Month: April 2006

BQ Defence critic Claude Bachand is speaking. He is the only BQ member in the House. In fact, as soon as O'Connor finished speaking, many members left. As I write, 45 minutes into the five hours scheduled for the debate, there are precisley 14 Tories (O'connor included), 10 Liberals, 1 BQ and 20 NDPers here. Layton arrived a few minutes ago. Of some note, there are only 29 NDP MPs. Apparently this debate was important to that caucus.  [Moblogging from the Press Gallery in the House of Commons, which, incidentally, contains yours truly, an Ottawa Citizen columnist, and another individual who I do not know]

I am in the Press Gallery in the House of Commons.

You can watch tonight’s debate on Afghanistan on TV. I’m sure we’re covering some of it but CPAC ought to be taking most of it live.

Here are some notes that describe what the TV cameras don't show.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor led off at 618 pm. PM Harper will not attend debate. Sparsely attended House for this debate. Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion are only two Lib leadership hopefuls here.

There are, at the beginning of the debate: 58 Cons 21 Libs 2 BQ 8 NDP MPs present in House.

Bill Graham is the only party leader in the House as O'Connor speaks although he is not scheduled to speak. He speaks only in reply to O'Connor's remarks. Duceppe is not here. Layton is to arrive later. Harper has decided to pass. Tory ministers present include Josee Verner, Michael Chong, Carol Skelton, and Rob Nicholson.

 

Mac enthusiasts have likely already heard but those who’ve never computed on an Apple and have only used computers that run Microsoft’s Windows operating system ought to take note of this news: The next version of Apple’s operating system will have a utility that will allow an Intel-based Macintosh to run either Apple’s OS X operating system or Microsoft’s Windows XP. No, it is not a software emulator, but Apple’s version of BIOS which will allow WinXP to run natively on the Intel hardware you can now find in today’s Macintosh.

I’ve got a Cube and an old iMac at home but we’re all WinXP at the office. I’m not sure I need that kind of functionality as there is only one propriertary software package we use at CTV and I can access that from any computer with an Internet connection through a Citrix server.

Still — fascinating news from Apple.

 

Before he became so unpopular with his own party, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein was busy challenging the status quo when it comes to delivering health care in his province. Klein talked about his “Third Way” — a way that some suggested might be in violation of the Canada Health Act. (Not that Alberta needs Ottawa’s financial help to provide its citizens with health care but still …)

Today, Prime Minister Harper released a letter he sent to Premier Klein in which he said,

“[Our] primary concern is the proposal that would allow doctors to practice in the publicly funded and the privately funded systems at the same time. Dual practice creates conflict of interest for physicians as there would be financial incentive for them to stream patients into the private portion of their practice. Furthermore, dual practice legitimizes queue-jumping as it provides an approved mechanism for patients to pay to seek treatment at the front of the line.”

[See the attachment below for the full three-page letter]

This topic came up in Question Period. Here is the exchange, as reprinted from the House of Commons “Blues”, between NDP Leader Jack Layton and Health Minister Tony Clement.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for 13 years the Liberals promised that they would protect public health care in this country. Of course then we saw provinces chipping away at our public health care system. One could think of Alberta. What did we get from the Liberals? We got a beating of the chest, we got the occasional letter and we got ever decreasing fines being called upon. It did absolutely nothing to stop the growth of for profit medicine and the deterioration of medicine in this country. Will the Prime Minister today give a clear indication that he is prepared to impose significant financial penalties when the Canada Health Act is broken?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the House, I wish to thank the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka for this immense privilege.

I want to assure the hon. member opposite that the government is committed to universally accessible, publicly funded health care that respects the five principles of the Canada Health Act. As the hon. member noted, there was a lot of rhetoric when the members opposite in the Liberal Party were government but not a lot of action. In fact, wait times doubled in the 13 years of the previous Liberal regime. Canadians voted for change. They will get greater accessibility–

The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Alberta plan would allow doctors to be both inside and outside of the health care system at the same time. In addition, there is a proposal to allow wealthy individuals to get their own health insurance and jump to the front of the line. This is what credit card medicine is all about. This is the beginning of the creation.  We are now hearing the return of the catcall approach from both parties this morning. I have to say it is quite disappointing. I cannot hear myself ask a question.  Canadians want to know whether or not the government is going to put a stop to the two tier system which is unfolding in Alberta.

