Canadians have always been proud of their healthcare system; I suppose it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside thinking everyone has access to the same care. Unfortunately the service we all receive is mediocre at best and usually includes excessively long wait times, not to mention I have yet to meet a person who thinks our system works well. The simple minded will offer the idea of throwing money at the problem without giving solutions. We as a nation are currently spending 17% of government revenue, 10% of GDP or $102 billion a year on healthcare.

The problem is not that we are spending too little but our current system's structure prevents the reduction in healthcare costs. This is not just a Canadian issue but also very much an American problem. Americans spend $1.7 trillion a year healthcare costs and instead of government paying 70% of healthcare costs in Canada; the American government covers 36% of healthcare costs. That's right our beloved healthcare system in Canada is 30% privately funded and the US doesn't have 'fend for yourself' care. The Canadian system is more like the US than one might think and both systems are horribly flawed and in need of significant reform.

The first thing we must understand is healthcare is a service and is currently administered for a fee, paid for by the patients/taxpayer. We are all aware of the 3 basic needs for life: food, clothing and shelter. All three of these products are offered through private industry and it works very well if I do say so myself. What we need to do is start transitioning our healthcare system to a highly regulated privately funded sector. Much like environmental protection where the government acts as a regulator; setting and enforcing standards to be followed, the government need not step in to engineer pollution prevention systems (this is left to the corporations).

It is not as simple as cutting government funding and allowing the free market to work itself out; there's a list of items I'd like to see implemented as part of the reform process.
1) Increase the number of medical professionals. There is a shortage of medical professionals, largely because not enough spaces are being created. Many talented people are turned away from med school every year and even if this results in lower wages for doctors, at least accessibility and costs are improved.
2) Reduce pharmaceutical patent times. The number one cost after primary care is drugs; there is some room to reduce patent times without reducing profits for those investing in research and development of new drugs. The sooner we can get generic drugs, the sooner we can reduce costs through competition and increased accessibility.
3) Ensure a competitive environment for care providers and insurers. It will be the obligation of government to make sure care providers and insurers do not get into a monopoly situation where people are exploited. Competition will reduce costs and create the diversity of services required for such a large and personalized sector.
4) Eliminate political donations from corporations. This is more for the US as Canada has already rolled this out with the Conservative's Accountability Act. This will prevent pharmaceutical companies from lobbying for longer patent times, and prevent corporate influence with regards to a competitive environment.
5) Strict rules with regards to liability when treating patients. One thing we can learn from the US system is the abuse of the legal system for medical claims. This area must be regulated as well so people take some responsibility when they require treatment. Something along the lines of the 'good samaritan law' will significantly reduce potential legal costs for those helping others.
6) Allow professional immigrants to practice. If immigrants went to a respectable institution and pass preliminary testing here, they should be given the opportunity to work. Even if they are ESL, they will be helpful in regions where other immigrants from similar regions. This applies more to all technical positions rather than healthcare exclusively.
7) Creation of charitable care facilities. Charitable care facilities would be privately funded and created to administer care to the less fortunate. Luckily with the initiatives above, the costs of care will be much less. Private fundraising for hospitals is nothing new; this is something we see on an annual basis at most public facilities.

I also advocate other initiatives like more home care instead of centralized care, again to reduce costs. Many companies have turned to the model of 'out of office professionals'. This system works well and this is already something the customers want in a service. Government involvement makes us think there's one and only one way, they are slow to evolve to the needs and suggestions of customers. Having different facilities for different services would help the healthcare system as well. The most expensive costs are associated with immediate/emergency care and people go there with non-critical issues. Costs can be distributed much more easily if they are predictive and measurable. Currently people do whatever they please because they are not paying for the service.

