Tarek Fatah is a co-host on the show Friendly Fire on the station NewsTalk 1010. He acts as a sort of a 'liberal' balance.
On the Michael Coren show, he was a member of a panel that happened to discussed a pretty straightforward issue: Women's shelters should not be used as a refuge from the law, immigration law in this particular debate.
Pretty simple, I think. Illegal immigrants should not be able to hide from the law. This discussion was not about immigration policy or immigration, simply about equal-handed law enforcement.
So what's Tarek conclusion? Xenophobia, bigotry and right-wing conspiracy.
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Harper Half-Decade
On the 6th of February, 2006, Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's 22nd prime minister. After successfully reestablishing the Canadian Conservative party after long years of internal fracture, he was able to defeat Paul Martin's shaky Liberal minority government amidst a few severe scandals. Since then, Harper and his Conservative Party have been able to govern fairly effectively despite of the fact that they have never been able to garner a majority in the House of Commons.
If you ignore the fact that his first term of office was cut short, the current minority government is the longest serving in Canada's history. Harper is Canada's 11th longest serving prime minister, recently overtaking Lester B. Pearson.
Harper's administration has had a few bumps along the way, but overall, with lack of any ideal alternative, this has been the best realistic arrangement for Canada during this time period. The current administration has coolheadedly guided Canada's economy through the recession while avoiding the insanity that has recently afflicted our neighbors to the south.
The need for stability, and the lack of majority means that the Conservatives were unable to push for any highly transformational and divisive adventures. All while avoiding tax hikes, lowering the much dreaded GST and maintaining equivocal support of Israel.
Perhaps the most controversial set of events is the infamous Coalition Crisis and Harper's decision to prorogue the Parliament. At that time, the highly ineffective leader of the opposition and of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, schemed with the far left NDP and Quebec separatists to form a coalition government, a highly unconventional move in Canadian politics. The most ridiculous aspect of this move was that the Bloc Quebecois was supposed to provide outside support on matters of confidence only for 18 months. Without the Bloc, the Liberals and NDP would still have a minority which is weaker than the Conservatives minority government. Of course the left, lead by the labour unions, tried to sell this highly unorthodox move by claiming that this would represent the 'true majority', representing 62% of Canadians. If we look at aggregate votes it is correct, but you cannot forget that even Jean Chretien's most stable majority was attained using a mere 41% of the popular vote.
Harper requested that the Governor General (the Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. While conservatives were keen on the move, which kept the radical left-wing kook coalition out, he was highly criticized by the left. The spin was that Harper is shutting out 'democracy' and running from the debate. Whoever swallowed the spin obviously has never tuned in to the Parliament channel on TV.
As the threat of another pointless election that maintains the status quo is in the air, we can quietly reflect on the last five years. Behind the pointless political banter, we have had a fairly stable, coolheaded government under Harper.
-QP
If you ignore the fact that his first term of office was cut short, the current minority government is the longest serving in Canada's history. Harper is Canada's 11th longest serving prime minister, recently overtaking Lester B. Pearson.
Harper's administration has had a few bumps along the way, but overall, with lack of any ideal alternative, this has been the best realistic arrangement for Canada during this time period. The current administration has coolheadedly guided Canada's economy through the recession while avoiding the insanity that has recently afflicted our neighbors to the south.
The need for stability, and the lack of majority means that the Conservatives were unable to push for any highly transformational and divisive adventures. All while avoiding tax hikes, lowering the much dreaded GST and maintaining equivocal support of Israel.
Perhaps the most controversial set of events is the infamous Coalition Crisis and Harper's decision to prorogue the Parliament. At that time, the highly ineffective leader of the opposition and of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, schemed with the far left NDP and Quebec separatists to form a coalition government, a highly unconventional move in Canadian politics. The most ridiculous aspect of this move was that the Bloc Quebecois was supposed to provide outside support on matters of confidence only for 18 months. Without the Bloc, the Liberals and NDP would still have a minority which is weaker than the Conservatives minority government. Of course the left, lead by the labour unions, tried to sell this highly unorthodox move by claiming that this would represent the 'true majority', representing 62% of Canadians. If we look at aggregate votes it is correct, but you cannot forget that even Jean Chretien's most stable majority was attained using a mere 41% of the popular vote.
Harper requested that the Governor General (the Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. While conservatives were keen on the move, which kept the radical left-wing kook coalition out, he was highly criticized by the left. The spin was that Harper is shutting out 'democracy' and running from the debate. Whoever swallowed the spin obviously has never tuned in to the Parliament channel on TV.
As the threat of another pointless election that maintains the status quo is in the air, we can quietly reflect on the last five years. Behind the pointless political banter, we have had a fairly stable, coolheaded government under Harper.
-QP
Friday, January 21, 2011
Canada Standing Firm to Criminal Threats from Iran
I previously discussed the possibility that Iran will manage to shut down free speech in Canada using threats. It appears as though the Conservative government stands for free speech in Canada after all!