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the hon. member that in fact we have to have innovations in our health care system, but it has to be openly accessible and universally accessible within a publicly funded system. There is a lot of innovation that can occur within that mandate. The letter that the Prime Minister sent to the premier of Alberta makes it clear that our recommendation is that Alberta join other provinces in establishing wait time guarantees. That was our commitment to the people of Canada and there are many innovations that can occur within the Canada Health Act. That is our commitment to the people of Canada. That is our commitment to Albertans who are also people of Canada and voted in the election for change. We represent that change and we will follow through on that change.

 

Later, outside the House of Commons, in the foyer, Clement was asked by journalists about the matter:

Question: This letter to Alberta premier Ralph Klein, can you tell me a little bit about what message the government wanted to send in that letter?
Tony Clement:  I think the letter to premier Klein accomplished several things. First of all, it was, the premier and the government of Alberta did ask for input, public input to their proposals and the prime minister being a fairly well-known Albertan, I think he wanted to get some points of view across. The letter indicates that there are many aspects of the Alberta proposals which are we think very progressive and very useful such as health human resource reform, making sure hospitals are doing appropriate procedures, some of the procedures could be done outside of the hospital settings, these kinds of things. He also indicated his disappointment that there were no specific wait time guarantees. As you know, this was a crucial element of our election campaign and it was also something that Albertans voted for, not just other Canadians. So that was put on the record.  He then went through a series of concerns that we have with the proposals as they currently stand. Some of these, some of these concerns could be perhaps addressed in legislation. Some of the issues could be clarified through legislation but we did want to get our concerns on the record. 
… I had indicated when the Alberta proposals came out that we would be studying the proposals and putting out our position. That is in fact what we have done and we have made it very clear that from our government's perspective, there are many innovations that can occur within the Canada Health Act. You don't have to go outside of the Canada Health Act to get useful reform and in fact, the government of Alberta was a trailblazer in for instance hip and knee replacement surgery, of acting within the Canada Health Act, within the public health system and reducing wait times quite considerably. So from our perspective, there is ­ it is not an either/or. You can get innovation, you can reduc
e wait times, you can get to a wait times guarantee and still be within the Canada Health Act. 
Question:  It is either/or in terms of dual practice thing? Is it, you know, drop that and support everything else?
Clement:  Well, I think we raised I think some very legitimate concerns about dual practice. If dual practice is done the wrong way, you can have a situation where there is queue jumping, where physicians are cherry-picking their patients, where we are actually draining resources out of rural Alberta into urban Alberta. So we put those on the record and we stand by those concerns. 
Question: Do you know if the prime minister sent more letters to Quebec or B.C. like the one that you have sent to premier Klein?
Clement:  Well, no, I think our position on Quebec was communicated through my self and through the prime minister's comments and obviously directly to premier Charest and minister Couillard. In terms of British Columbia, I can tell you that I met with premier Campbell. He gave me a little bit of a rundown on some of the things that he witnessed in his tour of some European jurisdictions, but we will wait and see. The only thing I have said on the record in terms of British Columbia is we are anxious to proceed with innovation in British Columbia as with other provinces and again within the same framework as we have indicated in Quebec and Alberta, that is the same way we would like to see things going in British Columbia. 
Question: Does the letter actually say that the proposals are a violation of the Act? Did you express those concerns?
Tony Clement:  It expresses some concerns. What the letter does indicate is that there are certain questions that have to be answered. Otherwise, our concerns remain in place and we are cognizant of the fact that the proposals themselves were fairly general. As they move towards legislation though, there is a chance to be more specific. So we wanted to put on the table the prime minister's, the government's concerns about the issues that we raised in the letter and obviously hoping that those concerns could be met and that in fact, we can work with the government of Alberta on our No. 1 objective which is wait times guarantees. We think that that is a necessary proposal for health care to be delivered well to the people of Canada. We think it is a popular proposal. We think Albertans are supportive of wait time guarantees just as other Canadians are, so that is something we have evidenced in the Throne speech as our top priority agenda. 
Question: What happens if you don't get the reassurances that you would like from the Alberta government?
Clement:  Well,  that is a speculative question…. What I can indicate to you is the prime minister has made it very clear that any innovations can and should be within the Canada Health Act and our job as a national government is to enforce the Canada Health Act. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who, it could be argued, decided last November that the Liberal record on health care was enough for his party to force the general election we had on January 23, also commented on Klein’s Third Way and Harper’s response.