Alberta is the first province in Canada to start the transition to private involvement in the healthcare system. CBC had a story explaining how Alberta has had great success implementing queuing theory (found in private service industries) into hospitals. Addressing patient flow with understanding demand and throughput allows for quicker service with no additional funds. Many waiting rooms have constant wait times where patients wait a constant 30 minutes (as an example) for service; contracting an extra doctor to service those waiting will eliminate the wait altogether. The extra doctor, once the ‘waiters’ are done he can be used elsewhere; as long as lines don’t go longer, flow is created. ie. 1 patient an hour serviced, and 1 per hour shows up, there’s no point in having a line (wait).

We have so much to gain from a fully private healthcare system; it's time we start addressing healthcare costs instead of throwing money at a broken system. It's high time we start getting our money's worth; $102 billion a year is more than enough to buy the best healthcare in the world. We should not fear privatization just because the US has tried and failed; their system is not even close to what I advocate and needs just as much work if not more than ours. If you'd like to read about some of the misperceptions and shortfalls of socialized medicine, I encourage you to read this article.

Political donations have always been the fuel of all election campaigns; it's a fact of life and we must understand how money affects our democracy. One might argue that money is pushing the agenda of special interests and selling public policy to the highest bidder. But on the other hand our citizens are far less involved in the political system and advertising is the only way to encourage participation.

So just how much does an election cost Canada? In 2004 the nation spent $280 million dollars on the election, 2006 would have been considerably higher. This represents $10 per person; to put this in perspective, the US spends $13 per person ($4 billion per election). The price of democracy is significant but similar between other nations around the world.

Even though i have compared the election costs, Canada and the US have very different methods of donations. Most of the poltical funding in the US comes from corporations, organized labour and special interest groups. An individual in the US can donate up to $100,000 every 2 years and a multiperson committee can donate unlimited funds. This may seem unfair but both poltical parties did agree to these rules and both parities seem to end up with very similar funding for election cycles. Most US corporations donate to both political parties within the ratio of 60/40 and you will rarely see one company donate more than 60% of their contributions to any one party; with the exception of organized labour who are firmly Democrat.

How does Canada compare to this? We are currently in the process of modifying our contribution rules; included in the Accountability Act (the first bill proposed by the Conservative government). The new rules restrict all corporations, unions, and special interest groups from contributing to political parties. The parties will get money from 3 areas; individual donations, $1.87 for every vote and additional funds for the number of seats won. This puts the power back in the hands of the people (like a true democracy) and all political donations are tax deductable. The maximum donation for any one person will be $1,000.

As wonderful as this sounds; the Liberal majority in the senate refuses to pass the Accountability Act, even though the bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. The Liberals have always been tight with Bay St. and corporate Canada; they fear losing large donations from Canada's elite.

Even during the Liberal leadership race (3rd quarter 2006), the number of donations were as follows: Conservatives (37,453) Liberals (7,269) and NDP (13,137). It's no wonder the Liberals don't want to shift the power to voters; they just don't have the grassroots support.

Now many of you might be wondering why this debate is over now rather than last year when Bill C-38 was passed 158-133. The answer is a complicated one and I want to point out why this was brought forward by the governing Conservatives.

First a little history: The idea of same-sex marriage was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada as an inequality of rights where gay couples were not entitled to the same benefits as other straight couples. The courts understood the rights given to people through marriage were a completely different issue compared to the definition of the term "marriage". The Supreme Court decided not to rule on this case but instead told parliament to bring forward legislation to bridge the gap in rights and to define the term "marriage".

Even though the vote on the government's same-sex marriage bill was to be a free vote, Liberal cabinet ministers were forced to vote for the bill or lose their positions; similarly with the NDP, one party member was banned from the party. Take note: every party had people on both sides of the bill; in fact the Liberal caucus was 50% against gay marriage. This was a truly non-partisan issue even though the Liberals and NDP tried to make it much more than it was.

Little to no debate took place on the issue and even with the majority of Canadians against the Liberal definition of "marriage", the bill scraped through the House of Commons and was quickly confirmed by the very Liberal senate. Nobody was given the opportunity to propose other ideas such as other 1st world, progressive nations. The UK implemented Civil Unions for same-sex couples and France eliminated the term "marriage" from government jurisdiction and left marriage as a religious ceremony. Does this mean Canada is more progressive than France and every other country in the world? Hardly; all it means is Canada didn't understand the issue and pushed a bill through parliament utilizing undemocratic means.

