The Hill Times is running a front page story this week speculating that Maxime Bernier will be shuffled and demoted due to his poor judgment concerning his biker girlfriend. I suggested in an earlier post that it was time for a Cabinet shuffle. Looks like Harper is considering it at least.
Sources tell me Bernier actually noted in certain documents calling his former biker girlfriend his “spouse” so she could travel internationally with him on the taxpayer’s dime. A classy guy – all the way.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Stephen Harper - THE Small Man of Confederation.
Next ask yourself; couldn’t events and times be changed to enable the current Prime Minister to be there and avoid even appearance of a slight? Even delaying the House of Commons ceremony to accommodate the Prime Minister Harper’s schedule should be simple enough to arrange.
Let face it, the Prime Minister of Canada does not want to be there…for pure and simple personal and political reasons. Too bad Steve. Showing respect is part of the job description of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Canadians indicate in poll results that they are unsure if they like Stephen Harper as a person. Surely this rudeness and slight underscores a personal character flaw in Mr. Harper as a person. This incident is a minor issue in the more complex context of running the country, but it serves as example of the kind of man Stephen Harper is. It makes you think about just how worthy Stephen Harper is, as a person, to serve and represent us in this most powerful and important office in our country.
As for me, I think such incidences of political and personal pique ought to resolve any disquiet in the minds of Canadians about how Stephen Harper ought to be perceived. We have seen him perform as a bully and as a miscreant and as an obfuscator. And now we see just how small minded and petty he can be. Stephen Harper has proven himself not to be a leader and he did not have to spend millions of partisan advertising dollars to substantiate that fact for us.
The Harper Cons have gleefully accused Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario of being a “small man of Confederation.” Prime Minister Harper’s actions here, and there are others, make him look absolutely diminutive as a man. We ought view this event as an opportunity to question if Stephen Harper has the qualities of leadership and the qualities of character to serve the Confederation and Canadians well enough.
Canadians indicate in poll results that they are unsure if they like Stephen Harper as a person. Surely this rudeness and slight underscores a personal character flaw in Mr. Harper as a person. This incident is a minor issue in the more complex context of running the country, but it serves as example of the kind of man Stephen Harper is. It makes you think about just how worthy Stephen Harper is, as a person, to serve and represent us in this most powerful and important office in our country.
As for me, I think such incidences of political and personal pique ought to resolve any disquiet in the minds of Canadians about how Stephen Harper ought to be perceived. We have seen him perform as a bully and as a miscreant and as an obfuscator. And now we see just how small minded and petty he can be. Stephen Harper has proven himself not to be a leader and he did not have to spend millions of partisan advertising dollars to substantiate that fact for us.
The Harper Cons have gleefully accused Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario of being a “small man of Confederation.” Prime Minister Harper’s actions here, and there are others, make him look absolutely diminutive as a man. We ought view this event as an opportunity to question if Stephen Harper has the qualities of leadership and the qualities of character to serve the Confederation and Canadians well enough.
Elections Should Be About More Free Speech - Not Less!
If you have some time to reflect on your right of freedom of speech today – and who amongst doesn’t have that topic as top of mind on a long holiday weekend ;~)…read Mark Milke’s piece in the Calgary Herald today.
I agree with him and tried to say so in an earlier blog post. I think it is a mistake to limit third party advertising in election campaigns. Instead I think those who engage in such freedom of speech activities have a duty to be open, transparent and accountable for their actions.
The reforms I suggest are, first, don’t let such proselytizers hide behind screens like “Albertans for Change” when they are in fact the Building Trades Council and the Alberta Federation of Labour. The sponsors of the messages have to state clearly and precisely who they are.
Next we need to consider if they should be registered under the new Lobbying legislation if they undertake such activities in election times. This new law is coming to Alberta eventually. Why does it take so long to draft the regulations and proclaim this Act anyway Mr. Premier?
And lastly perhaps the sponsors should be required to file, in advance with Elections Alberta, a budget indicating what they intend to spend, where and when in such campaigns and this information should be public. I am not so sure on this last thought but the information would help Albertans judge if some special interest group was trying to buy our attention with advertising instead of persuading us based on the merits of their positions.
