Financial and other "penalties" seem minimal. One wonders, for the sake of balance, how many medical / dentistry students were penalized for plagiarism in the past year? What was the nature of those penalities? Is this a case of fairly harsh penalties on paper morphing into cautious wrist tapping when applied in individual cases. Enforcing rules always takes courage (the courage to be seen as "not such a nice guy") but it is enforcement which has the most impact on culture.
I worked in a school once where one or two teachers parked in the few stalls designated for visitors, perhaps because they were close to the school entrance. The response of administration was: general memos read over the PA system "all those parking in the visitors parking spots should refrain from doing so" to increasingly larger signs being posted "Visitor Parking Only". The culprits kept parking while the innocent resented being berated for something they were not doing. How much more effective it would have been for the principal to go to Larry and Mo (they were easily identified as the offending parkers) and say "Stop parking in the visitors or your cars will be towed" and then making sure that the next time they parked there - the tow trucks were called immediately.
I worked in a school once where one or two teachers parked in the few stalls designated for visitors, perhaps because they were close to the school entrance. The response of administration was: general memos read over the PA system "all those parking in the visitors parking spots should refrain from doing so" to increasingly larger signs being posted "Visitor Parking Only". The culprits kept parking while the innocent resented being berated for something they were not doing. How much more effective it would have been for the principal to go to Larry and Mo (they were easily identified as the offending parkers) and say "Stop parking in the visitors or your cars will be towed" and then making sure that the next time they parked there - the tow trucks were called immediately.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A Test for the U of A
Recent accusations of plagiarism against a Dean at the University of Alberta ( http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Accusations+cast+pall/4941801/story.html ) raise a number of interesting issues. One of those is the manner in which power corrupts democracy. In all organizations, power accrues to the administration. Bureaucratic processes are used to obfuscate the exercise of power by a small inner cadre of administrators. Stakeholders are fed myths about the "mission, vision, and values" of the organization which, especially in crises situations, are revealed as propaganda and spin. Thus, when, say, downsizing the organization, individuals will be axed in indirect proportion to their power.
So, the test for the University of Alberta is whether it will deal with the Dean of Medicine and Dentistry in the same way it would deal with Joe Student from Hairy Hill. Already, the answer is apparently "No." as the Dean's fake speech issue must be "carefully studied" and all the bureaucratic arsenal of delays, hair splitting, and contextual concerns are deployed to provide time for the issue to blow over and attention be turned to the next cause celebre.
Why this rankles is that there is a strong urgency for fairness in a culture which is truly democratic. So called rebels, from Thomas Jefferson, to Wael Ghonim, and Julian Assange - have all been motivated, in large part, by experienced and perceived unfairness in the treatment meted out to the less powerful as compared to the arrogant dismissal of fairness and similar values by those in positions as insiders of the power elites.
Will the U of A pass the test? That will depend on its scores on the following rubric: fairness, transparency, accountability, openness, promptness, and courage. Will "whatsoever may be true" become a reality - or will it be reserved for the next opportunity to inspire students or motivate alumni givers?
So, the test for the University of Alberta is whether it will deal with the Dean of Medicine and Dentistry in the same way it would deal with Joe Student from Hairy Hill. Already, the answer is apparently "No." as the Dean's fake speech issue must be "carefully studied" and all the bureaucratic arsenal of delays, hair splitting, and contextual concerns are deployed to provide time for the issue to blow over and attention be turned to the next cause celebre.
Why this rankles is that there is a strong urgency for fairness in a culture which is truly democratic. So called rebels, from Thomas Jefferson, to Wael Ghonim, and Julian Assange - have all been motivated, in large part, by experienced and perceived unfairness in the treatment meted out to the less powerful as compared to the arrogant dismissal of fairness and similar values by those in positions as insiders of the power elites.
Will the U of A pass the test? That will depend on its scores on the following rubric: fairness, transparency, accountability, openness, promptness, and courage. Will "whatsoever may be true" become a reality - or will it be reserved for the next opportunity to inspire students or motivate alumni givers?
Friday, June 10, 2011
Great article on Alberta "Health Care" by Kevin Libin
Today's National Post (p. A8) included an insightful article by Kevin Libin about Alberta's failing "Health Care" system. While the article gives a lot of attention to the recent revelations about queue-jumping by political insiders, and leans a bit too hard on the "corrupt Alberta P.C.'s" angle; a thoughtful reading confirms some of the basic symptoms of our "Health Care" malaise. It also further justifies my comment years ago, in Vermilion, to then Health Care Minister Gary Mar, that we had a Soviet Style health care system. Mr. Mar dismissed my comment as a bizarre bleep from an awkward non-entity. However, Libin's article highlights that, just as in the "egalitarian" Soviet Union, while peasants and workers were queueing for hours to access poor quality, superciliously delivered food staples, Communist party insiders had special access at the GUM department store where they could promptly obtain high quality and exotic items, in special venues reserved for them. All the while, these same Soviet officials touted the myth that everyone in the Soviet Union was an equal "comrade". Now, to me, the parallels between this Soviet reality, and the current state of Canadian "Health Care" are striking. So, the problem is not that somehow we have some corrupt, or arrogant, or incompetent politicians, or bureaucrats. The problem is that we have politicized health care and removed the patient from any control over the quality or the attitude with which health care is delivered. We wouldn't put up with the quality of "customer service" in any other aspect of our lives. We know that many people will play the system to their advantage if they can so it is not just that we have "tory insiders" it is that when you have a politically driven system, it guarantees that insiders will acquire more power and use it to their own advantage. We need to move to end the state controlled monopoly which enforces long queues and low quality for the masses and invites political insiders to abuse their power.