The free vote today was a commitment by the Conservative government to follow through with their campaign promise; a truly free vote on same-sex marriage. Unfortuantely now you have the complication of taking away rights, a ton of already married same-sex couples and hand picked Liberals who agree on this subject in the house of commons (not representing the views of the people). This is one of those situations where you just can't reverse the laws of the land and I am glad to see Prime Minister Harper say "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

The definition of marriage has been redefined; this will finally be a dead issue for the next election and the Conservatives continue to follow through with their campaign promises; simply refreshing for any political observer.

Three words: Subscription based music!!

The record industry has been stuck in the past, they believe music is a physical object; a CD, record, tape, or DVD which you can only buy in the store. If music is a physical object, then what am I downloading off the internet? A bunch of 1's and 0's which happen to be in a certain order resembling music? If the record industry wants to get with the times and profit off internet based distribution, it MUST turn to subscription based music.

Much like television today, subscription based distribution collects fees from all users, which in turn goes to the producers of the content; artists, personalities, and technical support. The infrastructure and business model for this scenario is available today and can be implemented with the support of the record industry.

Don't even get me started on the record breaking CD sales since MP3's came out (exposure and advertising is a good thing!); and how artists themselves make far more money off concerts than the measly cut from CD sales.

Outsourcing has become a popular trend these days for obvious reasons, and I fully support these business decisions; as explained by my blog on outsourcing. As our economy progresses toward a service, R&D and knowledge based economy; we must adapt our economic indicators to accurately represent our underlying economy. Our new "shadow economy" will be the driving force in moving the 1st world's standard of living above and beyond what we experience today.

We as a thriving society cannot afford to resist the natural progression to a more efficient and productive economy. This will be accomplished through allowing outsourcing when it makes economic sense. If it's a more effective use of funds to manufacture in North America, so be it; likewise with Asia and the rest of the world. This new economy at times can be a tough sell as most are not used to a society without significant numbers of people working in the manufacturing sector. Looking back in our history, we see before the industrial revolution we had the vast majority of people working in mills, construction of buildings, mining and of course farming. Today, very few people actually work in these roles; not because people were being fired or put out of work, but because their fields became more efficient and cheaper with trade and automation. If we look at the current status of the US economy, we see the following breakdown of labour; services 34%, retail trade 19%, government 16%, manufacturing 10%, finance/insurance/real estate 6%, wholesale trade 5%, transportation/utilities 5%, construction 5%, mining. This article explains how the US economy may be stronger than most think and how current economic indicators are not representing our new economy accurately. Many firms these days are not increasing capital spending, yet have introduced substantial R&D budget increases and future investment. The top 10 biggest US corporations including ExxonMobil, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Microsoft, and Intel; have increased R&D budgets by 42% since 2000. What we should be benchmarking is corporate investment in future development and R&D accomplishments. As products like the iPod get developed here, the production of these units will be done overseas; skewing true productivity between nations.

Investment in the future isn't just a trend for US corporations, but has been a key focus for the Bush administration. Bush doesn't normally get many praises, but this is one area his policies are having a real positive impact (unfortunately the press doesn't like to look at the positives). This article explains the accomplishments of Bush's education policies; increasing education funding by a staggering 40% and improving scores across the board, including closing the minority gap. If it weren't for September 11th and the Iraq war, Bush's legacy would have been 'the education president', actually you may remember September 11th where he was reading to a group of school children.

There are a lot of great things to come as we continue to progress towards an efficient and productive economy based on education, knowledge, and research and development. The US is indeed making investments for future growth and current economic indicators do not represent the whole economy.

Harper and his cabinet were sworn in the other day; I've felt compelled to give my take as it has attracted some negative attention. The cabinet has been described as "a clear nod toward quite a pragmatic, centrist style government", "the old grassroots Reform party is dead, dead, dead", "a final transition away from the Reform party". Harper has taken back his original Reform party, which had been taken over by social conservatives (caused him to leave the party).