The Harper government has ordered Library and Archives Canada to screen the new documentary Iranium. The post writes:
That's a breath of fresh air. I cannot say that I am an equivocal fan of everything the Harper government does, but thus far they have been consistently good in the international, especially vis-a-vis Iran and vis-a-vis Israel.
-QP
The Harper government has ordered Library and Archives Canada to screen the new documentary Iranium. The post writes:
The Harper government sent a diplomatic note to Iran Wednesday, as Heritage Minister James Moore lashed out at Tehran for its part in a campaign that cancelled the screening of a movie critical of the Iranian regime at Library and Archives Canada.
On Wednesday morning, the Minister instructed Library and Archives Canada to show Iranium, a documentary critiquing Iran’s nuclear program, after it cowed to numerous threats of protest and an official request from the Iranian embassy in Canada to not present the film Tuesday night, as scheduled.
In its diplomatic note to Tehran, the government said Canada is a free country and that freedom of expression is a core value that won’t be compromised.
That's a breath of fresh air. I cannot say that I am an equivocal fan of everything the Harper government does, but thus far they have been consistently good in the international, especially vis-a-vis Iran and vis-a-vis Israel.
-QP
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Health Care Reform: A Canadian Perspective
Just as I was writing my previous post about Canada's health care, this story comes to light. It turns out that a Quebec clinic was finding ways to accept payments in order to expedite service or guarantee patients can see their specialist of choice.
In Canada there are laws that restrict clinic's ability to charge patients for services that can be offered under the provincial plan, but it seems this clinic was creative in their mechanism and it will be difficult to pin anything in specific on them. That is not the issue though, the issue is that this isn't the only case, and clinics and doctors that did not receive bribes or 'payments' report these are offered to them all the time. But the recent story prompted discussion of the need of a system overhaul, at least from the conservative leaning National Post. Critics claim that the issue is unethical practices.
But let's think about it for a second, can we blame the patients for offering such payments for being able to see the specialist they trust before they croak? This is a life and death issue, so nothing can be said about the morality of the patients. How about the doctors? Can we judge doctors or clinics for accepting the please of "please accept this payment and save my life rather than letting me die while I stand in line"? I don't think so... The only thing they can be accused off is failing to comply with their province's (or the federal) draconian healthcare regulations.
So who can we judge morally? There is only one direction we can point to: Government!
Let's compare the healthcare issue to another essential services: Food. After all, we all have to eat. One can easily notice that few people can afford eating at a gourmet restaurant every day while many cannot afford it and instead they eat menu deals at McDonald's or a similar fast food outlet. Some people can barely afford that, if at all. So what does the government do?
1. Legislate that McDonalds is the only legitimate food provider in the country.
2. Eliminate all higher end restaurants.
3. Limit by law the capacity each outlet can serve.
4. Everyone pays what they could afford before, so the rich still pay gourmet prices (perhaps even more!) while the needy don't pay anything.
5. Install a mass bureaucracy with 0 accountability to oversee this.
What will the outcome be? Well, first of all you are going to see extremely long line ups (will be familiar to anyone who grew up in a communist country). All gourmet chefs will move to another country, where their skills are appreciated. Lastly, there will be a big industry of bribes (legitimate or otherwise) of ways to skip the line-up or to get the highly coveted slice of bacon which is officially cheap, but in short supply.
In the Soviet Union all stores were governmental (with minor exceptions). Officially, everything was affordable, but unavailable. Unless of course you have pull with the local Party connection to get access to the 'lower cellar' where the real goodies are kept.
Communism/Socialism is undoubtedly the greatest economic disaster of the 20th century. It turned whole nations of hard working people into moochers, thieves and crooks, to the point where corruption on a mass scale was completely normal. So why are we using such a failed model for health care?
A politician can attempt to correct the system, out of the best intentions of his/her heart. But the situation will not change until the entire underlying model of the system is done away with.
-QP
In Canada there are laws that restrict clinic's ability to charge patients for services that can be offered under the provincial plan, but it seems this clinic was creative in their mechanism and it will be difficult to pin anything in specific on them. That is not the issue though, the issue is that this isn't the only case, and clinics and doctors that did not receive bribes or 'payments' report these are offered to them all the time. But the recent story prompted discussion of the need of a system overhaul, at least from the conservative leaning National Post. Critics claim that the issue is unethical practices.
But let's think about it for a second, can we blame the patients for offering such payments for being able to see the specialist they trust before they croak? This is a life and death issue, so nothing can be said about the morality of the patients. How about the doctors? Can we judge doctors or clinics for accepting the please of "please accept this payment and save my life rather than letting me die while I stand in line"? I don't think so... The only thing they can be accused off is failing to comply with their province's (or the federal) draconian healthcare regulations.
So who can we judge morally? There is only one direction we can point to: Government!
Let's compare the healthcare issue to another essential services: Food. After all, we all have to eat. One can easily notice that few people can afford eating at a gourmet restaurant every day while many cannot afford it and instead they eat menu deals at McDonald's or a similar fast food outlet. Some people can barely afford that, if at all. So what does the government do?