Another encouraging comment in Libin's article is that more and more Albertans are becoming aware of the disconnect between the propaganda claims that "we have the world's greatest "Health Care" system [just look at the billions we spend on it]" and the reality of unsustainable costs, continually deteriorating quality, and appalling attitudes of many burned out health care professionals. One hopes that we do not have to wait for every Canadian to experience first hand the horrors of emergency room waits, unsanitary hospital wards, or bored arrogance from doctors, before we realize that revolutionary changes are needed. It took a long time in the Soviet Union but eventually the disconnect between the myth spun my Communist party officials compared to the reality experienced by long suffering ordinary "comrades" was just too great to be sustained. The iron curtain fell. Hopefully, Canadian "Health Care" will soon follow.
Another encouraging comment in Libin's article is that more and more Albertans are becoming aware of the disconnect between the propaganda claims that "we have the world's greatest "Health Care" system [just look at the billions we spend on it]" and the reality of unsustainable costs, continually deteriorating quality, and appalling attitudes of many burned out health care professionals. One hopes that we do not have to wait for every Canadian to experience first hand the horrors of emergency room waits, unsanitary hospital wards, or bored arrogance from doctors, before we realize that revolutionary changes are needed. It took a long time in the Soviet Union but eventually the disconnect between the myth spun my Communist party officials compared to the reality experienced by long suffering ordinary "comrades" was just too great to be sustained. The iron curtain fell. Hopefully, Canadian "Health Care" will soon follow.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Time to get serious about fixing "Health Care"
During the recent election campaign, all parties supported increased spending on "Health Care" despite the fact that such spending may have already reached unsustainable levels. More serious even than the financial implications is the degree to which our "Health Care" system has eroded the quality of care and respect for the individual humanity of each "patient". We are all familiar with stories of months on waiting lists, hours in emergency rooms, squalid unsanitary conditions on wards, burned out staff treating patients like annoying interruptions, and doctors consistently overbooking office visits with absurd rules such as "only one complaint per visit".
Despite all of this (and much more) we still hear Canadians claiming we have a marvelous system that we need to protect at all costs (literally, apparently). It's long past time to admit, our "Health Care" system is broken and corrupt and needs to be fixed to improve patient care, health outcomes, accessibility, staff morale, and financial sustainability. It is also past time to recognize that spending more money without significant changes in philosophy and culture is only compounding the problems.
With this in mind, it was not encouraging to hear PM Harper's post election comments which seemed more concerned with placating the "friends of Medicare" than treating the sickness of our system. Some suggest that somehow the recent election has empowered the West, or, alternatively, long-suffering conservatives. I'm not optimistic that we have set the stage for meaningful reform. I think we still have some hard campaigning to do and can expect strong push-back to efforts to administer the strong medicine needed to cure our "Health Care" system. Rather than try and nudge our Conservative MPs toward "Health Care" reform, I think we should fight for reforms at the provincial level (which actually has the constitutional jurisdiction for health).
In Alberta, we have a promising alternative in the proposals of the Wildrose. [see more here and especially here]. The Wildrose recognize the severity and scope of the problem, and that attempting to fix these problems will require courage and innovation. I am particularly heartened by the direction of shifting power to "the patient" by, for example, having funding follow the individual rather than the current top-down, bureaucratic, politicized models. If we accomplish meaningful reform in Alberta, it will hearten those in other provinces to follow our lead. We should be fully prepared for resistance to our efforts from the federal "conservative" government. However, Alberta has fought such fights before and the results have not only benefited Albertans but ultimately all Canadians as well.
It is a far more serious situation than even those of us concerned about it realize. There was talk of Alberta addressing the problems about 10 years ago - even to the point of opting out of the Canada Health Act. Unfortunately, we caved on that. Since then we have subsidized a sick system with billions of our allegedly "dirty dollars". Let's keep our dollars in Alberta, fix our system, and demonstrate to all Canadians what a sound, healthy and effective "Health Care" system would really look like.
Despite all of this (and much more) we still hear Canadians claiming we have a marvelous system that we need to protect at all costs (literally, apparently). It's long past time to admit, our "Health Care" system is broken and corrupt and needs to be fixed to improve patient care, health outcomes, accessibility, staff morale, and financial sustainability. It is also past time to recognize that spending more money without significant changes in philosophy and culture is only compounding the problems.
With this in mind, it was not encouraging to hear PM Harper's post election comments which seemed more concerned with placating the "friends of Medicare" than treating the sickness of our system. Some suggest that somehow the recent election has empowered the West, or, alternatively, long-suffering conservatives. I'm not optimistic that we have set the stage for meaningful reform. I think we still have some hard campaigning to do and can expect strong push-back to efforts to administer the strong medicine needed to cure our "Health Care" system. Rather than try and nudge our Conservative MPs toward "Health Care" reform, I think we should fight for reforms at the provincial level (which actually has the constitutional jurisdiction for health).