The cabinet represents a highly experienced and talented team of people from all areas of the country. Unlike Martin's cabinet full of no-name leftovers from the Chretien massacre; Harper's people are well known and high profile. It's no wonder Stronach left the party as the talent in this new party is immense and she just wasn't getting time to speak or make any party decisions. I bring up Stronach as people have been quick to compare Stronach to Emerson, the LIberal turned Conservative after the election. There is a clear distinction between Stronach and Emerson; raw ambition vs. collaboration. Emerson was a star candidate, sat as a minister in Martin's cabinet and was proud in waving the Liberal flag. He was obviously not impressed with how the Liberals postioned themselves this election (proposing no new/relevant policy, unjustified smear campaign) and with the void in leadership; it's no wonder he left, I'm surprised more didn't change sides.

This brings us to the other touchy decision; Michael Fortier. This decision was more controversial as he was not elected, yet will represent an elected position. While I think this decision was a short term mistake; on the long term it may become a great move by Harper. The Conservatives are now a formidible force in Quebec, but no representation in Canada's second largest city; Montreal needs a say within the government. This is not much different than Josee Verner who sat in Harper's shadow cabinet, raising her profile and allowing her to break into Quebec with a seat. Michael Fortier will represent Montreal well, will be a talented minister and maintain accountable through his senate nomination. He was the president of the Progressive Conservative party and ran for the leadership of the party.

Great team, now lets get going on these promises!

I watched this documentary on CBC Newsworld the other day where some interesting points were made with regards to global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Many of you are familiar with the hockey-stick curve as it was the model developed and accepted by those who attended the conferences in Rio and Kyoto. This group of well respected scientists have proven this curve as inaccurate and our global temperature increases are a natural trend, nothing different than what had occurred before mankind's consumption of fossil fuels. Through the documentary they explain the earth’s surface temperature is rising, but the atmospheric temperature is not growing close to the rate some indicate. The higher surface temperature is likely due to our growing cities and little to do with the greenhouse effect itself. This is why we see temperatures in cities significantly higher than surrounding rural areas and why surface temperature measurements are so erroneous.

The greenhouse effect while it receives a lot of bad press these days, is actually required for our existence; through water vapour and clouds, and not just CO2. The earth has ways to cool itself in ways no climate model can explain, the earth’s many ice ages for example. Looking at our planet’s historical temperatures and CO2 levels, even in a time where we are consuming fossil fuels like no other, the levels are not out of the ordinary or even close to the highest.

It was interesting to see that all the hype over the greenhouse effect and global warming could be unjustified. I like seeing results like this such that we can focus our energy and resources at reducing smog and other chemicals (things that actually affect people’s health) instead of focusing on reducing a gas which could have no impact on our lives. I am a huge advocate of sustainable growth, but we need to understand what will limit our sustainability; CO2 emissions may not.

If you can get your hands on this documentary; I highly recommend it.

Being an economic optimist, I prefer to focus on the good and not the bad when considering a country's economy. Many elements of the economy are based on consumer confidence, business optimism and the feeling of our governing bodies. This is precisely why most media outlets around the world take a bull stance on the economy, and why stock analyst recommendations are 80-90% buy and hold. Reading the Toronto Star Business section I came across an interesting little article hidden on page 6 and only 5 sentences long. Finally, a small dose of economic reality; these sorts of bearish comments are hard to spot in today's mass media.

The article points out a survey done by Ipsos Ried, and asked 250 of Canada's leading CEOs opinions on the economy. Forty percent (40%) of CEOs fear a "major economic downturn" over the next two years; up from about 15% the last couple years. The CEOs were then asked to identify the most serious issues facing Canadian businesses; 24% said taxes, 21% said the high dollar, 20% said lack of skilled workers. These issues are a difficult pill to swallow as we have been told the Canadian economy is doing great but there is a dark horse we must be aware of moving forward. Time to reduce taxation and maintain competitiveness with our first world counterparts, allow immigrants to use their skills within Canada and finally don't assume surpluses mean economic superiority, all it means is we are either not investing enough in the economy, or we are overtaxed and limiting our growth potential.

