Canada’s Billion Dollar P3 Boondoggle

What the Liberals and Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know

The real story behind the cost overruns at the Canadian Firearms Centre

"Just read your piece on the firearms P3 – quite a revelation. I am amazed we have never heard this before – congratulations for bringing it to light." Murray Dobbin, author of Paul Martin Canada's CEO

The controversy around the Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) is a key element in the Conservative Party election campaign. It has been their cause celebre for years as the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, and now as the ‘new’ Conservative party. It has been their rallying cry for speaking for Western alienation from Central Canada, especially Ottawa and the Federal Government. As a pseudo-republican party, the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives have decried the Canadian Firearms Centre, as an attack on the ‘right’ of Canadians to own guns, in this case hunting rifles and shotguns.

Canada has long had gun control legislation, originally brought in by the Trudeau Liberal Government. This legislation at the time was denounced by some as an attack on the right of Canadians to ‘bear arms’. Though such rights have never been enshrined in law. The attacks on the Trudeau legislation came from rump right wing conspiracy groups like the Gosticks, Canadian League of Rights and by Alberta Separatists like the Western Canada Concept, the predecessors of the Reform Party.

Declaring their purpose was Law and Order and Good Government the Liberals introduced the first Gun Control legislation in response in part to the October Crisis in Quebec. This legislation was limited to hand guns and automatic weapons, and was not without controversy at the time. Gun Collectors, hunters, farmers, those from rural Canada and of course the right wing of the conservative movement were opposed to any form of gun control, it was seen as the State interfering in the rights of the individual. This American republican notion is at the core of the current Conservative opposition to the Canadian Firearms Centre.

The new legislation was introduced in response to pressure on the government from women’s groups and largely centered around mobilization of public opinion in Canada’s largest cities; Toronto and Montreal, after the Lepine Massacre at Ecole Polytechnic. Again the Reform Party, representing a grass roots right wing populist movement, cherished the ‘right to bear arms’ and belittles feminism and women’s rights, as can be attested to by their political alliance with right wing women’s groups such as Alberta Women United for Families. Their opposition to day care and abortion, and any state interference in the so called free market that might impose a tax based social program for the good of all, is key to their political discourse. As the Alliance and now Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, this is still their underlying ideology.

So the issue of the CFC is wrapped up in their political ideology of being the Republican Party of Canada. Even if there had not been cost overruns at the CFC the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives saw the gun legislation and the centre as a backroom conspiracy to take guns away from Canadians. As the saying goes; "just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t to get you", and in the case of the CFC and in particular functionaries in the Department of the Justice, opponents of the Gun registry had a reason to be concerned.

In the Auditor Generals report on the cost overruns at the CFC, one of the issues that arose was the fact that deputy ministers in Justice overseeing the creation of the centre were of the opinion that the CFC was to be a ‘gun registry’. Its purpose was not only to register the owners of rifles and shotguns, but also act as a criminal registry, their underlying hope was that it would reduce gun ownership in Canada. This was the self-justification for creating an overly complex gun registration process, which by its very nature should have been fairly simple and straightforward.

It wasn’t like Canada did not have gun control, while handguns and automatic weapons were ‘restricted’ in Canada, any Canadian owning a rifle or shotgun had to possess a FAC, a firearms registration license. You just didn’t need it to purchase rifles or shotguns. This licensing procedure was introduced under the Trudeau Liberals initially as part of the national gun control legislation.

The local police issued a FAC, after you showed a birth certificate, a driver’s license and were fingerprinted. It allowed you to purchase and collect non-restricted weapons. A special collectors license was issued in the same way, to gun collectors. A special license and registration was required to purchase, transport and own a handgun. It wasn’t that the legislation banned handguns per se, it severely restricted their access. In the case of automatic weapons, again these were restricted to registered collectors, and any use of them had to be authorized by the local police or RCMP.

So the infrastructure was already in place that should have made it relatively simple to centralize in the CFC. While gun registration was not mandatory, a vast majority of responsible gun owners had FAC’s. Transferring that registration information should have been the basis of data gathering for the CFC. But within the Justice Department, this was not good enough, they also wanted a criminal registry. So the Justice Department’s Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) decided to start from scratch, to create a Canadian Firearms Centre, where all Canadian gun owners had to register their guns regardless whether they already had an FAC.

This program was overly complicated, the questionnaires were not user friendly, and unlike the old FAC this was all being done using a brand new computer program and database. This was further confirmed by the independent audit done of the CFP in January 2003 by Raymond V. Hession with the aid of KPMG and HLB Decision Economics Inc.

Hession found that "the CFP operates as a sub-activity within the Department of Justice. As such, the intermingling of a highly operational service delivery function (the CFP) with a policy-rich department whose culture is expected to be circumspect and prudent can be problematic. The department has a very demanding policy agenda, involving itself in virtually every legislative, regulatory and program activity of the government. The CFP has, with its continuing controversies and extraordinary logistical demands, layered unprecedented burdens on the department’s management. And, correspondingly, the CFP is continuously contending for the resources and management attention it has needed to sustain its performance against its legislated milestones. The aggregate effect of these organizational dynamics includes a cumbersome leadership model, less intense focus on the mission of the CFP and corresponding inefficiencies in operational execution. Leadership, focus and execution are further sub-optimized currently because of the multiple headquarters deployments (Edmonton and Ottawa) and processing sites (Montreal and Miramichi)."

But before those in the Conservative party say; I told you so, Hennison condemns them as well as provinces like Alberta which have opted out from the federal program; "Uncertainty is the enemy of the CFP. No end-to-end integrated plan to achieve "steady state" operations, no legislative or financial authority to enable administrative improvements, an ASD contract still requiring certification, differential costs and service levels between opting-in and opting-out provinces, provincial and territorial politicians promoting delay, etc., are all contributing to the uncertainty. Fuelled by the aggressive actions of the anti-firearms control lobby whose cause is aided by the uncertainty, these vested interests are frustrating the alignment of all parties to the achievement of the expected outcomes."

In other words the very opponents of the Canadian Firearms Program and the Canadian Firearms Centre must also shoulder their responsibility for increasing the cost overruns, this is particularly true of provinces that have opted out. The Centre expected and calculated its original costs based on all owners registering their guns and the provinces opting in, at no time did they calculate the costs of provincial government abdicating their responsibilities by opting out. This caused some of the cost overrun. Nor did they calculate the economic impact of a boycott by gun-owners, supported and encouraged by the Reform-Alliance-Conservative party and by provincial Conservatives like the Klein and Harris governments, Ministers and MLA’s.