Question: Mr. Layton, the prime minister sent off a letter to Alberta’s premier highlighting his concerns, in particular allowing doctors to work in both systems.  I guess what’s your response about the letter that’s been sent ? 
Jack Layton:  Well, of course we saw letters being sent by Liberals to various provinces at different times and all kinds of chest beating.  What we’re saying is that this is contrary to the Canada Health Act.  The prime minister should make it crystal clear that if Alberta goes down this road there will be financial penalties and he’s got to take a firmer position.  This is not a time to waffle on these questions.  We’re in the process through the Alberta recommendations of breaking down our single payer fundamentally egalitarian system of medicare and allowing a system at two speeds.  You get to the front of the line fast if you’ve got a big credit card credit limit.  And it’s time for the prime minister to be very, very clear on this matter and the letter is only that, a letter.

…..

Question: On the topic of Mr. Harper’s letter to Ralph Klein, what did you make of the tone?  You’ve seen these letters before.  Any surprise? 
Layton:  Well, we’ve seen many letters from federal governments of different parties when provinces contravene or threaten to contravene the Canada Health Act.  The problem is we haven’t seen action.  With the Liberals we usually saw beating of chests and fight of our lives and all kinds of rhetoric with penalties imposed that shrank by the year.  What we want to see from Mr. Harper is a strong, proactive stand so that the Canada Health Act and its fundamental principles are protected, so that you can’t buy your way to the front of the line and leave others further behind, so that you can’t practise both inside the public health care system with its benefits and outside where you’re profiteering at the same time.  That’s not the right way to go for Canada and the prime minister needs to be crystal clear that there will be penalties for any province that goes down that road.
Question:  And he wasn’t about that, right? 
Layton: No, he certainly wasn’t. 
Question: Anything about the tone, the way he presented it to Ralph Klein?  Does it encourage you, discourage you as his first sort of (inaudible)?
Layton: Well, let’s just say it wasn’t very robust.  It was somewhat more timid than what we’ve seen with the Liberals in the past.  The problem was that with the Liberals all that ever happened was a letter.  Frankly these letters aren’t necessarily worth a great deal.  It’s a question of whether you’re willing to stand up and say there will be penalties if you’re going to violate the rules.

As the first week of the new Parliamentary session closes, it’s clear that one of the NDP strategies is to keep hammering at the Liberals. Several queries in Question Period by NDP MPs began with an attack on the previous Liberal government before the MP put the question to the Conservative minister in question.

And, as the Liberal leadership campaign gets underway, the NDP is already sniping at the sidelines at one of the leading candidates. I reproduce this press release (not yet online) from the NDP in full (although the links and the formatting are mine):

————————-

IGNATIEFF BID HIGLIGHTS “HARPER LIBERALS”

At his campaign launch for the Liberal leadership today, Michael Ignatieff reached out to progressive voters by surrounding himself with Liberals who have fought against the extension of human rights.

Following a speech that included the sentiment “Politics, my dear friends, is about unchaining hope,” Ignatieff gave a special “shout out” to four Liberal MPs who attended his launch in Toronto:

“Above all, you can't be credible as a candidate unless you have the support of your colleagues in the great liberal caucus: Paul Szabo, Roger Cuzner, Paul Zed, John McKay, thank you so much for being here today.”