Political advertising is very effective in the States but not as embedded nor as effective in the Canadian political culture. Americans seem to think the more something is advertised the better it must be. Canadians think if you have to heavily advertise something, there must something inherently wrong with it. My belief is that paid political advertising has a place but it is not the way to win elections. Paid political advertising at the party level is essentially the price you have to pay for being boring or irrelevant. It gets attention but it is not very effective at influencing opinion and is will not ensure the voter behaviour ou want either.
Word of mouth is much more effective in gathering real political support that actually shows up and votes. That is still best done by old fashioned door knocking and face time with citizens. The next most effective way is Word of Mouse. That is an emerging technique using the connective power of the Internet and viral potential of social networking for electronic “door knocking.”
I agree with him and tried to say so in an earlier blog post. I think it is a mistake to limit third party advertising in election campaigns. Instead I think those who engage in such freedom of speech activities have a duty to be open, transparent and accountable for their actions.
The reforms I suggest are, first, don’t let such proselytizers hide behind screens like “Albertans for Change” when they are in fact the Building Trades Council and the Alberta Federation of Labour. The sponsors of the messages have to state clearly and precisely who they are.
Next we need to consider if they should be registered under the new Lobbying legislation if they undertake such activities in election times. This new law is coming to Alberta eventually. Why does it take so long to draft the regulations and proclaim this Act anyway Mr. Premier?
And lastly perhaps the sponsors should be required to file, in advance with Elections Alberta, a budget indicating what they intend to spend, where and when in such campaigns and this information should be public. I am not so sure on this last thought but the information would help Albertans judge if some special interest group was trying to buy our attention with advertising instead of persuading us based on the merits of their positions.
Political advertising is very effective in the States but not as embedded nor as effective in the Canadian political culture. Americans seem to think the more something is advertised the better it must be. Canadians think if you have to heavily advertise something, there must something inherently wrong with it. My belief is that paid political advertising has a place but it is not the way to win elections. Paid political advertising at the party level is essentially the price you have to pay for being boring or irrelevant. It gets attention but it is not very effective at influencing opinion and is will not ensure the voter behaviour ou want either.
Word of mouth is much more effective in gathering real political support that actually shows up and votes. That is still best done by old fashioned door knocking and face time with citizens. The next most effective way is Word of Mouse. That is an emerging technique using the connective power of the Internet and viral potential of social networking for electronic “door knocking.”
Friday, May 16, 2008
Alberta's Bold Move on Health Care Governance
The decisive move yesterday by the Stelmach government to preemptively eliminate the regional health authorities was a bold move. Others may see it as brash…not me!
I think this elimination of regional governance in health care has been coming for quite some time. It may be the health area is the proving ground for a new governance philosophy in Alberta. A taskforce looked at the governance of all agencies boards and commission a while ago and made some important and strong reform recommendations. The thrust of the findings was these groups together spend about half the provincial budget and the government better ensure they align with the GOA Business Plans and goals.
Apparently a rookie MLA asked Caucus who his constituents would call if they had a complaint about health services. Other MLAs answered in chorus “YOU!” Right on! That is exactly who citizens should be talking to if their government funded facilities and services are not meeting needs. It is government who has to resolve these issues and the provincial politicians have to have first hand information if they are going to understand and appreciate the situation.
The way I see it the beginning of the end of Health Authorities started with the fiasco around instrument sterilization in St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville, the Premier’s riding. Then Health Minister Dave Hancock “accepted the resignations” of the board of the authority and then he put his Deputy Minister in charge of running the hospital and the region on an interim basis. The problems were clean up, people were screened for possible infections and the entire region was reviewed from an operational perspective.
The chronic incapacity of the Calgary Health Authority to live within its budget and for them to perpetually press the government for bail out money worked under Klein but not anymore. Then the media stunt about money designed to embarrass the Premier over immediate demands for emergency cash was the last straw. I believe the fate of any continuation of the Klein era regional governance and management model in the health sector was sealed.
My observation is that some of these boards, not just in health, were formed in debt and deficit era to save money, take power from bureaucrats and to be more representative of local needs. They were political appointees but power devolved to the administration and the boards became buffers between the politicians and citizens. Not a sustainable democratic governance philosophy.
There are services government is obligated to provide to citizens. The Alberta government set up various regional authorities with appointed boards and then delegated its public interest obligation to them. Government’s obligation to provide services in areas like social services, children’s services, persons with developmental disabilities are other some examples of a delegated ( some say abdicated) governance philosophy.