But the real reason for the cost overruns was the simple fact that the entire CFP was a public private partnership, a P3. This is the key finding of the internal Justice Department audits done in 2000 and 2001, the Auditor Generals Report in 2002 and the Hennison audit in 2003.

The billion-dollar boondoggle is the result of privatization. You will never hear this from Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Because the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives and their allies such as the Fraser Institute, the National Citizens Coalition, the Atlantic Market Institute, and the CD Howe Institute are all proponents of the privatization of government services.

The Gun registry cost overruns are the direct result of the move to privatize, outsource and contract out government services begun under the Mulroney Conservative Government, and continued by the Liberal Government under PM Chretien and his finance minister Paul Martin.

The push to privatize government services was the result of the tax cutting, free trade neo-conservative political agenda adopted by governments in the 1980’s under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the US, Margart Thatcher in the UK, Brian Mulroney in Canada and Sir Roger Douglas in New Zealand. It impacted on all levels of government, federal, provincial/state, and municipal. Business lobbyists such as the BCNI and the NCC and their think tanks such as the Cato Institute and Fraser Institute promoted privatization as the answer to debt and deficit crisis governments faced. The fact that the tax cuts introduced by the neo-cons caused this crisis was ignored. Regardless of the impact of tax cuts their answer was always the same; reduce the size of government, and contract out/privatize government services.

One of the influential texts produced in response to the neo-conservative agenda was Reinventing Government, How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler published in 1993. It became the bible for the reduction in government services in order to reduce deficits by using contracting out, outsourcing and public private partnerships. It was the bible of the ‘new ‘ way for governments to do ‘business’. It was a liberal version of the harsher conservative view that all government services could and should be privatized.

It became the rallying cry of governments under siege from business and the right wing. In the United States it was embraced enthusiastically by the Democrats and Vice President Gore. In Canada it became the Chretien Liberals alternative to the Klein Revolution in Alberta. And it is the reason that Canadian Firearms Program ended up being a billion-dollar boondoggle.

Facing a massive deficit and debt crisis that was world wide, governments began to end their Keynesian approaches to social spending and embrace the new neo-conservative agenda. Reduce spending, outsource government contracts and increase tax cuts to business. The Liberals were no different, and Reinventing Government became an internal bible within the various departments. It was read by Cabinet Ministers, deputy ministers, and most importantly its ideas of contracting out and outsourcing was embraced in every department as a way of supposedly saving money.

The Liberals began the promotion of private-public partnerships (P3’s) and contracting out not based on any real economic analysis but based on popular business ideology. One of the areas the government saw, as perfect for outsourcing was its IT needs. The computer and information technology boom meant that the government could easily contract out these services rather than developing them in-house. Various departments began wholesale contracting out of IT services, including hardware purchasing and installation, computer programming and data base construction, as well as data inputting.

Unfortunately in their rush to privatize and outsource, they failed to develop a business plan that would allow for project oversight, and worse they failed to tender specific contracts for services. The government became a slush fund for private sector IT companies which were not the small computer companies of struggling entrepreneurs of the Wired generation, but large-scale corporate monopolies.

Such was the case with the Canadian Firearms Program, as is clearly shown by all the audit reports. In the case of the creation of the CFC, not only was the IT contracted out but also so was all the staff who did data intake, customer service and data input. The entire Centre is one large venture in private delivery of government services. Cost overruns occurred because of having " multiple headquarters deployments (Edmonton and Ottawa) and processing sites (Montreal and Miramichi)." These were staffed not by public sector workers, but by contracted out workers.

Management was the only area that was not contracted out, but in this case the management also did not have the knowledge or experience to oversee the IT component of creating a brand new data base for registering Canada’s gun owners.

The Auditor General reported that: "The Department had major difficulties in distinguishing between expenditures for project implementation and ongoing operations. This problem particularly affected two of the largest categories of costs: communications activities and the development and implementation of computer systems supporting the Canadian Firearms Registration System. The amounts allocated to these areas in various official documents differ significantly from one another. For example, one document provided to us stated that for 1997-98 the cost of the Canadian Firearms Registration System was about $13.5 million. However, the document provided to us for audit purposes stated that this amount was about $20 million."

And why were there cost overruns? "From the start of the business process and technological development of the CFP, EDS and SHL Systemhouse (subsequently acquired by EDS), responding to requirements defined by the CFP project management, performed a large number of changes (1997-319 changes; 1998-310; 1999-474; 2000-415; 2001-260; and, 2002-112) leading to a CFP technical solution that had rapidly evolved from seemingly straightforward to very complex."

In other words from the beginning the IT companies controlled the whole process, they provided the hardware, developed the software and data processing, and maintained control over it leasing it back to the government. Every time a change was made a charge was issued, driving up the operational costs of the CFC and the CFP. The costs were in the millions, and the government still did not own the hardware, software or data, this was still the property of the IT company.

And the reason these costly changes were required? "The Canadian Firearms Registration System information technology was modified several times before and after licensing and registration began in December 1998. The technology was developed in parallel with repeated changes to Program forms, rules, and processes and before legislation and regulations were finalized. The Department stated that the complexity of the system increased unnecessarily because many of the design assumptions were invalid; the system was intended to capture detailed information about firearms for criminal investigations and process licence and registration applications; however, the information needed for criminal investigations was well beyond the administrative needs of the Program; and small changes, such as modifications in data entry on a form, required major changes in the whole system because of its size and complexity, and these changes typically took three to six months to implement at a cost of millions of dollars."

So the Justice Department created a system that was not just simply about Canadian registering their guns but also an attempt to track gun ownership for police purposes. This was the underlying problem with the IT program. And they left the creation of this overly complex database to EDS and SHL Systemhouse. That system instead of being adaptable became a very expensive white elephant.

"In 2001, the Department told the Government that the three-year-old Canadian Firearms Registration System was not working well; its technology was expensive, inflexible, out-of-date, and could not be modified at a reasonable costs to support future operations. Construction and maintenance costs of the existing system were exceptionally high and without radical change, these would represent over 60 percent of future operating costs. This would be significantly higher than the industry norm of 10 percent to 20 percent."

EDS made their money and left the CFP and consequently Canadian Taxpayers on the hook for their outdated system. And anyone who works with computers, even a home computer, knows that there is something wrong when a database program and computer hardware is "expensive, inflexible, out of date (sic) and cannot be modified to support future operations". Somebody sold the government a pig in the poke, and left laughing all the way to the bank. That somebody was EDS.