1. Legislate that McDonalds is the only legitimate food provider in the country.
2. Eliminate all higher end restaurants.
3. Limit by law the capacity each outlet can serve.
4. Everyone pays what they could afford before, so the rich still pay gourmet prices (perhaps even more!) while the needy don't pay anything.
5. Install a mass bureaucracy with 0 accountability to oversee this.
What will the outcome be? Well, first of all you are going to see extremely long line ups (will be familiar to anyone who grew up in a communist country). All gourmet chefs will move to another country, where their skills are appreciated. Lastly, there will be a big industry of bribes (legitimate or otherwise) of ways to skip the line-up or to get the highly coveted slice of bacon which is officially cheap, but in short supply.
In the Soviet Union all stores were governmental (with minor exceptions). Officially, everything was affordable, but unavailable. Unless of course you have pull with the local Party connection to get access to the 'lower cellar' where the real goodies are kept.
Communism/Socialism is undoubtedly the greatest economic disaster of the 20th century. It turned whole nations of hard working people into moochers, thieves and crooks, to the point where corruption on a mass scale was completely normal. So why are we using such a failed model for health care?
A politician can attempt to correct the system, out of the best intentions of his/her heart. But the situation will not change until the entire underlying model of the system is done away with.
-QP
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Canada's Medicare Gambit
Canada is generally a great place to live. Except for the winter, which I don't care much for, life in Canada is comfortable, fulfilling, and by all accounts good. However, there is one particular area where Canada trails much of the developed world: Health Care!
I know many immigrants who came here for all the goodness that life in Canada can offer, that insist on paying good money in order to maintain their health coverage in the 'old country'. Many of them schedule their seasonal family visits around their need for more than trivial medical procedures, etc.
Why exactly is that?
Canada's socialized healthcare system has become a political 'Holy Cow'. Despite of the terrible service Canadians of all provinces have become accustomed to, no politician can suggest a substantial reform that can reduce costs and improve service without paying a substantial political price. Meanwhile, costs are skyrocketing (about 56% of Ontario's provincial budget), the basket of covered services keeps decreasing, waiting times are unacceptable and the country is suffering a chronic doctor shortage.
Canada's Medicare policy has become subject to Canadian's national pride, especially considering that much of Canada's image of national pride comes from differentiating ourselves with our southerly neighbours. We are so proud of having 'Free' and 'Universal' health care that we go as far as suggesting the Canadian model to the much troubled American system.
But is the Canadian system working? Are we getting good universal service for our money? Most obviously no... Otherwise how can we explain the fact that many Canadians choose to travel to the states and pay good money for speedy service, and many new Canadians travel to their home countries to get service.
Instead of addressing the real problems with our system, politicians keep attacking 'inefficiencies' as the source of all our maladies. But how can we address 'inefficiencies' where the entire system, from the patients, through the bureaucrats to the Health Minister are unaccountable for their actions. Can we really be surprised when something like the eHealth scandal happens considering the minister responsible was unscathed by it and was almost elected the mayor of Canada's largest city?
What we need is fundamental reform of the system. As a first step, the provincial governments must pave the way towards a two-tier system. Second step would be to transition towards a voucher system, where Canadians would be able to choose their providers. Only then, provincial health insurance bureaucracies must be phased out.
-QP
I know many immigrants who came here for all the goodness that life in Canada can offer, that insist on paying good money in order to maintain their health coverage in the 'old country'. Many of them schedule their seasonal family visits around their need for more than trivial medical procedures, etc.
Why exactly is that?
Canada's socialized healthcare system has become a political 'Holy Cow'. Despite of the terrible service Canadians of all provinces have become accustomed to, no politician can suggest a substantial reform that can reduce costs and improve service without paying a substantial political price. Meanwhile, costs are skyrocketing (about 56% of Ontario's provincial budget), the basket of covered services keeps decreasing, waiting times are unacceptable and the country is suffering a chronic doctor shortage.
Canada's Medicare policy has become subject to Canadian's national pride, especially considering that much of Canada's image of national pride comes from differentiating ourselves with our southerly neighbours. We are so proud of having 'Free' and 'Universal' health care that we go as far as suggesting the Canadian model to the much troubled American system.
But is the Canadian system working? Are we getting good universal service for our money? Most obviously no... Otherwise how can we explain the fact that many Canadians choose to travel to the states and pay good money for speedy service, and many new Canadians travel to their home countries to get service.
Instead of addressing the real problems with our system, politicians keep attacking 'inefficiencies' as the source of all our maladies. But how can we address 'inefficiencies' where the entire system, from the patients, through the bureaucrats to the Health Minister are unaccountable for their actions. Can we really be surprised when something like the eHealth scandal happens considering the minister responsible was unscathed by it and was almost elected the mayor of Canada's largest city?
What we need is fundamental reform of the system. As a first step, the provincial governments must pave the way towards a two-tier system. Second step would be to transition towards a voucher system, where Canadians would be able to choose their providers. Only then, provincial health insurance bureaucracies must be phased out.
-QP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)