The Globe and Mail makes an almost convincing argument as to why it is Ignatieff should take ownership of the healthcare issue in Canada. It’s originally a liberal/NDP issue. Michael Ignatieff is in command, barely but in command, of the liberals. Therefore, it should default to being his issue. The Globe rightly points out it doesn’t fit Stephen Harper if you follow along party lines, what with conservatives–at least, if you look south of the border for your definition of conservatives–opposed to anything government regulated on basic principle. But what the Globe and Mail leaves out, and this is what surprises me, is that Ignatieff isn’t in much of a better position to take ownership of it. If anything, he’s in a worse position than Harper.

Prior to his career in politics, Stephen Harper wasn’t a whole lot different from the average Canadian. Sure, he might have been president of the National Citizens Coalition, but he was still subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else living in Canada. Still fell under the jurisdiction of the very healthcare system he may or may not still want to turn inside out. He, his wife, his kids, were all subject to it–and would therefore be perhaps a little better qualified to have an opinion on exactly what to do with it.

Michael Ignatieff? His healthcare consisted of pretty well full coverage, most likely, while he was living in Boston. Likely paid for both by his employer and, if that wasn’t good enough, out of pocket. Prior to that, he found himself living in the UK. Where he again, most likely had some form of private insurance in addition to, if he ever used at all, the public option as exists across the pond. He has had no experience, either positive or negative, with Canada’s healthcare system since the 1970’s. Certainly he returned to Canada in 2005, and also entered politics at that point–he would be in waiting for Stephane Dion’s eventual implosion before taking charge of the liberal party, but he’s still had no actual experience with the healthcare system as faced by average Canadians. So to expect him to fit into the issue his party has traditionally taken ownership of in the past is, perhaps, a bit of a stretch.

If any one of the three would be the most likely to fit into the healthcare issue, and I cringe to publish this realization, it would almost have to be Jack Layton. Not that I’d be interested to see what he’d do with any kind of actual power, but he seems the most likely candidate for a defense of Canada’s current healthcare system both in and out of Canada. And, in fact, it might make slightly more sense than the Globe’s suggestion that simply because Ignatieff is the liberal leader, it should be his issue–the NDP was, after all, the originating entity that brought about healthcare. So, to exercise the Globe’s logic a bit farther, the issue of healthcare in Canada is actually an NDP issue. And, as such, should be written rather firmly into Jack Layton’s platform come next election. Stephen Harper should steer clear of it–it’s far too liberal for him, as should Ignatieff–it’s far too “Canadian” for him. Or, better yet, why don’t we just not make it an election issue at all. After all, it’s not like previous elections have brought about any real significant changes to it since the 1980’s or so.

Of course, it started out with the proclamation that–oh my god–Canada’s a disaster. Organized chaos, perhaps, eh Dick? Oh, and let’s not forget their favourite line–it almost always appears in a healthcare versus profit margins argument. Canada’s healthcare system allows at least 20%, or one in five, people to die as a result of it. Gee, now where’ve we heard that before? Can I get some proof with that?

No one’s saying the universal healthcare system’s absolutely perfect. And if you are, well then you’re just about as much an idiot as Dick Morris is. But Canada spends less per capita on its healthcare, in spite of a smaller population than the US–and despite Morris’s asertions to the contrary. Canada doesn’t have the problem the US has of many people preferring to wait until they literally can’t breathe before finally, grudgingly, giving in and going to the emergency room–where they promptly yes, get treatment, and also walk out of the said emergency room with a bill often times larger than most people’s anual incomes. And, you don’t hear of folks declaring bankrupsy in Canada, or remortgaging their homes, for the sole purpose of being able to aford treatment. Well, that is, unless your name’s Shona Holmes and you like the idea of headlines. Or is it that we’re all just stuck on a waiting list and haven’t gotten in yet to see the doctor who will most asuredly tell us we’re about to die from inadequate care?

No, no one’s saying there aren’t problems. But the biggest problem is misinformation. Or just plain ignorance. And unfortunately, it’s originating from inside offices that at one time were occupied by perfectly reasonable, well-educated people who claim to know everything there is to know about Canada’s healthcare system. Unfortunately, if that were true, there wouldn’t need to be such a ridiculous stand on something that even the governing party has stated they aren’t even looking at. And Dick Morris wouldn’t be deserving of the moron of the year award. Well, maybe he would. But not for this.