Who is EDS? Well does the name Ross Perot ring a bell? EDS is originally his company for outsourcing computer programming and database processing it is one of the largest US based IT providers in the world. On their web site they state "EDS' core business is outsourcing services. Our innovative portfolio is built around our unique offerings in mainframe, data center, help-desk and desktop services, application maintenance and development, business process outsourcing, and transformation services." In this case they provided CFP with outdated and costly mainframe computers, lets not even ask who uses mainframes anymore, and proprietary application development and maintenance. In other words at the end of 2001 the CFP did not even own their own equipment and applications.

EDS informs us that "Outsourcing is about more than simply cutting costs. It's about increasing business value for your company." And what business value did we get from EDS? "Its technology was expensive, inflexible, out-of-date, and could not be modified at a reasonable costs to support future operations " Proudly EDS reports their "Canadian revenues of Cdn $1.25 billion in 2002," much of that revenue was paid by Canadian taxpayers thanks to their screw up at CFP.

And so what was the solution that the Government came up with to resolve this problem? To further outsource the computer operations of the CFP! That’s right, in a bill passed in the House of Commons, voted on by the Liberals and Conservatives the boondoggle that was caused by outsourcing in the first place was going to be fixed by…. (wait for it) outsourcing to a different company!

According to the Auditor General; "In 2002, following a competitive procurement, an Alternative Services Delivery (ASD) contract was awarded to Team Centra (a consortium of CGI and BDP). This outsourcing contract will, upon certification, replace the existing services. In the interests of cost containment and technology evolution, the strategic focus of the ASD solution is dependent on Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software replacing the custom-built solution. Current indications are that the complexities of the CFP continue to put the potential economic advantages of the COTS solution in jeopardy."

So were costs more controlled under the current contracted out services with Team Centra than with EDS? Not so according to the Hennison audit. "Nevertheless, the program administration remains unnecessarily complex and costly. KPMG reports that program expenditures were $200,364,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 and $136,629,000 in fiscal year 2001-2002. The Minister of Justice recently stated that the expenditures for the current fiscal year will be somewhat less than the $113,500,000 previously expected."

So the problem originally was that the government was sold an out of date mainframe computer and overly complex customized data base program and the solution is now to hire another IT company to come in and sell us "off the shelf" computers.

The logic of this befuddles the mind, except to those proponents of contracting out and privatization as the answer to everything. This begs the question, if the original CFP cost overruns were caused by outsourcing the IT why not bring it back in-house, and purchase off the shelf computers and software directly? The ideology of Public Private Partnerships is so imbedded in federal government departments, and provincial governments Canada wide that they cannot admit that P3’s are a failure, even when it is so obvious, as it is in this case.

The result of all this outsourcing of computer technology for the CFP is the recommendation from Hennison that "to bring development costs under control, with the exception of normal application maintenance, no additional software functions should be added to the existing technical infrastructure." So when outsourcing fails once we try it again and when it fails again and cost overruns occur we now freeze the program.

Like EDS, Team Centra benefited from outsourcing. "By joining forces with AMS, CGI has doubled its critical mass in both the United States and Europe. With 25,000 professionals and US$3 billion in revenue, CGI is one of the largest independent IT and BPO companies in the world," says their web page. And again they profited from cost overruns at CFP, just like EDS.

The CFP is an example of who exactly benefits from P3’s, as the companies providing outsourcing services. There are clearly no cost savings in outsourcing government services, there is less direct control and less accountability. And yet these same companies that outsource are the ones that not only claim they are more efficient than in-house services, they also are companies that support tax cuts for business. No wonder the Conservatives don’t want to talk about this being a P3 boondoggle. It damns their ideology that privatization and contracting out save money and are more efficient than public sector services provided by public sector workers.

None of these companies has been sued or have had their contracts cancelled. There will be no attempt to recoup the losses from companies that swindled the taxpayers of Canada, by providing "technology was expensive, inflexible, out-of-date, and could not be modified at a reasonable costs to support future operations."

Where else could this be happening? EDS and CGI still have contracts with the Federal Government and its departments, they provide IT outsourcing to provincial governments in Canada, municipalities, hospital boards, and universities. If this is Reinventing Government then we should expect more billion-dollar boondoggles, not less, thanks to outsourcing, privatization and P3’s.

Free Labour = Free Of Unions

Critic howls over trade agreement Note the headline.....It's from the Edmonton Sun of course......And you know there is trouble when the Fraser Institute says its a good deal....This is the latest ne0-liberal/neo-con attack on workers and their unions.

Alberta's highly touted free trade agreement with B.C. is "a wolf in sheep's clothing," says the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour. Gil McGowan is warning other provinces that the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, dubbed TILMA, "is not all sweetness and light."

But McGowan says union lawyers fear the deal will give companies the right to sue municipal and provincial governments and school boards that try to bring privatized services under the public umbrella.

He's also concerned the deal will result in a "dumbing down" of Alberta rules for trades training.

Liberal critic Bill Bonko says the deal should have been debated in the legislature if it was so good, rather than being negotiated behind closed doors.

But Jason Clemens of the Fraser Institute raves about the deal, saying the Yukon, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces are keen on it.

"This really could be a domino effect across the country to remove or dramatically reduce trade barriers," he said.

Also see: Legal advice on TILMA

For more on the TILMA go here and here

This is a provincial agreement that was drafted to meet the open corridor polices of NAFTA and the new North American Union proposed under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) which will be discussed by the Three Amigos this summer in Kananaskis.

And it fits in with the agenda of the Harpocrites in Ottawa and their business cronies who are promoting this policy as well as the increased use of temporary workers.

The $10-billion plan to help manufacturing compete globally
Expand the temporary foreign worker program to make it easier to hire non-Canadians when there are no domestic citizens available.

Although governments can only influence manufacturers' success to a certain degree, the industry believes Ottawa could be doing much more to help.

The sector's wish list includes lower corporate income taxes, the elimination of provincial trade barriers, more investment in skills, and broader tax credits for industrial training and corporate research.

And let's not forget who Harper put in charge as Minister of Human Resources.

And there is a Conservative former MLA and anti-union candidate running in former Conservative MP John Williamson's federal riding here. After all Alberta has the worst labour laws in Canada. And is home to the Right To Work Movement which was once headed by Conservative MP Rob Anders.