In Alberta, we have a promising alternative in the proposals of the Wildrose. [see more here and especially here]. The Wildrose recognize the severity and scope of the problem, and that attempting to fix these problems will require courage and innovation. I am particularly heartened by the direction of shifting power to "the patient" by, for example, having funding follow the individual rather than the current top-down, bureaucratic, politicized models. If we accomplish meaningful reform in Alberta, it will hearten those in other provinces to follow our lead. We should be fully prepared for resistance to our efforts from the federal "conservative" government. However, Alberta has fought such fights before and the results have not only benefited Albertans but ultimately all Canadians as well.
It is a far more serious situation than even those of us concerned about it realize. There was talk of Alberta addressing the problems about 10 years ago - even to the point of opting out of the Canada Health Act. Unfortunately, we caved on that. Since then we have subsidized a sick system with billions of our allegedly "dirty dollars". Let's keep our dollars in Alberta, fix our system, and demonstrate to all Canadians what a sound, healthy and effective "Health Care" system would really look like.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Some Historical Perspective on Canada's Election
The first election I was actively interested in took place on March 31, 1958. There was lots of excitement in my rural Alberta community about a real Westerner, John Diefenbaker, having a chance to form a majority government and, perhaps, do some things that would help the Western economy, especially we farm families. Now the May 2, 2011 Canadian election has produced some historic results so, some comparisons:
1958 - Liberals reduced to 48 seats - a then record low - and a popular vote of 33.4%but Lester Pearson, new to the leadership, stayed on and would win Liberal minorities in 1963 and 1965.
2011 - Liberals reduced to 34 seats, a record low - and also a record low popular vote 18.9%. Michael Ignatieff has resigned.
1958 - Conservatives win 208 seats, an increase of 97 seats. Their 50 seats in Quebec were populated with many who had no experience and few qualifications. John Diefenbaker's inability to integrate most of those 50 into effective members of the Conservative caucus eventually cost him, and, one might argue, the country, dearly.
2011 - New Democrats win 105 seats, an increase of 65 seats. Their 58 seats in Quebec are populated by many who have no experience and few qualifications. Jack Layton faces a huge challenge in integrating Quebec MPs into effective members of his caucus without alienating support for the NDP in other regions of Canada (where one might notice they only hold 47 seats or about 20% of the total).
1958 - Newfoundland and Labrador - despite national majority, Conservatives win only 2 of 7 seats.
2011 - Newfoundland and Labrador - despite national majority, Conservatives win only 1 of 7 seats.
1958 - Alberta - Conservatives win 17 of 17 seats. A swing from 13 of 17 for Social Credit in the previous election. There have been few non-conservatives since.
2011 - Alberta - Conservatives win 27 of 28 seats.
1958 - 4 Western provinces combined: Conservatives win 65 of 70 seats. This was an historic break through for the Conservatives and the legacy of Diefenbaker's victory still energizes the Conservative vote in the West although he has long since failed to get credit for it.
2011 - 4 Western provinces combined: Conservatives win 72 of 91 seats.
1958 - 4 Western provinces combined: Liberals win 0 of 70 seats.
2011 - 4 Western provinces combined: Liberals win 4 of 91 seats.
There were 2 Liberal votes cast at the polling station at our Golden Valley School in 1958 and I remember my parents speculating as to who might be so much out of the norm to have done such a thing. It helped me to understand that there is never 100% unanimity.
Now in 2011 there is again an air of expectancy that something good might come out of this result. It would be suitably humbling if any of our current MP elects knew their history and could so conduct themselves that 53 years from now (2064) Canadians can look back with appreciation for what that generation of 2011 accomplished.
1958 - Liberals reduced to 48 seats - a then record low - and a popular vote of 33.4%but Lester Pearson, new to the leadership, stayed on and would win Liberal minorities in 1963 and 1965.
2011 - Liberals reduced to 34 seats, a record low - and also a record low popular vote 18.9%. Michael Ignatieff has resigned.
1958 - Conservatives win 208 seats, an increase of 97 seats. Their 50 seats in Quebec were populated with many who had no experience and few qualifications. John Diefenbaker's inability to integrate most of those 50 into effective members of the Conservative caucus eventually cost him, and, one might argue, the country, dearly.
2011 - New Democrats win 105 seats, an increase of 65 seats. Their 58 seats in Quebec are populated by many who have no experience and few qualifications. Jack Layton faces a huge challenge in integrating Quebec MPs into effective members of his caucus without alienating support for the NDP in other regions of Canada (where one might notice they only hold 47 seats or about 20% of the total).
1958 - Newfoundland and Labrador - despite national majority, Conservatives win only 2 of 7 seats.
2011 - Newfoundland and Labrador - despite national majority, Conservatives win only 1 of 7 seats.
1958 - Alberta - Conservatives win 17 of 17 seats. A swing from 13 of 17 for Social Credit in the previous election. There have been few non-conservatives since.
2011 - Alberta - Conservatives win 27 of 28 seats.
1958 - 4 Western provinces combined: Conservatives win 65 of 70 seats. This was an historic break through for the Conservatives and the legacy of Diefenbaker's victory still energizes the Conservative vote in the West although he has long since failed to get credit for it.