It would not be surprising if some of these government responsibilities were re-centralized again. The provincial board in the persons with disabilities area was abolished a couple of years ago but the regional boards remained. There is a government level review now over service needs in the developmentally disable sector – not just nice to haves. Expect a report in June.
Insufficient public funding of community-based agencies in the developmentally disability sector has made it impossible for them to recruit and retain qualified staff. It would not surprise me if a recentralization into government happened in this sector too.
These regional boards may disappear overnight like the Health Authorities. The government may move to direct service delivery and contract with community based provider agencies – or even absorb them back into government over time too? There are arguments both ways but unless there is enough funding to compensate staff to provide services the governing philosophy is moot. The government will be inheriting much of the responsibility as service providers revise downwards the program offerings to pay staff at government rates to fit the budgets provided. Some others may close down altogether leaving the government to create needed services internally.
All we can do now is stay attuned to the happenings in the legislature.
I think this elimination of regional governance in health care has been coming for quite some time. It may be the health area is the proving ground for a new governance philosophy in Alberta. A taskforce looked at the governance of all agencies boards and commission a while ago and made some important and strong reform recommendations. The thrust of the findings was these groups together spend about half the provincial budget and the government better ensure they align with the GOA Business Plans and goals.
Apparently a rookie MLA asked Caucus who his constituents would call if they had a complaint about health services. Other MLAs answered in chorus “YOU!” Right on! That is exactly who citizens should be talking to if their government funded facilities and services are not meeting needs. It is government who has to resolve these issues and the provincial politicians have to have first hand information if they are going to understand and appreciate the situation.
The way I see it the beginning of the end of Health Authorities started with the fiasco around instrument sterilization in St. Joseph’s hospital in Vegreville, the Premier’s riding. Then Health Minister Dave Hancock “accepted the resignations” of the board of the authority and then he put his Deputy Minister in charge of running the hospital and the region on an interim basis. The problems were clean up, people were screened for possible infections and the entire region was reviewed from an operational perspective.
The chronic incapacity of the Calgary Health Authority to live within its budget and for them to perpetually press the government for bail out money worked under Klein but not anymore. Then the media stunt about money designed to embarrass the Premier over immediate demands for emergency cash was the last straw. I believe the fate of any continuation of the Klein era regional governance and management model in the health sector was sealed.
My observation is that some of these boards, not just in health, were formed in debt and deficit era to save money, take power from bureaucrats and to be more representative of local needs. They were political appointees but power devolved to the administration and the boards became buffers between the politicians and citizens. Not a sustainable democratic governance philosophy.
There are services government is obligated to provide to citizens. The Alberta government set up various regional authorities with appointed boards and then delegated its public interest obligation to them. Government’s obligation to provide services in areas like social services, children’s services, persons with developmental disabilities are other some examples of a delegated ( some say abdicated) governance philosophy.
It would not be surprising if some of these government responsibilities were re-centralized again. The provincial board in the persons with disabilities area was abolished a couple of years ago but the regional boards remained. There is a government level review now over service needs in the developmentally disable sector – not just nice to haves. Expect a report in June.
Insufficient public funding of community-based agencies in the developmentally disability sector has made it impossible for them to recruit and retain qualified staff. It would not surprise me if a recentralization into government happened in this sector too.
These regional boards may disappear overnight like the Health Authorities. The government may move to direct service delivery and contract with community based provider agencies – or even absorb them back into government over time too? There are arguments both ways but unless there is enough funding to compensate staff to provide services the governing philosophy is moot. The government will be inheriting much of the responsibility as service providers revise downwards the program offerings to pay staff at government rates to fit the budgets provided. Some others may close down altogether leaving the government to create needed services internally.
All we can do now is stay attuned to the happenings in the legislature.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Americans Realize Polar Bears are Threatened!
So the Americans find the Polar bear to be under stress and just listed them as a threatened species. Can Canada be far behind?The decision according to U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is said to be based on science. The science is clear, he says. "Today's decision is based on three scientific findings," he said. "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear's sea ice habitat has melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to recede in the future."
Does anyone still not believe that climate change is happening?
UPDATE: GO TO THE WWF WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO AND CONTEXT. http://wwf.ca/polarbears/home.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)