As Jean Charest once said, back when he was leader of the Federal PC's, "Alberta sets the agenda for Canada."


See

Labour

Unions

Temporary Workers

NAFTA

AFL





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, workers, work, employees, labour, labor, unions, Alberta, B.C., TILMA, Monte Solberg, Labour laws,

Canadian team first in world to treat COVID-19 with specialized dialysis
by Lawson Health Research Institute MAY 7, 2020

This modified dialysis device gently removes a patient's blood, 'reprograms' white blood cells and returns them to fight hyperinflammation. Credit: Lawson Health Research Institute
As part of a randomized controlled trial, a team from Lawson Health Research Institute is the first in the world to treat a patient with COVID-19 using a modified dialysis device. The device gently removes a patient's blood, modifies white blood cells and returns them to fight hyperinflammation. It is being tested with critically ill patients at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).


Evidence suggests that COVID-19 causes a heightened immune response, termed a 'cytokine storm,' in the most severely ill patients. Treatment options to address this hyperinflammatory state are currently limited and there are concerns about global drug shortages.

"Working in the intensive care unit (ICU), I was aware that more treatment options were needed in the fight against COVID-19," says Dr. Chris McIntyre, lead researcher, Lawson Scientist and LHSC Nephrologist. "This led to the idea of treating a patient's blood outside of the body. We could reprogram white blood cells associated with inflammation to alter the immune response."

The research uses a modified version of a standard dialyzer called an extracorporeal leukocyte modifying device. It gently removes blood in a much slower circuit than standard dialysis. Through a process using specific levels of biochemical components, it targets and transforms white blood cells associated with inflammation before releasing them back into circulation. The hope is that these 'reprogrammed' cells will now fight hyperinflammation—rather than promoting it—in affected organs like the lungs.

Dr. Chris McIntyre, Scientist at Lawson Health Research Institute, is the first in the world to treat a patient with COVID-19 using a modified dialysis device. Credit: Lawson Health Research Institute

The clinical trial will include up to 40 critically ill patients with COVID-19 at LHSC's Victoria Hospital and University Hospital. Research participants will be randomized to receive either standard supportive care or standard supportive care in combination with this novel treatment. The research team will compare patient outcomes to determine if the treatment is effective.

"The ultimate goal is to improve patient survival and lessen their dependency on oxygen and ventilation," explains Dr. McIntyre. "If effective, it's possible that this treatment could be combined with other therapies. For example, this could be used to modulate inflammatory consequences while an antiviral drug is used to reduce the viral load."

Led by Lawson's Kidney Clinical Research Unit, this new trial was accelerated from initial conception to treatment of the first patient in only 40 days. It represents an important research collaboration with a multidisciplinary team. The trial is leveraging insights gained from another local study led by Dr. Douglas Fraser which is analyzing blood samples from COVID-19 patients at LHSC to better understand the cytokine storm.

"We're identifying which cytokines or biomarkers are important to the hyperinflammatory response seen in COVID-19 patients," says Dr. Fraser, Scientist at Lawson and Paediatric Critical Care Physician at LHSC. "With the knowledge we're gaining, we can study a patient's blood to determine whether this extracorporeal treatment is making a difference."

If successful, the treatment also has potential to be used with other conditions like sepsis.

Provided by Lawson Health Research Institute

Flat Earth Society Meets In London

The New Flat Earth Society is officially meeting in London England to respond to the UN Global Warming report issued by the IPCC in Paris.

And its all paid for by Exxon Mobil.

And it is a tax write off because they are a registered as a charity in Canada and the United States. Yep your tax dollars help pay for this right wing drivel.

Their sypmathisers at the National Pest round up the usual suspects to be 'objective' in their reporting on global warming. If being objective means quoting folks about why the world is flat.

These guys are the grass roots base of the Harper government so the fact the New Canadian Government opposes Kyoto should come as no surprise.

And just because they have scientists on their side don't forget so did these guys;

The Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956 by Samuel Shenton, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society, as a successor to the 19th century Universal Zetetic Society. The Flat Earth Society devised detailed arguments, based on scientific observations and references to the Bible, to support their claim that the Earth is a motionless disc not an orbiting globe.


A tip o the blog to Buckdog, Far and Wide and Mike Marin

See

John Baird In Exxons Pocket?

Climate Change Skeptics the New Flat Earthers

Fraser Institute

Environment

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Fraser Institute, climate change, environment, global warming, Exxon Mobil, National Post,

THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESS

Wangersky: We don't have to agree with an opinion to publish it

Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.


Leader Post Newspapers publish a variety of opinions to try to spark a more comprehensive public debate on issues.

You take your openings where you can find them.

This starting point for this column comes from Twitter, where a reader questioned our publication of a Toronto Sun columnist on the editorial page of the Leader-Post last week.

“We don’t regularly see a piece by Lorrie Goldstein in the Leader-Post but have him write a piece about a Fraser Institute health-care study suggesting user fees and the Leader-Post gives him a spot on the editorial page. I thought Editor-in-Chief Russell Wangersky was a breath of fresh air, but …”

First off, let me say that I understand the sentiment.

Goldstein’s opinions trend, shall we say, to the right side of the political spectrum.

But if he appears on our op-ed pages, does that automatically mean we agree with his position?

No.

Does it mean I agree with him? Do I believe that things like a two-tiered health-care system or user fees will strengthen the public health-care system by taking the strain off the public system, and in the process, improve health care for Canadians?

No, I don’t — for a simple reason. Policy-makers and the people whose voices are most heard by those policy-makers will fall into the camp that’s both able to pay for private services and not notice the personal impact of user fees.

User fees could dissuade lower-income Canadians from seeking early intervention for medical conditions, and potentially lead to Canadians not getting medical care until their illnesses are considerably advanced (and potential treatments are correspondingly more expensive).

I feel the same way about building a parallel health-care system, where those who can afford care can essentially jump to the front of the line.

I think that won’t just take strain off the public system — I think the public health-care system will continue to deteriorate and, in fact, deteriorate even faster as concerns vanish from view and also as doctors and other health-care workers move to a better-paying, better-resourced and less-difficult-to-work-in private system.

When decision-makers aren’t looking for their own care within a public health system, their involvement in the system becomes second-hand at best — and their attention can be, shall we say, diverted from the needs at hand.

I also think that there are legitimate reasons to question the role of think-tanks like the Fraser Institute in the Canadian political system.