2011 - 4 Western provinces combined: Conservatives win 72 of 91 seats.
1958 - 4 Western provinces combined: Liberals win 0 of 70 seats.
2011 - 4 Western provinces combined: Liberals win 4 of 91 seats.
There were 2 Liberal votes cast at the polling station at our Golden Valley School in 1958 and I remember my parents speculating as to who might be so much out of the norm to have done such a thing. It helped me to understand that there is never 100% unanimity.
Now in 2011 there is again an air of expectancy that something good might come out of this result. It would be suitably humbling if any of our current MP elects knew their history and could so conduct themselves that 53 years from now (2064) Canadians can look back with appreciation for what that generation of 2011 accomplished.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Democracy Requires an Educated Citizenry
Anyone who works in an election campaign (say door knocking) soon discovers the average citizen knows little about our political system, let alone the constituion. Average Citizen (AC) will confuse federal, provincial and local jurisdictions, and often operates on a completely incorrect understanding of our political realities.
Take for example, the dreaded COALITION. AC does not even understand how one gets to be Prime Minister. They talk about "voting for X for Prime Minister". News Flash. Canada does not have a presidential system. The election is about voting to choose 1 of the 308 members of the House of Commons. Period. After that, all the decisions are made by those 308 individuals, and the Governor General.
It helps to understand how it works if we remember that our system developed before there were political parties as we know them today. So imagine that we have a group of 308 individuals chosen at random to advise a big corporation owned by, say, Mr. Big. Mr. Big has agreed in advance that he will choose his board of directors from among the 308 but requires that that board has the support of the majority of the 308. Then Mr. Big wants to deal only with one individual so he also asks that the board have a leader who can speak for them. Mr. Big appoints that individual to be his CEO and asks her or him to introduce the rest of his board. Mr. Big accepts these board members and appoints them to manage various departments, as his CEO has advised him.
Well, you may have suspected, Mr. Big is actually the monarch, in our case Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Yes, Canada is actually a monarchy - a constitutional monarchy - having both a monarch and a constitution. Surprise! Her role is performed usually by the Governor General but only in the name of the Queen. Nothing legitimate in Canada can be done without the Queen's approval.
Now, to return to our analogy, over many years Mr. Big delegated most of his powers to the board of directors, and he has accepted the principle that he will be bound by their advice, provided that this board continues to have the support of the majority of those 308 elected members. Mr. Big still owns the company, and he still loves his company, but, for better or worse, he has decided to let the board of directors, led by the CEO, call the shots. He even pretends that their decisions are his decisions and their policies are his policies.
However, the board must continue to have the support of the majority of the 308. If that appears not to be the case, then Mr. Big can see if anyone else among the 308 could form a board that did have majority support - or he can call an election to chose another 308 individuals and see if a majority of them will support a board.
In to this scenario we now add political parties. Because AC is politically illiterate we keep it simple and label them by colours - say blue, red, orange and green. Instead of the 308 individuals the system was designed for, now we count how many of those 308 are on the blue team, the red team, etc. When this started to happen back in the late 18th and early 19the century, "partyism" was widely criticized as a corruption of the constitution. And, it is. Rather than help advise Her Majesty as to what is in the best interests of Her subjects (the true role of a Member of Parliament) now those elected are focused on what is best for their "team" [say, "Team Harper"?] It also makes it more difficult to work together because doing so might help an opposing "team".
So, what about the COALITION? Actually, a coaliton is an entirely legal, constitutional, and sometimes appropriate solution. A coalition currently forms and supports the government of the United Kingdom (the mother of parliaments). Mr. Harper and the Conservative team did a disservice to our constitution by demonizing even the word coalition. Like many of Mr. Harper's political gamesmanship moves this could rebound to his disadvantage. If his team fails to win a majority in the current election, he has seemingly talked himself out of one very legitimate and viable option to form a stable government - forming a coalition led by himself.
On the other hand, Mr. Ignatieff too long avoided and denied the possibility of coalition so that his eventual acknowledgement of it as a possibility seems a backdown. Mr. Layton has been more realistic and transparent on this issue although a little hesitant at first as well.
In any event, a formal coalition - where seats on the board (i.e. cabinet) are shared, as in the UK today, or a more informal agreement by one "team" to support another are both legitimate and potentially workable ways in which those elected could get on with the business of advising Her Majesty on the best policies for Canadians.
Take for example, the dreaded COALITION. AC does not even understand how one gets to be Prime Minister. They talk about "voting for X for Prime Minister". News Flash. Canada does not have a presidential system. The election is about voting to choose 1 of the 308 members of the House of Commons. Period. After that, all the decisions are made by those 308 individuals, and the Governor General.
It helps to understand how it works if we remember that our system developed before there were political parties as we know them today. So imagine that we have a group of 308 individuals chosen at random to advise a big corporation owned by, say, Mr. Big. Mr. Big has agreed in advance that he will choose his board of directors from among the 308 but requires that that board has the support of the majority of the 308. Then Mr. Big wants to deal only with one individual so he also asks that the board have a leader who can speak for them. Mr. Big appoints that individual to be his CEO and asks her or him to introduce the rest of his board. Mr. Big accepts these board members and appoints them to manage various departments, as his CEO has advised him.
