Calgaria!

Ah. You gotta love that East Coast sense of humor: http://delusionalcalgaria.ca/

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.

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.

Defining Conservatism in Alberta

Discussions from the media, to the water cooler, in classrooms, bedrooms, and in coffee shops are displaying a disturbing lack of understanding about the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. Stories and arguments that align Harper with Klein, Morton with Manning, Stelmach with Clark, and so on, are glossing over many of the intricacies of the parties and the movement.

What follows are broad strokes aimed at trying to flesh out the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. While of use in other provinces -- perhaps in other countries -- nowhere are the various dimensions of conservative thought more visible than in Alberta. The following is intended as the first-draft of a primer for discussing the right in Alberta. As always, your comments are welcome, along with permission to incorporate them into this work-in-progress.

Perhaps the simplest way to conceptualize an ideology like conservatism is to divide it into a series of functional dimensions. In this case, six seem especially pertinent (dramatic oversimplifications of each term are given in parentheses):

(1) MORAL CONSERVATISM* (a.k.a., NEO-conservatism; emphasis on traditional family values; often, but not always, tied to religious beliefs)

(2) SOCIAL CONSERVATISM*^ (opposition to social engineering, including affirmative action; emphasis on law, order and security)

(3) FISCAL CONSERVATISM^ (a.k.a., neo-liberalism; emphasis on fiscal orthodoxy, including balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, debt repayment, and tax relief)

(4) POPULISM~ (a belief in grass-roots democracy, often in opposition to political partisanship and other top-down institutions like Parliament; often, but not always, mixed with libertarianism; see: Thomas Jefferson)

(5) HIGH TORYISM~ (a belief in parliamentary sovereignty, often in opposition to direct democracy and judicial activism; often accompanied by a communitarian/patriotic view of the state; see: Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke)

(6) LIBERTARIANISM (a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and the limitations of government in the moral, social, and economic spheres)

*The distinction between #1 and #2 is no doubt the trickiest. In every-day language, both moral and social conservatives have been lumped under the "SO-CON" label. While there is a correlation between the two sets of values, it's important to distinguish between the two. Logically, a person could be a moral conservative without being a social conservative (and vice versa).

^Both social and fiscal conservatism often favour limited state interference in the economy, and a guaranteed but limited social welfare system.

~This is where there is often a direct conflict within conservative ranks, between those who favour a grass-roots style of politics and those that favour an elite-driven version.

People do not have to conform to any one of these labels. In fact, few, if any conservatives are members of only one 'camp'. As mentioned, people with moral and social conservative tendencies are often referred to as "SO-CONS". People with moderate fiscal conservative leanings and tendencies toward "high toryism" -- without a touch of moral or social conservatism -- are often called "RED TORIES". In the United States, the "NEW RIGHT" consists of "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals". And so on. The point is not to pigeon-hole people into one class of conservatism. Quite the opposite.

Tracing the contours of conservatism in this way helps us make sense of Conservatism in places like Alberta. Some of the province's leading Tories have made strange bedfellows over the years. The media and public have either failed to notice these tensions or have failed to link them to the underlying ideological frictions. Let's have a look at some of the major players....

WILLIAM ABERHART -- Alberta's first Social Credit premier, his "vision" blended religious moral and social conservatism with an anti-system, populist outlook and a 'quirky' view of public finance. In reality, Aberhart's control over the party and the legislature was the polar opposite of grass-roots democracy, and his province-building strategy used the full capacity of the public purse. Ernest Manning is widely considered the heir to Aberhart's image.

PETER LOUGHEED -- Often called a 'red tory', Lougheed was a communitarian conservative who put Alberta first. In this sense, his battles with Trudeau resembled those fought between Aberhart and King decades earlier. Lougheed, too, had a loose grasp of fiscal conservatism, but, unlike Aberhart, tended to keep social and moral conservatism out of official government policy. This, along with his penchant for social welfare spending, has earned him the label "Pink Peter" (a reference to his possible 'pinko'-socialist ties), particularly popular among Ralph Klein's followers. Lougheed's son is currently in the running for president of the Alberta PC's, by the way.

JOE CLARK -- "Joe-Who" has become synonymous with red-toryism in Canada. His view of the country as a "community of communities"; his firm stance against social and moral conservatism; his willingness to relax the rules of fiscal orthodoxy; and his support of parliamentary sovereignty have earned him the admiration of red tories and the hatred of the New Right.

PRESTON MANNING -- It's not difficult to see the ties between Preston Manning's Reform movement and his father's Social Credit legacy. While the religious fervour with which Aberhart campaigned was missing from Preston's speeches, the latter attempted the same blend of populism, moralism and social conservatism. To this, Preston added a firm stance in favour of fiscal orthodoxy.