I find a particular irony in agencies questioning public policy, particularly around government spending, while at the same time depending in part for their fiscal existence on a taxation loophole.

As charitable research operations, think-tanks get to issue tax receipts to donors who agree with the think-tanks’ choice of issues to study, and how to study them.

But I’m also keenly aware that I’m only one voice in a debate that involves us all — from the cost of the service to the equity of its delivery to its flaws and potential improvements — and that since it does involve us all, we all have a right to speak.

The goal, hopefully, is a health-care system that serves all Canadians in the best way it can, and that means a no-holds-barred discussion.

That can’t be only publishing the side of the debate you agree with. (I should point out, as long as there is really a debate. And that’s key.)

Does that mean it’s open season for repeated letters or op-eds dismissing climate change or touting unproven COVID cures? Not without a cogent argument and a healthy dose of something approaching facts — because airing things that are demonstrably false doesn’t advance the debate at all.

But if we’re all so precious that we can’t even find a place for a different opinion on public policy, how do we ever hope to reach common ground?

Sometimes, readers won’t agree with opinion pieces. And sometimes, I won’t agree with opinion pieces either.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be printed.

Luckily, anything that does get printed can be responded to as well.

So, if you disagree with something on the editorial page, find your keyboard and get writing.

Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. He can be reached at rwangersky@postmedia.com.

Canadians are waiting longer than ever for medical treatments, data reveals

Yahoo Canada
December 9, 2022

A nurse tends to a patient in the Intensive Care Unit at the Bluewater Health Hospital in Sarnia, Ont., on Tuesday, January 25, 2022. Personal support workers in Ontario hospitals were promised last spring that a wage increase introduced during the pandemic would remain permanently on their paychecks. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young (The Canadian Press)

An annual survey of physicians reveals that Canadians have waited longer than ever before for medical treatment this year.

A study from the Fraser Institute, with data collected between Jan. 10 to Sept. 15, 2022, from 855 respondents across 12 medical specialties, found that the median wait time for medical procedures was 27.4 weeks, the longest ever recorded.

Ontario had the shortest wait time at 20.3 weeks while Prince Edward Island had the longest wait time in Canada at 64.7 weeks.

“Excessively long wait times remain a defining characteristic of Canada’s health-care system,” a statement from Mackenzie Moir, Fraser Institute policy analyst and co-author of the report reads.

“They aren’t simply minor inconveniences, they can result in increased suffering for patients, lost productivity at work, a decreased quality of life, and in the worst cases, disability or death.”

It's estimated that across the 10 provinces the total number of procedures people are waiting for in 2022 is 1,228,047.

"This means that, assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 3.2 per cent of Canadians are waiting for treatment in 2022," the report states. "Physicians report that only about 11.03 per cent of their patients are on a waiting list because they requested a delay or postponement."

October data released by Health Quality Ontario (HQO) on Thursday reveals that patients spend an average of 2.2 hours waiting for their first assessment by a physician in provincial emergency departments.

For patients with a low-urgency medical condition, 72 per cent finish their emergency visit within the target time of four hours. For high-urgency patients, 88 per cent finish their emergency visit within the target time of eight hours.

Posthaste: Canada's standard of living on track for worst decline in 40 years


Pamela Heaven
Thu, May 16, 2024

Measuring a country’s growth can be contentious.

Measure Canada’s gross domestic product by aggregate and it doesn’t look so bad, but measure it by person or per capita and it’s dismal.

For example, between 2000 and 2023 Canada had the second highest rate of aggregate GDP growth in the G7, but one of the lowest growth rates per person.

When a country has had a population surge as Canada has, economists say measuring by person gives a better picture of its standard of living, and according to a new study by Fraser Institute that standard is headed for its biggest decline in 40 years.

The study by Grady Munro, Jason Clemens, and Milagros Palacios looks at the three worst periods of decline and recovery of real GDP per person in the country since 1985. They are between 1989 and 1994, years that included a recession, between 2008 and 2011, the aftermath of the great financial crisis, and this last that began in 2019.

This latest period is unique because even though GDP per person recovered for one quarter in mid-2022, it immediately began to decline again, and by the end of 2023 was well below where it was in 2019.

“This lack of meaningful recovery suggests that since mid-2019, Canada has experienced one of the longest and deepest declines in real GDP per person since 1985,” said the study’s authors.

Between April of 2019 and the end of 2023, when the last data was available, inflation-adjusted per-person GDP fell 3 per cent from $59,905 to $58,111. That is surpassed only by the declines in 1989 to 1992, when GDP per person fell 5.3 per cent and in the financial crisis, when it fell 5.2 per cent, says the study.

The latest decline has lasted 18 quarters, making it the second longest in the past 40 years. Only the decline of 1989 to 1994, which lasted 21 quarters, was longer.

Key, though, are signs that it is not over yet. GDP per person in the fourth quarter of 2023 was down 0.8 per cent from the quarter before, suggesting it is still on a downward track, said the study.

“The decline in incomes since Q2 2019 is ongoing, and may still exceed the downturn of the late 1980s and early 1990s in length and depth of decline,” said the authors.

“If per-capita GDP does not recover in 2024, this period may be the longest and largest decline in per-person GDP over the last four decades.”

Fraser Institute is not alone in flagging this problem. In a recent article for the Financial Times, Ruchir Sharma, chair of Rockefeller International, identified Canada as one of the countries that has suffered a steep decline in real per-capita income growth and a drop in their share of global GDP.

A leader among the so-called “breakdown nations,” Canada’s GDP per capita has been falling 0.4 per cent a year since 2020, the worst rate among 50 developed economies.

“Widely admired for how it weathered the global financial crisis of 2008, [Canada] missed the boat when the world moved on, driven by Big Tech instead of commodities,” wrote Sharma. “New investment and job growth are being driven mainly by the government.”

Not only does Canada lag most developed economies, Canadian provinces also fall far behind almost all U.S. states, said Trevor Tombe, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary, in a column last year for the Hub.

Ontario last year had a per-person level of economic output similar to Alabama, said Tombe. The Maritimes were below Mississippi, and Quebec and Manitoba lag West Virginia.

Canada’s strongest economy, Alberta beat the U.S. average, but ranked 14th overall.

“It’s roughly comparable to New Jersey and Texas, but 13 per cent below California and nearly one-quarter below New York,” wrote Tombe.

Thoughtful

Fellow blogger thoughtinterrupted was kind enough to redo my CBC/Ezra ad.