And, of course, later on the same day, a poll came out that pretty effectively blew the Star’s theory out of the water re: the whole out of controll thing. Oops. Try on another angle, folks. It might fit better. Then again, they could have just left reporting to people a little more centered in reality. Facts? What facts? We saw nothing.

The Star goes into a bit of detail on how the registry shouldn’t be a political issue, but rather an issue of public safety. And they cite the Toronto police chief as backing. Yeah, let’s go looking for proof in the murder capital of Canada, folks. Good call. There’s only one problem, though, with the whole public safety explanation. Murders nationally actually went up in 2008, including those involving guns. And those guns were probably not registered–criminals generally don’t like to do that on account of their activities being, well, criminal.

With the bill now having been granted a second reading, even some liberals–though not Michael Ignatieff, apparently–are cluing into that fact. It’s not a matter of public safety, as much as it is a matter of unwanted and unneeded burocracy. And a multi-billion dollar burocracy to boot. Although, on the bright side, that’s a couple billion dollars the conservatives are working on trimming from the expenses column. Could financial rebalancing really be all it’s about? Or, at least, financial non-wasting? Well, stranger things have happened.

The slightly less talked about possibility? They’re targetting the misery vote. Which, as the National Post is quick to point out, doesn’t carry a whole lot of benefit. Well, beyond the fact the liberal party gets to beat this issue to death while all the while tooting their own horn about their better than now preparedness during the SARS outbreak of 2003.

Naw, that can’t be it either. I mean, they aren’t saying their plans would be a whole lot better than the currently in place plans, are they? Surely not. That would be like casting doubt on themselves. Considering most if not all the current plans in place are leftovers from days of old, when crises like that would have been a liberal problem to deal with. Including the single-source contract with GSK to produce the H1N1 vaccine, that was entered into under Jean Chretien and which isn’t up until 2011. The liberals aren’t now taking aim at a uselessly bad contract into which they entered, are they? I didn’t think so.

Folks, I watched the emergency debate on Monday night. Admittedly, out of boredom more than anything else. In between repeatedly informing the opposition that Canada was ahead of schedule with the H1N1 vaccines, and has ordered enough to stick everyone who wants one with a needle and then some, the conservatives suggested that the liberals, as well as the NDP, are trying to politicise the H1N1 problem. While all the while the liberals shot back that it’s not a partisan issue. Well, they’re right. But they’re also wrong. See, Michael, your man on TV just outed you. Horible coincidence or not, intentional or not, ethics bungle or not–quick, ask the ethics commissioner if you screwed up–Sakamoto, a current liberal employee and a former CBC employee, just slapped a partisan tag on it. Tell me it doesn’t suck to be a liberal party member right now.

Based on all reports the roll out has been an unmitigated disaster. It appears provincial health officials couldn’t organize a two car parade!!

Yep, even some level-headed liberals who still have 3 functioning brain cells are putting responsibility for distribution exactly where it needs to be–on the shoulders of provincial governments. Some of which, naturally, are also liberal. Oops. Keep trying, Alf. You’ll catch on someday.

For his part, Michael Ignatieff is pretty much… well, um… doing exactly the same thing–pinning the absolute mess of a provincial distribution system on the conservatives. He, his health critic, and the NDP’s Jack Layton himself stood up in Monday night’s emergency debate, demanding the federal health minister take responsibility for the failure. because, you know, the federal government has all kinds of controll over Canada’s provincial health system. Well, at least their consistent. Not necessarily right, but since when has that ever stopped them?

A Mexican-born gentleman wanted for bank fraud in the US thought it would be fun to advertise on Facebook, his various escapades while hiding from authorities in Cancun. There was just one very small problem. Well, okay, two. He posted his activities on Facebook, which meant anyone with a grudge against him could have probably very easily turned him in and not even blinked an eye at it. But, and this is what nets him moron of the month, he added a former DOJ official as a friend on Facebook. Yep, you guessed it–the official easily turned him in and didn’t even blink an eye. Folks, the opinionated fool does not condone breaking the law in any way, shape or form, but if you must, don’t be an idiot about it. Broadcasting to anyone who happens to stumble across your Facebook or Twitter profile exactly what you’re doing, where you’re doing it and when you’re doing it? That qualifies as being an idiot about it. Oh yeah, he’s also on his way back to the US now. Surprised? So is he.