Well, you may have suspected, Mr. Big is actually the monarch, in our case Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Yes, Canada is actually a monarchy - a constitutional monarchy - having both a monarch and a constitution. Surprise! Her role is performed usually by the Governor General but only in the name of the Queen. Nothing legitimate in Canada can be done without the Queen's approval.
Now, to return to our analogy, over many years Mr. Big delegated most of his powers to the board of directors, and he has accepted the principle that he will be bound by their advice, provided that this board continues to have the support of the majority of those 308 elected members. Mr. Big still owns the company, and he still loves his company, but, for better or worse, he has decided to let the board of directors, led by the CEO, call the shots. He even pretends that their decisions are his decisions and their policies are his policies.
However, the board must continue to have the support of the majority of the 308. If that appears not to be the case, then Mr. Big can see if anyone else among the 308 could form a board that did have majority support - or he can call an election to chose another 308 individuals and see if a majority of them will support a board.
In to this scenario we now add political parties. Because AC is politically illiterate we keep it simple and label them by colours - say blue, red, orange and green. Instead of the 308 individuals the system was designed for, now we count how many of those 308 are on the blue team, the red team, etc. When this started to happen back in the late 18th and early 19the century, "partyism" was widely criticized as a corruption of the constitution. And, it is. Rather than help advise Her Majesty as to what is in the best interests of Her subjects (the true role of a Member of Parliament) now those elected are focused on what is best for their "team" [say, "Team Harper"?] It also makes it more difficult to work together because doing so might help an opposing "team".
So, what about the COALITION? Actually, a coaliton is an entirely legal, constitutional, and sometimes appropriate solution. A coalition currently forms and supports the government of the United Kingdom (the mother of parliaments). Mr. Harper and the Conservative team did a disservice to our constitution by demonizing even the word coalition. Like many of Mr. Harper's political gamesmanship moves this could rebound to his disadvantage. If his team fails to win a majority in the current election, he has seemingly talked himself out of one very legitimate and viable option to form a stable government - forming a coalition led by himself.
On the other hand, Mr. Ignatieff too long avoided and denied the possibility of coalition so that his eventual acknowledgement of it as a possibility seems a backdown. Mr. Layton has been more realistic and transparent on this issue although a little hesitant at first as well.
In any event, a formal coalition - where seats on the board (i.e. cabinet) are shared, as in the UK today, or a more informal agreement by one "team" to support another are both legitimate and potentially workable ways in which those elected could get on with the business of advising Her Majesty on the best policies for Canadians.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Democracy Prescribed for Health Care
The quality, accessibility, and affordability of Health Care are important issues today. How can democracy be applied to remedy the ills of the current "system"? First we keep in mind our new definition of "democracy" as "a society which recognizes, celebrates, incorporates, and protects the inherent value of each individual". For those of us who have spent 6 hours waiting on a stretcher in the hallway of an ER unit, it is immediately apparent that the current "system" de-values us. In no other context would we put up with such shabby treatment. Would we wait 6 hours to see our hairdresser, our auto mechanic, our lawyer? No. In part, because we have alternatives. We could take our business to another hairdresser, mechanic, etc. So one obvious problem with our Canadian health care system is that it is a statist monopoly.
I once commented to Gary Mar, when he was Alberta's Health Minister, that we had a "soviet-style health care system". He dismissed my comment out of hand, with all the contempt of those who subscribe to the fantasy that we have this "wonderful Canadian health care". However, it is indeed like the soviet reality, where hapless peasants stood in line-ups for hours to receive shoddy goods from surly bureaucrats.
The antidote is to empower the individual consumer. The question though is how? Introducing elements found in a market economy is one way of doing this. It is not a perfect solution either but to evaluate the pros and cons we need to consider one other central element - power. During my years teaching political science I developed an effective definition of "politics" as "the struggle for the power to set the rules for a society". This definition helps us to focus on the fact that what is crucial is who has the power to decide how resources will be allocated. In a market economy, power derives from money. Those who have money can command resources. The Canadian health-care alternative substitutes administrative bureaucracy, rather than money, as the source of power. This "political power" is, in theory, capable of a more equitable distribution of resources than the "economic power" model.
However, both systems have their own inherent logic. While the "rich will attempt to get richer", it is much more the case that "those with political power will use it to grow and preserve their power". While in the economic model there is some incentive to improve the quality of "customer service", since by doing so I might get even richer; there is no such incentive in the political model. Improving "customer service" will not give me more power. In fact, growing and defending my power will require me to be less sensitive to consumer concerns.
What then are the solutions? Many can see that the political power model is not working. Is there any way the economic model can work to the benefit of all individuals and not just "the rich"? Well, if we focus on the inherent value of each individual, one approach that suggests itself is based on the old maxim - follow the money. This would mean funding support for the consumers of health care, rather than funding the producers (doctors and hospitals) or administrative bureaucracies.
As of 2009, Canadian governments spent an average of $5,452 per person on health care (Alberta was highest at $6,072 per person). 1 All major political parties have recently committed to increasing this amount by 6% annually for the foreseeable future. What would happen if we ended all top-down funding and instead provided each and every Canadian with, say, $4,000 annually toward health care. There would be a saving to Canadian taxpayers of $50 billion annually (not an insignificant number) but more importantly, money in the hands of individuals would allow them to make decisions that could reward good outcomes and punish poor performers.