As many of us are aware, the automotive sector is going through some changes as the Japanese manufacturers are eating away at the no longer "big 3" in North America. I am calling this the tipping point as the death of Ford and/or GM could have serious effects on the US, and Canadian manufacturing base (already hurt by a high dollar and over-taxation). The following will be a brief analysis on why the domestics are losing and what they can do moving forward.

If you would have asked anyone 20 years ago: "which car companies have the worst quality?", most would say without hesitation; the Asian car-makers. This reputation has created motivation to do better and prove to the American market they were formidable competitors. Fast forward 10 years and you would have seen a total role reversal; where the Japanese were lacking in the past, they were now global leaders! Over this time period, the domestics floundered; struggling with legacy costs and antiquated manufacturing methods maintaining the status-quo; stagnating domestic automotive innovation. Fast forward another 10 years and you have GM and Ford on the brink of collapse, diminishing market share, rising costs, and a perception of failure.

Everyone I talk to these days rants and raves about the quality of the Japanese producers and how they are willing to pay the price premium for this perceived long term benefit. I introduce you to the "2005 JD Power and Associates Dependability Study"; a global independent research firm dedicated to testing and researching consumer goods. They have ranked the number of problems per 100 vehicles (best being Lexus at 139, worst being 397). What I then did was averaged the North American, Japanese, European and Korean companies by their defects per 100. I linked the report as nationality is a poor indicator; Toyota does significantly better than its country's grouping. The results in defects are; 224 - North America, 237 - Japanese, 290 - European, and 325 - Korean. From a quality standpoint, it is safe to say the domestics are getting their acts together and are not lagging the Japanese as many tend to believe.

So what are the big 3 doing wrong? a) models b) automation c) vision...and that's it! Notice how I didn't include costs; many people like to blame unions and labour, but when you consider the key issue in the domestic's decline, its market share. The demand for a product is based on many factors including cost; but the domestics have the lowest prices! How can they be losing marketshare on price when the domestics are already the cheapest? Therefore the models themselves aren't in demand; this is something that has plagued the domestics many times in the past: GM having no Solstice's to sell with high demand; too many Aztek's with low demand; Chrysler not producing PT Cruiser's fast enough, watching people on waiting lists leave. I advise the domestics to get rid of all the re-badge names (example example example), drop the quirky ugly cars and make something people want and don't compete against other inter-company cars. Attracting Chevy buyers to Saturn is an utterly pointless gesture; you think Toyota, Honda, Nissan are dying with one model per segment and a luxury brand?

The decline in market share has occurred fairly quickly and from a North American standpoint, has been bitter sweet. Honda and Toyota have opened plants here with more robots increasing our productivity and demand for skilled trades (maintaining robots) and continue to grow a domestic manufacturing base. The big 3 on the other hand have been focusing on closing plants and moving everything to Mexico and China. While I agree these plants are too expensive from a labour standpoint, if the Japanese can make automation work here; why can't the domestics? The cost of building new plants overseas, laying off skilled workers here is expensive; I'd really like to see these numbers (cost analysis) considering the inventory and shipping costs of overseas operations.

So what are you buying when you buy a "domestic" or "Japanese" car? These borders are no longer clearly defined, and should also be thrown out the window, much like the quality perceptions or misperceptions I should say. A tidbit of the grey area: Saturn Vue's engine made by Honda, Suburban made in Mexico, Pontiac GTO in Australia, Toyota Avalon 70% domestic content, Honda Civic 75% domestic content, Chrysler PT Cruiser 60% domestic content.