Thank you for the much better designed ad. I have replaced my crude one on the sidebar.

She comments on yet another dreadful appearance of this opportunist self promoting partisan of the right on Don Newman's Politics on CBC yesterday.

And Ken Chapman another thoughtful Alberta blogger concurs.

Expand your Alberta based Rolodex Mr. Newman and do the province - and the country a favour.

But is CBC listening?

Well Ezra is apparently, since as thoughtinteruppted points out, he finally mentioned the Alberta NDP, who have four seats in Redmonton.

Levant proclaimed that after Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, by having commissioned a panel of mostly pro-business types including one former Fraser Institute associate to review Alberta’s energy royalties, has become so far left that “everyone” in Alberta is “wondering when we elected Brian Mason and the New Democrats”.

Business type's, Fraser Institute alumni are left wing? Give your head a shake, Mr. Newman. Is this the kind of politically challenged comment you would accept from someone talking about Ontario or Quebec or heck even Newfoundland politics? I think not. This would be like having Kate from Small Dead Animals comment on Saskatchewan politics.

Uh oh maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that, it might give the Politics producer ideas, since the CBC has already bowed to right wing pressure for political correctness by having Ezra on, to try and show they are not liberal lefties.

As for Ezra's comment itself he is shilling pro-bono for Big Oil, repeating comments made by Ralph Klein. They are the only ones in Alberta upset over the royalty report. Albertans support our ownership of our own resources, a key plank of the right in fact, that socialist idea that the resources belong to the people, not big oil. And that they should pay us for the privilege of processing them.

Perhaps Ezra ever the opportunist hopes to get some cash injected into his fiscally challenged Western Standard from the oil boys. Watch for an WS email ad solicitation campaign to target oil companies.


SEE:

Conservative Broadcasting Corporation


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
CBC, Don Newman, media bias, Ezra Levant, CBC politics, politics, Alberta, Canada, NDP

Nuke The Tar Sands

PC Leadership hopeful Jim Dinning and the Fraser Institute both agree we need to nuke the tar sands.

As usual the purveyors of privatization really are state capitalists. The Fraser Institute report calls for more use of private nuclear power plants - with government covering insurance, risk-management and startup costs - to reduce emissions and offset the use of gas to power oilsands facilities.

Yep you and I pay for private nuke plants we take the risk we cover all the initial expenses and get nothing for it. Why not just build em ourselves. But that begs the question why do we need nuke plants in the tar sands.

Dinning says its because gas is too expensive. Yeah but nuke plants use too much water, which already is a problem with the Tar Sands. They will use steam injection to remove the tar from the sands. Such steam injection uses more water than conventional strip mining and its heat extraction processes.

Shell's process involves drilling into the shale and using electric heaters to bake the rock to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, which releases oil and gas at the molecular level so it can be pumped to the surface. The company has been researching and testing this method for 20 years and believes it could be profitable even if the price of crude oil fell to $30 a barrel. Chevron's process, so far tried only on paper, uses carbon dioxide, possibly aided by propellants and explosives, to break the rock underground and then pump in heated carbon dioxide to free up the oil. Energy Independence, Our Shale Deposits, Making OPEC Obsolete

Radioactive waste also needs to be processed. This is more of a problem than a solution. The real solution is to slow down development of the tar sands to meet the environmental and community needs of Northerners. But that won't happen in Alberta since we are governed by the interests of Dallas and Houston whose head offices are in Calgary.


Also See:

Peak Oil

Tar Sands



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
peak-oil, Tarsands, water, Pembina, Klein, oil, nukes, nuclear, gas, water, drought, Alberta, Canada

Made In Cuba Green Policy

On Clean Air day Rona Ambrose assured reporters, again ad naseum, that sometime soon we will have a Made in Canada Green Plan.

My message to you, on Clean Air Day, is that the Government of Canada is working towards a “Made-in-Canada” approach to deliver real change and real results for all Canadians, in our common campaign to clean up our air and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

So instead of Ambrose the Minister of Do Nothing standing up in the house talking about how the US is ahead of us, ad nauseum;

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that thanks to the Liberal government being in power for 13 years the Bush government has done more on the environment than this country has for the last decad. The Americans are outperforming us on pollution control. They are outperforming us on emission reductions. This government is going to ensure that we outperform not just the Americans but all of our counterparts.

How about we start comparing the Made In Cuba plan with the lack of plan that the Tories have. Because Cuba is way ahead of Canada, and the U.S.

Castro's new soldiers
Richard Gott
03 May 2006 04:59

At a petrol station outside the Cuban town of Cienfuegos, half a dozen teenage girls stand languidly by the pumps, jumping to attention when a car or lorry pulls up. They work the pumps efficiently, take payment and enter the transaction on to a large official form. They are dressed neatly in T-shirts and jeans and a slogan across their backs proclaims their identity as trabajadores sociales, or social workers. They are Fidel Castro’s latest army of guerrillas, deployed in the struggle against corruption, the scourge to which state-run economies have always been peculiarly vulnerable. They are also the vanguard of the generation upon whom the future of the Cuban revolution will depend.

On earlier visits to Cuba I have observed the petrol problem. Driving through the countryside you could always find a willing accomplice to direct you to a tank in someone’s back garden, where petrol would be sold at an advantageous price, or simply off-ration. It had been siphoned off the state’s supplies. The practice seemed harmless enough. Yet it had begun to create a large hole in the economy. Castro complained that “as much petrol was being stolen as sold’’, and last year his government stepped in with a novel solution. About 10 000 young activists, more than half of them women, have taken control of the country’s pumps, while the usual attendants have been sent home on full pay.

The social workers’ jobs do not stop at the petrol stations. They also go from house to house to hand out low-energy light bulbs, to check that everyone has the new electric pressure cookers provided by China and to prompt the exchange of old, gas-guzzling fridges from the 1950s for something more energy efficient. Others will move on to examine financial practices in bakeries and the construction industry. About 30 000 of these revolutionaries, aged between 16 and 22, have been deployed across the country. Identified some years ago as a potentially counter revolutionary class, they are helping to keep alive the revolution’s mystique.

Maybe the Tories could mobilize all their Blogging Tories and Fraser Institute student Interns to be Green Social Workers like Castro has done.

Besides both parties share the same intials; CPC. And same style of authoritarian leadership.


And don't forget all the Canadian investment in Cuba. Like Sherritt Gordon.