Of course, the opposition parties are going after the government now on ethics violations among other things. Which, alright, if it’s actually against the law for the government to do so then take them out back and have them shot. Or at least soundly flogged. Hell, maybe even set it up to stream online so the average voter can watch. But if it’s not actually against the law, and if–much like another claim of supposed partisan advertising–it ends up that folks who make the decisions on that kind of thing don’t actually see it as breaking any law, then drop it already.

For his part, Stephen Harper has publicly handed out a smackdown to the MP who was actually doing it. And, his spokespeople maintain there’s nothing wrong with displaying the name of the federal MP representing the riding on these mock checks, just leave the party logo out of it. A message the PMO might want to email to MP’s before someone else gets spanked. Obviously, whether it’s against ethics laws or some other government regulation or not, Harper has a policy of his own against it. If that’s all it amounts to, let Harper enforce it if he decides he wants to. If it amounts to more than that, then like I said earlier, take them out back and have them shot. But until and unless it ends up amounting to more than that, keep the thing out of headlines and get on with actually doing what Canadians supposedly elected you to do. In this case, finish introducing employment insurance legislation, pass the tougher sentencing bills, deliver more of the stimulous money that’s already been promised, and leave the election on the backburner until 2011 at the earliest. That’d be very much appreciated by a majority of Canadians, I’d be willing to wager.

With only a very minimalistic amount of actual research, there’s a fair laundry list of taxes, administrative costs, etc the HST proposes to eliminate. This is exactly the same HST, complete with proposed 13% harmonization, that New Brunswick adopted in 1997–yes, under a liberal majority government.

A study (PDF) was done in 2000, which outlined that prices in the atlantic provinces did fall with the advent of the HST, due to a combination of lowered tax rates (eastern provinces were seeing taxes upwards of 11% or higher) and lower overall costs in administration. Fortunately, items that are already being taxed provincially in Ontario–at an already existing rate of 8%–won’t see any real price increase when the HST comes into effect for items already not exempt from the PST–they’ll be in line now with the tax situation in atlantic Canada. People in BC, however, might actually fair out a little better. Their provincial tax sits at 7% right now, and will probably still be that way when they harmonize. The Globe and Mail has a sort of hst FAQ posted that explains roughly where it is consumers should expect to see prices fall, and where they should expect to see them increase. The article also points out we won’t actually know how the specifics will play out until it actually happens. Or, until the parties in support of the HST come out with something you don’t have to be an economist to translate.

And that’s the crux of the problem right there. Conservatives and liberals alike are telling Canadians the HST is a good thing, without really explaining why. I mean, beyond the standard responses that businesses will pay less to produce what we need, and consumers therefore should pay less to purchase/use what we need. But it never is that simple. Without details, and without knowing exactly what it is we’re supposed to be absolutely overjoyed to see come into effect in 2010, we’re left guessing. And the guesses a lot of folks are coming out with are that everything up to and including the kitchen sink will probably end up costing more–a theory not hindered by Jack Layton’s general opposition to anything that won’t buy him votes.

Not everyone has the time to actually go and look at how it’s been implemented in every other province who’s doing the harmonization. For that matter, not everyone really cares–they don’t live there. All that matters is how HST legislation everyone knows is coming down the pipe sooner or later will effect them. And right now, beyond Layton’s crying about it and the rough estimations of economists not involved in the actual legislation, that’s precisely what Canadians are not getting. If the net result is going to be lower taxes/prices all round, then say so. If HST provinces will simply be paying more taxes at the cash register and less off their paycheck, again, say so. Stephen harper and Michael Ignatieff’s parties would both support this tax. Stephen Harper is behind the push for the tax to come into effect. An expectation that he, or someone in his government, would be able to provide some degree of an explanation of exactly how such a change would be carried out is not, you’d think, an unreasonable one. So let’s have a crack at that. It might help the move’s popularity some. And really, it could use some help.

