Friday, March 23, 2007

Dems (not) Fighting Words

You have got to be kidding me. Banning hockey fights altogether? Having players wear fighting gloves? Punishing a kid for protecting himself? A lifetime ban for a punch in the heat of the moment? Coley Campbell is crazy. Todd Fedoruk is just a bad fighter. Stephane Robidas got what was coming to him. And Steve Moore was the victim of an unfortunate fall. Don't want hockey fights? Don't go to the game (and quit as NHL VP). Get knocked out twice on two punches? Label yourself for what you are: you're a punching bag, not an enforcer. Run into someone else's fists? Don't go head hunting. Get a serious injury because of an accident? Chalk it up to fate, not malice. This is getting ridiculous. The only reason players are getting hurt is that they don't know how to protect themselves. Let Darwin's law take over, I say. Don't change the rules. If that means we end up with 6 Canadian teams* in the NHL, and one in Boston and Philadelphia, so be it. At least we'll have real hockey.**

*Bring back the Jets.
**At least Boston has a chance of making the playoffs.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

The Dipper Divide: Focus on Manitoba

Not that anyone on BT really cares, but here's a division appearing in the New Democratic Party... and (surprise, surprise) the locus is Manitoba. Consider some recent developments:

(1) Pat Martin's (NDP-Winnipeg Centre) all-too-public condemnation of his leader brought to light a two questions many moderate Dippers have been asking for years: Was Jack Layton really the right choice to lead the NDP? And should the party be considering a(n) (in)formal merger with the Liberals?

(2) Just days later, Layton's former leadership rival, Bill Blaikie (NDP-Transcona), announced his retirement after 28 years in office. To his credit, and true to his character, Blaikie would not admit that this had anything to do with the current leadership or performance of the party. Anyone close to the action knows this isn't the case.

(3) Meanwhile, in provincial capitals across the country... An on-going -- albeit quiet -- feud between the Saskatchewan and Manitoba New Democratic Parties has reached a low boil. Despite their partisan connections, Calvert and Doer have never had a great relationship. Ideologically, the two have never seen eye to eye, with Calvert's rural socialism conflicting with Doer's Third Way philosophy. Behind closed doors, their disagreements over the fiscal imbalance (especially the inclusion of Saskatchewan's resource revenue in the new formula) have opened a few wounds.

(4) Skip ahead to yesterday's federal budget. Doer announces his full support for Harper's fiscal balance plan, placing him squarely against both Layton and Calvert. Positioning himself for the next provincial election? Perhaps. Staying true to Manitoba's interests in more federal cash? Absolutely. Sticking it to two socialists who refuse to adopt a moderate Third Way approach? Darn right.

You heard it here first: Once Layton fails in his third election campaign, and if Calvert fails to increase his majority in Saskatchewan, there will be only one voice for New Democracy in Canada. And it will be coming out of Manitoba. Gary Doer -- a man once rumored to be flirting with a career as a Progressive Conservative prior to the 1986 provincial election -- is the last hope for a faltering party. If his continued popularity in Manitoba is any indication, Doer's probable jump to federal politics may pose a lot of trouble for Dion and the Liberals. It will also open the door for McFadyen's Tories, whose only obstacle to power appears to be Doer's personal following. Two birds with one stone.

Harper's 'Balancing' Act: "Multiple Choice" Federalism

Without hyperbole and undue fanfare, Harper's plan for rebalancing federalism is quite simply one of the most artful and historic in the evolution of federal provincial relations. It is bound to get lost in talk about the rest of the budget, and it is overshadowed by major constitutional negotiations like Meech Lake or Charlottetown, but the 2007 Budget is deserving of the highest accolades, nonetheless.

Harper took on a seemingly insurmountable challenge: After years of Liberal cut-backs to the provinces, he pledged to pull together a deal on equalization and transfer payments, in the face of several conflicting election promises, 10 conflicting premiers, a Quebec election, a minority government situation, and hundreds of bureaucratic, political and academic skeptics. This is no small task. Harper should be commended for promising to do so, applauded for attempting, and idolized for accomplishing it.