RALPH KLEIN -- Where to start? King Ralph is very difficult to pin-down in terms of his conservative beliefs, largely because he seldom spoke in ideological terms, and because his actions were often contradictory. Without a doubt, though, he was a social and fiscal conservative, with morally conservative tendencies. While his image was certainly one of a grass-roots politician, in touch with the 'real people' of Alberta, his iron grip on the Party spoke otherwise. (This is a common theme among populist Conservative leaders, from Aberhart to the Mannings to Klein: once in power, they often end up being more tory than grass-roots. This speaks more to the iron law of oligarchy than to their personal integrity, in my opinion.)

STOCKWELL DAY -- Wet-suit aside, Stock was a moral, social and fiscal conservative.

TED MORTON -- Ted is a conservative's Conservative. He promotes moral, social and fiscal conservatism, with a populist/republican concern for the little-guy, and a high tory aversion to judicial actism. I fail to see any libertarianism in Ted's beliefs, but I am bound to be corrected. If he has them, he's the ideal, pure conservative. (As a side-note: Ted Morton's great at promoting each of the conservative dimensions, but his willingness to leave hard edges is proving more divisive than Harper's approach, as outlined below. Some may fault Ted for being too uncompromising; others may fault Harper for being too compromising. It all depends on your perspective.)

JIM DINNING -- Liberal. Period. Someone tell me where Dinning fits in any of these categories of conservatism and I'll be glad to post it here.

ED STELMACH -- It's still too early to tell, but Ed's style and his team have heavy connections with Peter Lougheed's red tories. He seems a little less tied to fiscal conservatism than Klein, and has yet to display the same image as a social conservative. Moral conservatism? Not likely. The pressure to 'go green' while remaining close with business and putting Alberta-first may force Stelmach into the red tory mold.

STEPHEN HARPER -- I know, I know. Harper's not really from Alberta. But I can't leave him off the list, precisely because his persona (since becoming Conservative Party leader) has proven itself the most moderate mixture of all six forms of conservatism. As a strategist, his ability to interpret and frame policy in each of these areas is remarkable. As the person charged with uniting the old PC's and Alliance, his manoevering has been impecable.

Harper boldly put same-sex marriage back on the table, framing it in terms of a free vote in order to appease libertarians, and accepting its outcome to the relief of red tories. His law, order and security agenda has social conservatives on-side, without offending too many populists. His tax policies are strong enough to please fiscal conservatives, while his creativity on issues like income trusts and income-splitting are surprising many red tories and moral conservatives. His specific proposals for Senate reform -- while still in the works -- offer a little something for tories and populists, alike. Libertarians? You may have to wait for your piece of the pie, but Harper's proving better than the guys on the other side of the aisle. In short, Harper is proving himself as one of the best at balancing the various demands of conservatism.

The purpose of this discussion has been to highlight how not all C/conservatives are created equal, particularly in Alberta. The next time you hear someone painting us all with the same brush, think twice.

Health Care: It's not about beds, stupid

Recent debates about health care reform in BC and Alberta raise some interesting issues. BC is talking about farming out more surgeries to private facilities for lack of SPACE in their hospitals. Alberta is building a new mega-hospital in the south end of Calgary to accommodate the region's growth. (This comes in addition to the new Children's Hospital they just built, after closing down the old one.)

I'm not wading into the privatization versus universality debate here. I see merits on both sides.

What is most concerning is the lack of knowledge about the real challenges facing the system. In most cases, regardless of the rate of growth in many cities like Calgary and Vancouver, THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT SHORTAGES OF BEDS. IT IS NOT ABOUT OPENING NEW HOSPITALS. IT IS NOT ABOUT RENTING MORE SPACE FROM PRIVATE CLINICS.

If you don't believe me, the next time you're at the hospital -- and goodness knows, with wait times the way they are, you'll have time to do this -- have a look around the wards. THERE ARE ENOUGH BEDS, JUST NOT ENOUGH DOCTORS AND NURSES. In many cases, entire hallways have been closed off -- beds and rooms effectively mothballed for lack of staff.

The problem is a shortage of healthcare professionals to staff these wards. Period.

(In my humble opinion, the #1 solution to the problem would be to move away from the fee for service structure embedded in our healthcare system. That would free up nurse practitioners, pharmacists and other professionals to perform the tasks they are trained to perform, alleviating stress on the system. The next step: train and certify more doctors and nurses to fill the positions currently left vacant. I'm sure there are others who disagree with me, but at least this is a good start.)

In the coming months, Manitobans are sure to hear debates over Doer's failed pledge to end "hallway medicine" in the upcoming provincial election. Thankfully, we don't hear the McFadyen Tories advocating the building of new hospitals the way BC Liberals and Alberta PC's are. Sure, Manitoba isn't facing the same growth problems as the other two provinces, but -- as in the other two provinces -- entire wards in the city, and entire hospitals in the country (e.g., Erickson), sit empty for lack of healthcare professionals to staff them.

Regardless of which side of the public/private debate you stand, please think twice when you hear politicians clamouring for increases in the number of beds and hospitals. Let's staff the ones we've got.