Well, at least you aren’t criticising the stimulous spending you twisted Harper’s arm into throwing out the door. We’ll leave that to the halifax Herald to handle. Still, the liberals and NDP are both not exactly doing all that well poll-wise. Their best chance at making any actual progress, and that’s only if the conservative candidate in the disputed riding doesn’t pull off a little timely platforming as well, would be in atlantic canada–the polls out there are closer than, say, Ontario. But even in atlantic Canada I’d imagine you have to have *something* to run on other than “Harper mean, vote for Harper bad”, and a vague promise to stick to the atlantic accord. They might be a little more laid back out there, but they’re no less inteligent–or irritated, for that matter–than voters in central or western Canada. And their non-platform platform isn’t helping there. Not sure what or who’s telling them it’ll help them in eastern Canada, but someone out there should probably find a better source of advice. I’m looking at you, Jack.

Just one small problem Ignatieff didn’t look like he was all too ready to have to solve. On the same day as he made his speech in Vancouver about just how bad off the country really is energy-wise, it was released that prime minister Stephen Harper, while in Alberta today, would be announcing his own attempt at greenness. Specificly, a carbon capture/storage plan. What worries me, and what should worry Michael Ignatieff, is we know about as much about Harper’s plan from that press release as we do about Ignatieff’s plan from his speech. There’s no dollar commitments here, no specifics on exactly what we’d do–no anything that would actually interest the average Canadian voter. There is one noteable difference, though. The speech by Harper hasn’t happened yet. So, he can still improve. Ignatieff? Maybe next time.

HST legislation may not end up actually doing a whole lot to the conservatives at all, if timed right, according to the Globe and Mail. Ignatieff’s decision to support the agreement entered into with BC and Ontario by Harper’s conservatives could put him in a tight spot if legislation to that effect was introduced next week. And, if the liberals don’t bite, Harper still has the option–although I cringe at the prospect–of tapping the Blocke Quebecois on the shoulder. With the recent upsurge in popularity in that province, they might not be so hot under the collar to chance going to the polls if it can be at all avoided. Granted, with the liberals also losing ground to the conservatives in Quebec, Ignatieff’s uncomfortable position if HST legislation does surface might just make him reconsider his lack of confidence in the government.

Sure’ there’s still the matter of the maybe or maybe not deficit–the one Canada might or might not have had were it not in the midst of a recession. And the additional shortfall of having been in the midst of a recession. The liberals tried arguing that once. Well, okay, a few times. It didn’t work out very well for them. Mostly because of the fact they helped push him into overspendulous territory. Which also puts Ignatieff in the position of having to Tell Canadians if he was elected, he’d have to either raise taxes or cut spending to cut through the deficit. But he didn’t. Instead, he and Stephen Harper both said they wouldn’t be raising taxes. And now, that thin line he’s walking between making parliament work and not having confidence in the government may disappear entirely. If the legislation ends up being introduced in the next couple weeks, while the conservatives still have a comfortable lead in the polls, Michael Ignatieff may just have to decide whether to fish or cut bate. And the liberal party may have to decide whether or not to cut Michael Ignatieff loose.

You need look no farther than this past weekend’s surprise, when liberal senators put the breaks on a bill to toughen up on sentencing for criminals, to see examples of that. And now, with Bob Rae lashing out to quickly slam a lid on any speculation he may or may not have had anything to do with the internal scuffle, it only ends up just being compounded. Stephen Harper was commended for being able to unite the right and bring it to a minority government for the past 4 years. Ignatieff is apparently expected to unite the left and do the same, or similar. Now, though, I think liberal loyalists–that is, those who haven’t already crossed over to the dark side–would just be happy if he could unite the center left. And stop the bleeding. Or maybe just stop the bleeding.

The governor general does act as a representative of the queen, or king, or whoever it is at the time, but that’s about as far as it goes. She doesn’t get to call herself head of state–that would be reserved for the said king or queen of the day. Of course, the fact Canada still honours the monarchy system is a hotly debated subject to begin with, but until that changes, perhaps Michaelle Jean should refresh herself on Canada’s constitution and her roll in it. We may not all agree with the way it’s set out, but since it hasn’t changed since 1982, we might as well follow it until it does. Sorry, mrs. Jean, but that would include you.

If you guessed no, you were right. So, all that complaining about the liberals slowing things down and mucking up their legislation is… what, exactly? Now, yes, if the bill does come back to the house of commons with those amendments intact they’ll probably end up being removed. But, and here’s the kicker, the conservatives say they’ll do exactly what they’re accusing the liberal senators of doing. Folks, am I missing something here? Or has Harper finally caught Michael Ignatieff’s apparent amnesia?