And we have a long tradition of being business and social partners with Cuba.

Our CPC could learn some lessons from the Cuban CPC.

Other Great Leaders of Canada have.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Rona, Ambrose, Canada, CPC, Cuba, Castro, Green, Climate, Change, Conservatives, made-in-Canada, Kyoto, environment, Fraser-Institute, Harper, autarch, autarchy, green-energy,

Return of the Socreds

Presto Manning is contemplating a run for the leadership of the Party of Calgary. Somethings never change. Preston Manning Expresses Interest In Replacing Klein

That would mean 35 years of Socred power that ended with his father, Ernest, being replaced with a lame duck Premier, then 33 years of PC power starting with Peter Lougheed and ending with a lame duck Premier, and then the possibility of that strange beast the Reformed PC Socreds under Presto.....noooooooo.

Preston Manning, who was once the second-most-powerful leader in Canada as leader of the opposition, is apparently now considering his chances of becoming the second-most-powerful leader in Canada as premier of Alberta.

King Ralph is dead
The Alberta Tories' regicide of Ralph Klein was big news for 12 hours. Then Preston Manning trumped it, telling reporters he was considering running for Klein's job.

Daddy Ernest Manning gave up party power to Peter Lougheed, thus assuring a Liberal Conservative Socred Alliance that was Seventies PC's. That alliance was shattered as neo-cons took over under Klein, the fiscal right was far less powerful than the social conservatives. The social conservatives align behind Oberg, the Reform types around Morton, and the liberal wing under Dinning. Alberta Tories in disarray

Dining did the dirty deed of balancing the budget on the backs of the working class, with wage and benefit cuts to the public sector. Then with victory in his back pocket he left the government.

The neo-cons in the party then went on to shape the Ralph Revolution, using the the debt and deficit hysteria of the ninties to impose their Republican Lite vision on Alberta, while promoting it for the rest of Canada with Prestos Reform Party.

Government that governs least is best — or not

When Mr. Klein became premier, the province had a $3.4-billion deficit and a $23-billion debt. He argued these burdens arose, in part, from governments having involved themselves too much in the economy. There were bad investments. The government taxed too much. Government regulations were too onerous. The free market, he asserted, would be encouraged if the government got out of the way.

This contrasted with the approach of Peter Lougheed, who led the Conservatives to power in 1971. Mr. Lougheed was no socialist, but he did believe the government should try to direct, cajole and even force the market in directions he believed Alberta needed. Only that way, he reasoned, could Alberta's economy be diversified and energy revenues used not just for today's needs, but for the future.

Mr. Lougheed's dirigiste preferences evaporated under Mr. Klein, but now some Albertans want that kind of guiding hand back, at least in a modified form. In a free-enterprise province, the critics are now demanding a “plan” for using the revenues that would be more than driving up spending on ongoing programs.

Presto would be an interesting add to the mix but his chances of winning are less than none. Unless he has something up his sleeve, oh like say Medicare Reform. If anyone could enunciate and promote the Third Way in Medicare it would be Presto.

“Where I think we're headed is a system of universal care, where everybody is covered ... with two tracks for delivery, and two tracks for payment. It's not a question of private versus public, but what mix of the two is appropriate.”

Mr. Manning left what he likes to call "active partisan politics" in 2002 to become more involved in the public-policy debate. He quickly got on board with the Fraser Institute and the Canada West Foundation, and he set up the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

He and Mike Harris authored the Fraser Institute Report on exactly the musings that King Ralph has been tossing about for the past decade. And perhaps that would be the reason for him to run, otherwise Third Way Medicare Reform is dead in the water.

Third Way predicted to meet Klein's fate

Dead-end way Tories mull future of health-care reform if Ralph exits scene



More on

Ralph Klein

Social Credit

Western Canadian Populism




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Preston, Manning, Ralph, Kline, Mike, Harris, Medicare, Harelthcare, Alberta, PC, Conservatives, government, leadership, Canada, Reform, Party

Macleans the New Alberta Report

Welcome to Ken Whytes world one of numerous ex Alberta Report employees and owners currently writing for the MSM (Lorne Gunter, the Byfields, etc.) has now taken Macleans to ever new lows, once associated with the rightwhingnut scandal rag from Alberta the Report.

Yep once the prestigious editor of the National Post hired by alleged racketeering crook Lord Black, Whyte now edits Macleans. In a toff to his old boss he has Mrs. Lord Black (Barbara Amiel) on staff as a columnist. She who allegedly drove her husband into a life of crime to keep her in the lifestyle she felt she was suited too. Mrs. Lord Black is long time fop for the rightwhingnuts and board member of the rightwhing thunk tank the Fraser Institute.

But this weeks issue exposes Macleans as just another issue of the Alberta Report little Kenny used to edit. Change the banner logo with the Report and the headline sez it all. "Let's Send Svend Packing". Humourous, no? No. Its a homophobic attack on Svend, cleaned up of the Mark Steyn prejorative of calling Svend a gay kleptocrat, (from his safe haven in exile in the U.S. where he can't be touched by Canada's hate laws) but saying the same thing.

But we are wholly unconvinced that Robinson is a changed man, or that his return to Ottawa is in the best interests of Canadian voters.

Of course he has not changed, despite Kens litany of supposed crimes committed by Svend the real issue is that he is still gay and a gay advocate. And interesting while focusing on his attempt to get the word 'god' struck from the Constitution, Ken fails to mention what really got his rightwhing pals in a tizzy; his success in getting sexual orientation included in the hate literature law. Yep Ken is careful not to out Svend and face his rath. Rather he cleverly skirts the issue.

The Editorial written by Whyte comes from the Alberta Report school of journalism, huffy puffy self righteous indignation and psuedo outrage. Full of vile rancour dripping off the page cause Svend is a ho-mo-sex-ual. Its not really about the fact he stole anything, or that he is an NDP politician, nope its cause he is a ho-mo-sex-ual. Ken Whyte has something personal against Svend.Like the rest of his ilk at Alberta Report they have always had this thing about being manly men, no homo-sex here please, we are from St. Johns.

You see the magazine was orginally funded by the private St. Johns Boys School, a protestant religious school which Ted Byfield was an influential member of.
And well, only manly men go out and teach boys how to mountain climb, shoot white water, and if they get up to no good, well a good paddling on the bottom will straighten them out. Manly men. No homos or queers here.