Sure, it's a work in progress, but his attack on the fiscal imbalance is enough to impress anyone with even a cursory knowledge of fed-prov relations (not to mention Gilles Duceppe and Ed Stelmach). Today's Globe article spells out the deal:

First, provinces will be able to choose between the old system and the new system. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are expected to stick with the old system for a while, since their offshore accords under the old regime more than surpass the enrichments of the new regime.

Once a province has joined the new system, it can't go back to the old system. But it can choose whether it wants to calculate what it is owed based on including half of its natural-resource revenue, or based on excluding all of its resource revenues.

That choice allows for resource-rich provinces to keep their royalties and receive equalization payments at the same time, eliminating the "claw-back" that has long annoyed poorer provinces trying to improve their lot.

However, there's a cap on how much money receiving provinces can get, so that resource-rich provinces such as Newfoundland will not end up receiving transfer payments that make them richer than have-provinces such as Ontario.

Several provinces, notably Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, argued strongly against a cap, but its inclusion was crucial for Ontario and Alberta, who see it as the only way the new regime would be fair to provinces that don't receive equalization.

The premiers of both Newfoundland and Saskatchewan were quick to harshly condemn the Harper government for the cap, calling it a "betrayal" of an election promise that hampers the ability of both provinces to prosper.

But the fiscal balance package doesn't stop there. Transfers for education are being increased by about $800-million a year, distributed on a per capita basis that favours populous provinces such as Ontario. And the Canada Social Transfer -- the main funding vehicle that Ottawa uses to help provinces pay for social programs -- will rise by 3 per cent a year starting in 2009.

Both the CST and the Canada Health Transfer will be restructured so that they are on a strict per capita basis, removing all traces of equalization from those transfers that have rankled Ontario and Alberta in the past. However, there are some strings attached. The health transfers will not be restructured until the current agreement expires seven years from now. Plus, CST will now be split into an education category and a social assistance category, in an effort to suggest to provinces where they should spend the money.

But the government has imposed a floor on the transfers, so that no province will actually lose money compared with current funding levels, even after equalization factors have been sifted out. Ontario will gain about $350-million a year from the CST changes, while Alberta will see about $310-million in increased annual transfers.

What does all of this mean? Provinces now have a choice as to which equalization formula best suits their needs: (1) the old formula; (2) the new formula with 50% of resource revenue included; (3) the new formula with no resource revenue included, but with a cap. On top of it all, they all receive an increase in per capita transfers. Quite simply, there is not a single province who emerges from this deal worse off. (If they do, it is by choice.)

Don't be fooled by Premiers Calvert and Williams. The former is facing an uphill battle against the SaskParty in an upcoming election and needs to show some anti-conservatism in order to shore up his base; the latter is known for howling at any moon that rises over Ottawa. They're both better off than before the deal, and Harper most certainly did not break his election promise to keep resource revenues out of equalization (if they choose to do so, all premiers have this option). Long story short, anyone who thought SK and NL would remain "uncapped" (i.e., receive equalization payments to the point where their per capita income is greater than Ontario) was living a pipe dream. The objections of Calvert and Williams -- much like that of Layton and Dion -- smack of crass partisanship, idealism, and knee-jerk diplomacy.

Granted, this is a one-off, seven-year deal. It is not as permanent as the premiers would have liked (e.g., indexing the transfers to GST revenue, or vacating tax room). This is the one down-side, but one grounded in the reality that economies and politics change a lot in a decade.

In the end, however, Harper's masterful rebalancing act was not only the best deal possible, it was even better than any imaginable just months ago. Kudos to him.

The Budget: Digging Deep for Women's Health

Look beyond the partisan rhetoric and election-time hand-outs. You have to dig a little deeper to find a hidden gem in yesterday's federal budget: funding for an HPV vaccine. Women's medical groups are right to applaud the Prime Minister for acting on "one of the biggest medical breakthrough in women's health in many years." Ottawa has approved the vaccine and is funding it. It's now up to the provinces to organize the vaccination programs. Let's hope they act with the same conviction.