The soviet style food distribution system of standing in line all day for cheap but often poor quality bread eventually collapsed. Maybe someday we will look back on Canadian "health care" with the same rueful smile and ask; "What were they thinking?"
I once commented to Gary Mar, when he was Alberta's Health Minister, that we had a "soviet-style health care system". He dismissed my comment out of hand, with all the contempt of those who subscribe to the fantasy that we have this "wonderful Canadian health care". However, it is indeed like the soviet reality, where hapless peasants stood in line-ups for hours to receive shoddy goods from surly bureaucrats.
The antidote is to empower the individual consumer. The question though is how? Introducing elements found in a market economy is one way of doing this. It is not a perfect solution either but to evaluate the pros and cons we need to consider one other central element - power. During my years teaching political science I developed an effective definition of "politics" as "the struggle for the power to set the rules for a society". This definition helps us to focus on the fact that what is crucial is who has the power to decide how resources will be allocated. In a market economy, power derives from money. Those who have money can command resources. The Canadian health-care alternative substitutes administrative bureaucracy, rather than money, as the source of power. This "political power" is, in theory, capable of a more equitable distribution of resources than the "economic power" model.
However, both systems have their own inherent logic. While the "rich will attempt to get richer", it is much more the case that "those with political power will use it to grow and preserve their power". While in the economic model there is some incentive to improve the quality of "customer service", since by doing so I might get even richer; there is no such incentive in the political model. Improving "customer service" will not give me more power. In fact, growing and defending my power will require me to be less sensitive to consumer concerns.
What then are the solutions? Many can see that the political power model is not working. Is there any way the economic model can work to the benefit of all individuals and not just "the rich"? Well, if we focus on the inherent value of each individual, one approach that suggests itself is based on the old maxim - follow the money. This would mean funding support for the consumers of health care, rather than funding the producers (doctors and hospitals) or administrative bureaucracies.
As of 2009, Canadian governments spent an average of $5,452 per person on health care (Alberta was highest at $6,072 per person). 1 All major political parties have recently committed to increasing this amount by 6% annually for the foreseeable future. What would happen if we ended all top-down funding and instead provided each and every Canadian with, say, $4,000 annually toward health care. There would be a saving to Canadian taxpayers of $50 billion annually (not an insignificant number) but more importantly, money in the hands of individuals would allow them to make decisions that could reward good outcomes and punish poor performers.
The soviet style food distribution system of standing in line all day for cheap but often poor quality bread eventually collapsed. Maybe someday we will look back on Canadian "health care" with the same rueful smile and ask; "What were they thinking?"
Monday, April 18, 2011
Democracy Needs to be Re-thought
We need a new definition of "democracy". Around the world today we hear of pro-democracy movements, of a democratic deficit, of promises by political parties to "restore democracy". These uses of "democracy" are varied and tired. However, they all resonate to some degree because of a wide spread hunger for greater respect for the inherent worth of each individual. While the demands are often for broader access into the power structures of institutions, organizations and society generally; they are all really saying that all individuals should matter, that no one should be ignored, or dismissed, or treated as though they are only an inconsequential cog in a machine manipulated for the self-satisfaction of some arrogant elite.
Therefore, let the new definition of "democracy" be: "a society which recognizes, celebrates, incorporates, and protects the inherent value of each individual." In order to achieve such a society, we need revolutionary changes to our political and societal institutions. In discussion of some of these themes, Professor Fouad Ajami recently compared the "Arab Revolution of 2011" with The Year of Revolutions in Europe (1848).[1] That outburst contained numerous demands from liberals of that era for greater access to the instruments of power through the adoption of written constitutions and the implementation of parliaments with a broad electorate choosing legislative assemblies that supposedly would control executive branches of government.
In large measure, we are still stuck with these mid-19th century institutions. It must be admitted, though, that parliaments are hollow shells, composed of what former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau termed “nobodies”, easily outmanoeuvred, when they are not simply ignored, by executives which are increasingly dominated by presidential figures wielding arbitrary power. Examples range from United States’ presidents declaring war without reference to Congress to the vast array of dictators around the world who operate on the premise that their country is their personal fiefdom whose main purpose is to enrich them and their small inner circles.
Representative democracy, with its elections of parliamentarians, is an obsolete technology. In Canada, over one-half of adults have at least some university level education and yet the main opportunity for political engagement consists of trying to express their input by marking one X on a ballot every few years. Parliamentarians are notoriously susceptible to influence, whether direct intimidation by party bosses; by graft, corruption or bribery; or just from the lack of courage to say something "unpopular". We now have the technology to allow citizens to have much more direct and immediate involvement in policy decisions. We need to employ these technologies in ways to move power from elites to "the people" - the orginal meaning of "demos-ocracy". We need to rethink and reinvent political society as a necessary means to free the human spirit and raise the level of both individual and group consciousness.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Much Ado About Democracy
Canadians don't give a lot of attention to the process by which party candidates are chosen. In the United States, primary season is well publicized and large numbers participate. In Canada, the selections are made at party organized nomination meetings, or NOT, as described below.