As for vision, the domestics have offered absolutely no choice when it comes to alternate fuel sources, except Ford's tip over SUV and GM's failed EV1. The Japanese have been leading the way in hybrid technology and even though they continue to lose money on these products, they are the future and the domestics cannot afford to get left behind. The big 3 have the benefit of being in the back pockets of the American government and if they put their last remaining brains together they might be able to implement infrastructure for products unique to this market and even better for the environment than sticking electric motors in Toyota Echo's (sorry Prius). Time to end the drought of innovation and produce something consumers will endorse and buy, because if the big 3 don't; Toyota will, just as they did 10 years ago.

Ford's lineup is much leaner than GM's and their latest products are impressive; all around great looking cars (example), focusing on their mainstream cars and less on their bulky gas-guzzling SUV's. Ford's CEO has also dropped his pay to $0 as he turns the ship around; a far cry from GM's $5 million crappy record CEO. Ford and GM deserve their respective messes; one is making an effort, the other looks like it would rather take the easy way out; ie. pulling an Air Canada (default on debt, with gov't support and emerge a smaller, better run company).

In conclusion; Japanese quality isn't as good as people say, the domestics are not as patriotic as they say, allow the free market to determine the fates of all automotive companies, and finally this fierce competition has helped create some amazing products we should be thankful for.

Is it just me, or does the Ford symbol look like the American Idol logo???

I have decided to go above and beyond the typical debate of partisans and view the political psyche through a macroscopic perspective. Being an advocate of human progression, freedom and liberty; I continually look to understand how we as a society can attain these natural rights.

When you step back and look at government itself, it has no defined jurisdiction and varies around the world, between parties and throughout history. Therefore we must understand government is not a fixed institution but a varying collective of rules and restrictions. The state decides our restrictions in these various forms: judicial, environmental, social, and economic. These limitations created by government are forced on us for the greater good of the general population.

It is my opinion political leanings (left/right, socialist/capitalist, communist/fascist) all come back to one key concept: Your personal trust in mankind. If you believe humans in essence are good; you are more willing to give people more power and freedom. On the flip side, if you believe humans in essence are evil; you are likely in favour of restrictions.

Of course there is no black and white when it comes to this concept; there will always be the few who cannot fit into any society, regardless how ideal it may be. Also remember political parties tend not to fit nicely into this 'restrict or not to restrict' debate; Republicans for example advocate social/judiciary restrictions and economic/environmental freedom, Democrats advocate economic/environmental restrictions and social/judiciary freedom.

In the end ask yourself the simple question: How do you perceive mankind? Your pragmatic political views will fall into place. If you want to restrict the evil majority, advocate expansionist state (socialism); if you want to free the good, advocate the reduction of state (classic liberalism).

Ever since the federal election on January 23rd, I've heard nothing but whining from Liberal and NDP supporters over the election of our Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I have put together a list of facts about Harper which many may find surprising and somewhat impressive. I introduce you to the REAL Stephen Harper:

* Born in Toronto
* Received A+'s with several marks close to 100%
* Received Richview Collegiate Institute's highest graduating average
* Briefly went to University of Toronto
* Completed a Masters of Economics at University of Calgary
* Active member of the Young Liberals Club
* Trudeau's National Energy Program changed his political allegence
* Chief aide to James Hawkes (MP) in the Progressive Conservative party
* Critical of Mulroney's fiscal policies and left the party
* Credited with creating the Reform party platform
* Chief advisor and speech writer for Deborah Grey
* Core member of the Reform party: known as a staunch fiscal conservative, federalist and social moderate
* Initially supported and voted for the gun registry
* Left the Reform party and his seat because of concerns the Reform Party was being hijacked by social conservatives
* Became president of the National Citizen's Coalition: a libertarian-conservative group avocating privatization, tax cuts and government spending cuts
* Served as a political commentator for the CBC
* Was asked to lead the Progressive Conservative Party in 1998
* Oh...and he's a big fan of ice hockey :)

Does this paint a different picture of the man many Canadians love to hate?

So many in the media are questioning this new parliament's ability to move forward as the Bloc now has a new opponent, the Liberals are resentful, and the NDP is just too far from mainstream views. During the debates, both Layton and Duceppe noted the Liberals run elections on the left and rule like Tories. Therefore we can expect similar government to the one we have lived with for 12 years; perhaps more fiscal discipline (fund allocation) and better economic decisions (maintain competitiveness).