– Ignatieff, CTV Newsnet, 7 April 2006 [Ignatieff arrives on stage at 3:53 of that video link – Akin]

LIBERAL RECORD: On 28 June 2005, 32 Liberal MPs voted against extending marriage equality to all Canadians, including Paul Szabo, Roger Cuzner, Paul Zed and John McKay.

LIBERAL RECORD: Of those 32 Liberal MPs who voted with the Conservatives on equality, 26 were reelected in the January election, including Paul Szabo, Roger Cuzner, Paul Zed and John McKay.

With Ignatieff's bid, Liberals have a candidate who called for military intervention in Iraq and whose caucus support comes from Liberal MPs who voted against same-sex marriage. Explain that to progressive Canadians.

That's on their record.

 

 

Liberal MPs Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion announced today that they are in the race to become the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Paul Coffin, on the other hand, learned that he will be in jail for 18 months for his role in the sponsorship scandal.

 

My colleagues are reporting that Liberal MP Belinda Stronach will not join the Liberal leadership race. Stronach has a press conference set for noon today in Ottawa. Sources close to Stronach tell my colleagues Robert Fife and Rosemary Thompson that Stronach’s inability to speak French was the deciding factor in her decision not to enter the race. More, as always, at CTV.ca.

 

Ken Boshcoff, the MP from the Ontario riding of Thunder Bay-Rainy River, paid tribute today to Pte. Robert Costall, the Canadian soldier killed in a firefight recently with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. Boshcoff’s remarks, which came during Member’s Statements (the period just before Question Period starts) received a standing ovation from all members of the House:

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Private Robert Costall who was killed in combat in Afghanistan last week.

Private Costall was born in Thunder Bay and moved with his family to Gibson's Landing, British Columbia at the age of seven. At age 19 he returned to Thunder Bay to live with his grandmother. Shortly thereafter he visited the Canadian Forces recruiting office to offer himself for military service.

When Private Costall was called to serve Canada he found himself in a foreign land of chaos and despair. His duty was to help the besieged people of Afghanistan in their quest to realize the comfort, safety and freedom that he himself had been blessed with.

He died in the grandest of causes for the simplest of things – the ability to live without fear and without desolation. He died to help the Afghani people to be able to live in peace.

For his courage and dedication we offer our thanks and we pray, along with his wife, child and other family members, that he will rest in peace.

Earlier here, I’d posted a link to an article by Mike Gifford, who once represented Canada in international agricultural trade negotiations, in which he argued that Canada’s poultry and dairy producers could be in for some disruptive shocks as the next round of international trade talks concludes.

Today, as thousands of farmers demonstrate on Parliament Hill, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl responded to the suggestion that the supply management system which sustains Canada’s dairy and poultry industry may be dismantled as the price Canada must pay in order to convince other countries to dismantle their export subsidy regime which hurts Canadian beef, pork, and oilseed farmers.

Here’s what Strahl had to say: 

Well, my understanding is that the ­ what my negotiators have told me and they are over there every other week right now as they get ­ start to put things down on paper for proposals for the entire WTO, basically every country has what they call sensitive products. They have things that they have designated. In our case, it is the supply managed industries. It is an industry that has proven very effective here in Canada. In our opinion, it doesn’t distort world trade because it doesn’t sell into the world market. We think the supply managed system is not only worth preserving, but that it is a model other countries may want to consider, especially if they ­ if they are not in the export market, it works, it works well in the domestic sense. 

But regardless, all countries have sensitive products. Europeans want to protect a percentage that is probably twice as much as what we want to protect even and the Americans want to protect less and that is what negotiations do. Our task over there is to make sure that we get enough protection under the sensitive products category, that we look after the concerns of the supply managed sector and that is what we intend to do.

Prime Minister Harper also spoke about this during a scrum after his caucus’ weekly meeting.

Well, we believe strongly in the system of supply management.  We're obviously worried that those demands may come from other countries and Canada's relatively isolated in its system of supply management but we believe it's a successful system and we want to see it retained. 

The official notice has just been circulated to the Parliamentary Press Gallery that Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff will “make [an] announcement” in his Toronto riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore on Friday morning at 11:45 at the Assembly Hall on Samuel Smith Park Drive.