In Edmonton - Sherwood Park, prior to the 2008 election, according to allegations, Tim Uppal did not appear as a candidate for nomination "until the last minute" and then was supported by a large number of "last minute party members". Uppal won the nomination but the previous favourite, James Ford, choose to run anyway, as an Independent. Ford received 15,860 votes in the general election, trailing Uppal by only 1,741 votes. Ford's supporters also failed in efforts to regain control of the Conservative Constituency Association, and their efforts to precipitate a new nomination process prior to the current election were also blocked - a move obviously supported by the Conservative party hierarchy in Ottawa. All of these political machinations were also coloured by accusations of racism given Mr. Uppal's obvious Sikh background.
In the adjoining federal constituency of Vegreville-Wainwright, a strong faction of Conservative party supporters wanted to hold a nomination meeting with a view to replace Leon Benoit as the Conservative party candidate. Mr. Benoit, an MP since 1993, was viewed widely as ineffective and unresponsive to constituency concerns. The long running battle for control of the constituency organization was lost by Mr. Benoit and his critics pushed their call for a new nomination all the way to the Conservative Party Convention in Winnipeg. Despite their best efforts, the Conservative Party hierarchy derailed the attempt, disillusioning a number of formerly active Conservative Party workers who have promised to sit on their hands this time around. Their withdrawal is unlikely to hurt Mr. Benoit's chances of re-election as he routinely wins by huge margins (24,042 votes more than all opponents combined in 2008).
While the two examples above are both from the Conservative Party, such "guided democracy" manipulations are extant in all parties. To some extent they may be justified to prevent candidates from the lunatic fringe emerging. On the other hand, careful examination of the processes within parties reveals the hypocrisy of much of the preaching about "purer than thou" democracy.
In Edmonton - Sherwood Park, prior to the 2008 election, according to allegations, Tim Uppal did not appear as a candidate for nomination "until the last minute" and then was supported by a large number of "last minute party members". Uppal won the nomination but the previous favourite, James Ford, choose to run anyway, as an Independent. Ford received 15,860 votes in the general election, trailing Uppal by only 1,741 votes. Ford's supporters also failed in efforts to regain control of the Conservative Constituency Association, and their efforts to precipitate a new nomination process prior to the current election were also blocked - a move obviously supported by the Conservative party hierarchy in Ottawa. All of these political machinations were also coloured by accusations of racism given Mr. Uppal's obvious Sikh background.
In the adjoining federal constituency of Vegreville-Wainwright, a strong faction of Conservative party supporters wanted to hold a nomination meeting with a view to replace Leon Benoit as the Conservative party candidate. Mr. Benoit, an MP since 1993, was viewed widely as ineffective and unresponsive to constituency concerns. The long running battle for control of the constituency organization was lost by Mr. Benoit and his critics pushed their call for a new nomination all the way to the Conservative Party Convention in Winnipeg. Despite their best efforts, the Conservative Party hierarchy derailed the attempt, disillusioning a number of formerly active Conservative Party workers who have promised to sit on their hands this time around. Their withdrawal is unlikely to hurt Mr. Benoit's chances of re-election as he routinely wins by huge margins (24,042 votes more than all opponents combined in 2008).
While the two examples above are both from the Conservative Party, such "guided democracy" manipulations are extant in all parties. To some extent they may be justified to prevent candidates from the lunatic fringe emerging. On the other hand, careful examination of the processes within parties reveals the hypocrisy of much of the preaching about "purer than thou" democracy.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
What's In It For Quebec?
The French Language Election Debate was depressing. Actually it wasn't about French Canadians - nothing there for Acadians let alone Franco-Albertans. It wasn't even about Quebec - no Anglos or immigrants considered. No it was all about Nationalist demands and complaints voiced by Duceppe, while the other three "leaders"? jockeyed to pander to these demands, like so many store-front whores in the red-light district of Amsterdam.
We AltaSask folks have seen this movie before. Indeed, Canadian politics has this continual theme of bribing Quebec voters with our money so that this party or that party could seize the reins of power. We keep electing MPs to clean up the corruption, whether they be UFA, Social Credit, CCF, Reform, or more lately the "new" Conservatives. At least PM Harper is almost honest with his "the best way for you to get the goods is to elect insiders" approach.
So, fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us; as the saying goes. How about fool us 100 billion times? That's about the net amount AltaSask residents have sent to Ottawa just since the Trudeau days. Our naive hope to clean up the corruption is about as realistic as the farm boy staring at the prostitutes and imagining he can entice one of them to become his wholesome, hardworking, faithful wife as they live out their years on the half-section back home.