Ignatieff can’t seem to unite his party on policy, can’t seem to unite his party on much, and is still just barely managing to keep his head above water. Oh, and let’s not forget failing in the eyes of university educated Canadians, and Canadians abroad–both of which Michael Ignatieff is, and says should be much better for Canada. His support among even liberal loyalists now equals that displayed for former leader Stephane Dion, who spun off into the political deadpool back in January–a shame, really. If this website had been running then there would have been a veritable gold mine of recorded quotes to compare. It’ll take a lot more than a couple months of patch work to try and piece this party back together. But, if Ignatieff can actually manage to do it, and show Canadians an alternative government, we might just be on to something here. Until then, though, the only thing that might take the spotlight off Ignatieff is a conservative slip-up. And we might not have to wait very long for that.

Every economist in the country is, naturally, screaming the government of the day will eventually need to either raise taxes or cut spending if the intention is to balance the books by 2016. Makes sense, considering the toilet the economy is slowly climbing out of. Logic does say eventually, something’s gotta give. But, both parties say no to raising taxes, and one party says wait and see, or not a whole lot different than no, to cutting spending. If either one of these gentlemen has a hidden trick up their sleves that they’re not sharing with the rest of the class, it might be a halfway smart choice to do that. Before folks start to clue in and make things interesting–I’ve never seen the NDP leading in the polls. If they don’t, then Stephen Harper should just get on with the business of raising our taxes and just shut up about it, and Michael Ignatieff should really just shut up about it.

Just one minor little niggling problem. There’s about a 68% difference between what the liberals say is being spent and what the conservatives, in the media and on their website, say is being spent. Somebody’s lying, and with a shortfall of fifty-six billion dollars and probably climbing, it’s a lie that really needs to be stepped on, and extremely quickly–by whichever of the two is doing it. And, Stephen? Do yourself a favour and announce everything. Not just the projects scheduled for construction in 2010. If it’s on the table, put it on the website. It’ll save you a hell of a headache. Oh, and, Michael? If you’re going to criticise spending, do it from somewhere that isn’t already scheduled to be torn up to have something else built there. You’ve managed to make yourself look rather like an idiot instead. Which might actually be what you were going for–I don’t know, but that would be consistent.

Neverminding the fact he hasn’t really produced anything concrete yet, he’s been in office nine months. His troops are still in Afghanistan. His troops are still in Iraq. And his last attempt at peace talks didn’t go so well, so on Israel grounds it’s shockingly premature. I’m ignoring the Iran thing for obvious reasons.

Even prime minister Stephen Harper acknowledges the prise’s award is for what he hopes to do, not what he’s done already, in his congratulations to Obama. Congratulations that, and rightfully so, are on behalf of Canada. What does Michael Ignatieff have to gain from issuing his own, also smacking of being on behalf of Canadians? Folks, I have no idea.

Let’s see. Maybe not jumping on Health Canada for something that was requested by a first nations reservation? Or, perhaps, appologising when you do and the truth is realized. Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Have you learned nothing from crackergate? Really? How about from the newspaper who later had a healthy feast of crow after printing it? No? Didn’t think so. Keep on workin’ sir. And while you’re at it, work on your flip-floppery at the same time, You were a little quick.

Reid misses the entire point of his musical display, though. Well, beyond the fact that it was his wife’s idea in the first place and it was primarily in support of her that he did it. Now, it can’t be said that Stephen Harper will turn his back on those types of black tie afairs–although while Ignatieff was having his feathers ruffled because of it, he certainly tried to spin it in that general direction. Clearly, Stephen Harper doesn’t oppose the arts. However, and this is something the opinionated fool is inclined to agree with, if your performance is good enough, you don’t need government funding in order to keep yourself afloat. Celine Dion, Nickleback, the Bare Naked Ladies–all of those performers don’t rely on government funding. Why should they be the exceptions, rather than the rule? That, it would appear, is the direction Stephen Harper’s policies regarding the arts are heading. And, as I said earlier, I’m not seeing anything wrong with that. If you’re good, you’ll go far. If you’re not, you might want to have a fallback career. No sense in keeping bad or unpopular performances on government life support just for the sake of a handful of people. That makes about as much sense as bailing out the auto manufacturers. Oh, wait. Nevermind.