Yep and lets not even get into the subject of feminism, well its ok if you are a feminist like say Mrs. Lord Black or even housefau columnists like Margret Wente and Diane Francis, ex Americans come to lecture Canadian ladies on why they should stay home and enjoy the good life like Mrs. Lord Black does. Cause if you don't you will become a lesbian.

Yep sex was always on the minds of folks at Alberta Report. You could say it was their obsession. They weren't pro life, heavens no bring back the death penalty, they were anti abortion, cause that was what happens when you have sex out of wedlock. Yep there's that sex thingee again.

The magazine itself was a roaring succcess in Alberta, every dentist office had a copy. Mind you the magazine went bankrupt three times, and was bailed out by Alberta Taxpayers at least once through the Alberta Venture Capital fund. Funny that, sorta like the Fraser Institute being a charity so its elite members can write off their donations for tax credits.

Anyways the sorid little tale of Alberta Report is that it was the first real Canadian Conservative redneck rightwhing weekly. And even the new Western Standard and the psuedo Report (aka Canada Report) pale in comparison for the really off the wall pronouncements made by the Byfields and their edotroial syncophants.

It appears that Macleans is another attempt by Ken Whyte to shape a publication into his old familar home, Alberta Report. The attack on Svend is a clarion call that the new Macleans is the Voice of the rightwhing in Canada. Even though the real crime story in Canada this week was all about Lord Black, but after all his little woman writes for Ken. Well you can expect Macleans under Ken to end up like Alberta Report, in your local dentists office.

MEDIA WATCH: THE ELECTION

It's just news, not brainwashing

By CHRISTOPHER DORNAN

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Globe and Mail

The thing about the networks, though, is that they all insist they have no partisan agenda. On that score, if nothing else, you have to admire the honesty of the new Maclean's magazine under publisher-editor Ken Whyte. It makes no secret of where its preferences lie. The current issue features a cover shot of NDP candidate Svend Robinson and the headline "Svend him packing." A subhead urges Vancouver Centre voters to "please do the rest of Canada a favour."

"Svend him packing" is a brilliant headline, and if you're of that cast of mind, the new Maclean's will drop into your lap as though the national media have finally come to their senses. If you're not of that cast of mind, you will be repelled by it. It's too personal, too abrasive. You will not be inclined to buy a magazine with that kind of attitude. You might not be inclined to work there either.

So Maclean's, I guess, has decided to stake its future on a core readership of worked-up right wingers, convinced that a right-good read is key to growing that constituency. Good luck to them. Maybe it will work this time. As a business strategy, it didn't work at the last three publications where Ken Whyte had a guiding hand: the National Post, Saturday Night magazine and Alberta Report.

But, then, Ken Whyte is fighting for his life, no less than any candidate on the hustings. And his poll numbers aren't looking good. In the Decima-Carleton survey, when asked where they turn for election news, respondents mentioned everything from their local dailies to Internet blogs. National weekly newsmagazines weren't even a blip.

Christopher Dornan is the director of the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication. The Decima-Carleton poll results can be found at

http://decima.ca/en/lab/election2006/

and http://www.carleton.ca/sjc

Beware the Boogey Man

Ralph Strikes Back
Private Health Care is Still On the Agenda

Klein, dubbed "The Wrangler" in the Canadian Health Care Manager Journal's seventh-annual national awards, was recently given the honour for his tenacity in tackling health-care issues with the province's yet-to-be-introduced Third Way health-care proposal.'
Wrangler' premier nabs health award

Canadians deserve better health system : Klein

canada.com
Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Ralph Klein says Alberta is trying to find ways of addressing non-emergency health issues outside of the current public system.

The Alberta premier says his province is exploring ways to address a recent Supreme Court decision declaring inordinate wait times unconstitutional and opening the way to private health care.

Klein says Canadians deserve better access to a health system that provides quality services when they need it.

Sitting on billions of surplus dollars, and having cut hospital beds, privatized laundry and support services in hospitals, laid off nurses and doctors, and reduced access to post secondary education in the last decade is the reason Alberta and the rest of Canada has a hospitalization crisis. Privatizing health care is NOT going to increase access, funding and reforming the billing system is. Something the Klein government is ideologically opposed to. Funds are clearly not the problem in Alberta. King Klein and his neo-cons on the other hand are.

Health-care boogeyman label unfair, says Klein

No its not, its accurate.

This all began over six years ago with Bill 11. The Liberal Government of the Day did not confront the imminent privatization that Bill 11 opened the door to.
The failure of the Klein Reich in Alberta, the Fraser Institute, the NCC and its spokesman Stephen Harper, and assorted right wing lobbyists to convince Canadians that privatization of health care was neccasary during those years was due to the effective popular mobilization of mass opposition. The Canadian liberal-left stymied the right wing by equating 'privatization' with 'Americanization'.

As the outspoken leader of the neo-con putsch against the public sector and public services, Klein is now spouting his 'Third Way' as an alternative to both the Canadian and American models of health care delivery. "If the Canadian system is unsustainable, which it is, and the American system is unacceptable, which it is, let's find a third way," said Klein.

That Third Way is still privatization. Having been whupped by the left, the neo-cons in Canada, under Kleins leadership, have adopted a new model of privatization to sell Canadians. It is the Euro model. Former Reform/Alliance leader Presto Manning and former Klein Klone and Ontario Premier Mike Harris announced during the last federal election this model of health care reform on behalf of the right wing think tank the Fraser Institute.

Klein still has to tell us what his Third Way is. Even his much lauded 'tell it like it is' speechifying in Ottawa yesterday didn't say what this term means. And he was of course speaking to the converted as his speech was held at the Ottawa Establishment old boys club, the Canadian Empire Club. Whose president is a federal Conservative Strategist.

To some it up for the past six years the Klein Reich in Alberta has tried by hook or crook to come up with plans to expand the privatization of health care, but have faced a resistance from Albertans, as well as other Canadians. His Third Way is just a new label on the same old bottle of cutting costs by devolving them to Albertans directly through private insurance, cost recovery, user fees, medicare accounts and private public partnerships.

While other provinces have their share of P3's, notably Quebec, and services not covered by medicare, only Alberta has the outspoken leadership of the right wing in Canada promoting privatization.

Yes Virginia there is a boogey man and his name is Ralph Klein.

Health should be key election issue: Klein

I couldn't agree more.....cause here it comes.....more privatization through the back door....Ralph's Third Way.....

Members-only clinic opens

Vancouver primary care facility charges $1,200 to join, plus $2,300 a year