We AltaSask folks have seen this movie before. Indeed, Canadian politics has this continual theme of bribing Quebec voters with our money so that this party or that party could seize the reins of power. We keep electing MPs to clean up the corruption, whether they be UFA, Social Credit, CCF, Reform, or more lately the "new" Conservatives. At least PM Harper is almost honest with his "the best way for you to get the goods is to elect insiders" approach.
 |
| Arch Dale's famous cartoon from the Grain Grower's Guide Dec. 15, 1915 |
So, fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us; as the saying goes. How about fool us 100 billion times? That's about the net amount AltaSask residents have sent to Ottawa just since the Trudeau days. Our naive hope to clean up the corruption is about as realistic as the farm boy staring at the prostitutes and imagining he can entice one of them to become his wholesome, hardworking, faithful wife as they live out their years on the half-section back home.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Debate Ignores Westerners
My prediction that we would not hear the words "farmer, navy, 1911" in last night's debate was ALMOST true. Stephen Harper mentioned the word "farmers" in the context of how the long gun registry was impacting "farmers and duck hunters [in Quebec!]. However,my larger point was true - there was no discussion of issues important to Westerners, say agricultural policy, from either a producer or consumer perspective. On another issue of importance to AltaSask folks, energy policy - no discussion other than Jack Layton's gratuitous slur of "the big oil companies". He doesn't seem to be aware of how many "Canadian families" earn their livelihood, directly, or indirectly, from the oil and gas sector.
In a similar vein, I don't believe the word "Alberta" occurred during the debate but the word "Quebec" popped up so many times one lost count. None of the citizen questioners featured were from the Prairies. Overall, the impression was that the debate was largely for the amusement of jaded political junkies who themselves are out of touch with the values and concerns of most Canadians, especially those in AltaSask.
 |
| Scene from the Heavy Oil Show in Lloydminster, AltaSask |
Monday, April 11, 2011
The 1911 General Election
It is sad that there has been no mention during the current 2011 Federal Election of the federal election of 1911. As a student of Canadian history, years ago, I learned that the 1911 election was one of the great turning points in Canadian history. In a typical Canadian way, it was a great turning point because it continued the status quo. The two major issues of the election were: 1. Proposed freer trade with the United States (called "reciprocity" at the time), and 2. a large commitment to military spending symbolised by the Naval Bill calling for the creation of a Canadian navy.
Prime Minister Laurier had taken a huge gamble of running against his previous record on the trade issue of continuing Macdonald's so-called National Policy of high tariffs. Now, in 1911, he proposed returning to his much earlier sentiment in favour of freer trade. Perhaps the largest constituency which had been calling for an end to protective tariffs were farmers, especially those in Western Canada. Laurier had made several tours of the West and, perhaps carried away by the tremendous growth and optimism of Westerners, he attempted to negotiate a broad "free trade" agreement with the Taft administration in the United States.
The other issue arose from the growing arms race between the British and German Empires. Britain had requested Canadian financial assistance to build more battleships and destroyers. This unleashed a controversy in Canada with Quebecois opposed to aiding the British. Laurier attempted to compromise by proposing a Canadian Navy. Like many compromises, it displeased people across the spectrum.
From this background, Laurier made another tactical error. He departed Canada to attend the Coronation of King George V in June of 1911.
While Albertans delivered 6 of their 7 seats to the Laurier Liberals, the combination of anti-Americanism in English Canada and Anti-British Empire in Quebec swept Laurier from power and committed Canadian consumers to a prolonged period of high tariffs and energized French Canadian nationalists.
One hundred years later - no mention of this decisive battle - and all too little discussion of any issues, let alone those of importance to prairie folk. However, there are a lot of parallels.
1. French and English Canada motivated by different issues but perhaps contributing to the same conclusion.
2. Concern about large scale military spending. This time American jet fighters rather than British battleships.
3. Western concerns overwhelmed by large voter blocks in Ontario and Quebec.
4. Question of the Canadian Prime Minister attending a Royal Family event in pre-election days.
However, it doesn't appear that students of Canadian history will long study the General Election of 2011 as other generations did of the election a century earlier.
Prime Minister Laurier had taken a huge gamble of running against his previous record on the trade issue of continuing Macdonald's so-called National Policy of high tariffs. Now, in 1911, he proposed returning to his much earlier sentiment in favour of freer trade. Perhaps the largest constituency which had been calling for an end to protective tariffs were farmers, especially those in Western Canada. Laurier had made several tours of the West and, perhaps carried away by the tremendous growth and optimism of Westerners, he attempted to negotiate a broad "free trade" agreement with the Taft administration in the United States.
The other issue arose from the growing arms race between the British and German Empires. Britain had requested Canadian financial assistance to build more battleships and destroyers. This unleashed a controversy in Canada with Quebecois opposed to aiding the British. Laurier attempted to compromise by proposing a Canadian Navy. Like many compromises, it displeased people across the spectrum.
From this background, Laurier made another tactical error. He departed Canada to attend the Coronation of King George V in June of 1911.
While Albertans delivered 6 of their 7 seats to the Laurier Liberals, the combination of anti-Americanism in English Canada and Anti-British Empire in Quebec swept Laurier from power and committed Canadian consumers to a prolonged period of high tariffs and energized French Canadian nationalists.
One hundred years later - no mention of this decisive battle - and all too little discussion of any issues, let alone those of importance to prairie folk. However, there are a lot of parallels.
1. French and English Canada motivated by different issues but perhaps contributing to the same conclusion.
2. Concern about large scale military spending. This time American jet fighters rather than British battleships.
3. Western concerns overwhelmed by large voter blocks in Ontario and Quebec.
4. Question of the Canadian Prime Minister attending a Royal Family event in pre-election days.
However, it doesn't appear that students of Canadian history will long study the General Election of 2011 as other generations did of the election a century earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)