This article in the National Post explains why this new Conservatives Minority might actually get a lot of good Conservative policies implemented. In the short term, no party will force an election and will not be as harsh when it comes to moderate policies the Conservatives will be proposing. Right from the get go, Harper promised 5 key initiatives of a Conservative government; unlike the many promises the Liberals have made over the years; unfulfilled. The 5 initiatives are:

1) Federal Accountability Act: this will be a "far-reaching plan to clean up government, by toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act, eliminating secret donations to political candidates, establishing a Public Appointments Commission to establish merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards and agencies, and strengthening the power of the Auditor General and the office of Ethics Commissioner" (Most parties will endorse this, even the Liberals if they have half a brain)
2) Justice Reforms: fill more than 1,000 RCMP positions and to work with provinces and municipalities to hire 2,500 more police officers, to crack down on firearms smuggling and strengthen security at border crossings, and most importantly to implement mandatory minimum sentences for major firearms offences. (All parties called to get tougher on crime this election)
3) Child Care Tax Credit: a vehicle to give support to all parents (not just 25% of parents who would use the public child care) and give flexability with choice or even support for stay at home parents. (the Bloc will support this as they have a child care program, more federal money is on the table, they'll jump)
4) GST Tax Cut: a hugely popular plan aimed at giving hard working Canadians a tax cut, one the Liberals have promised in the past and being a regressive tax; will benefit the poor the most. (I can't see too much resistance to a 1% cut this early in paraliament, remember Canadians don't want *another* election)
5) Health Wait-Time Guarantee: a policy aimed at setting national standards for the provinces to generate equality no matter which province you live in. This policy interests me the most as Harper is an economist, with ties to Alberta. I recently watched a CBC story explaining how Alberta has had great success implementing queuing theory (found in private service industries) into hospitals (both public and private). Addressing patient flow with understanding demand and throughput allows for quicker service with no additional funds. As an analogy; on the highway if cars are spaced out, the flow through the bottlenecks can be drastically increased without widening the road or other high cost alternatives. Also many waiting rooms have constant wait times where patients wait a constant 30 minutes (as an example) for service; contracting an extra doctor to service those waiting will eliminate the wait altogether. The extra doctor, once the ‘waiters’ are done he can be used elsewhere; as long as lines don’t go longer, flow is created. ie. 1 patient an hour serviced, and 1 per hour shows up, there’s no point in having a line (wait). Many things can be learned by the leaders in healthcare; Alberta being the most obvious, and I truly trust the Conservatives in creating a sustainable publicly funded (even if there is a private role) healthcare system.

All mainstream ideas which will recieve support from the other parties as the ideas are most reasonable; with significant effects for all Canadians. The parliament itself will have a grace period given the public's distaste for another election and the other parties jockeying for a record of comprimise and results. The downfall of this parliament will likely come after a new Liberal leader is chosen. The Liberals are extremely ambitious and the new leader will try to seek their own mandate, by then the Conservatives will have accomplished the key policies they set out at the beginning of the campaign. Look at that! A political party with the potential for keeping all their promises!! I can't wait!

Today I predict Canada will rid itself from the shackles of one party rule, standing up with a new voice and vision for the country. Throughout the last few weeks the Conservatives have withstood some of the most viscious attacks our country has ever seen. It is great to see a once dominant political force squirm in the face of defeat, a separatist party unable to fulfill its promise of over 50% and a party full of nuts wondering why they can never get more than 18%. I was happy to see a party with a clear vision for the nation with new and logical policies proving to all Canadians when they deserve your vote. Just goes to show some people are able to see through fear tactics and despiration; using blind patriotism as a ballot question.

Heading into this election, polls are indicating a 37/27/19 for Conservatives/Liberals/NDP. Take note these numbers are in line with the 36-41% the Liberals have recieved the last 4 election cycles. Currently we are looking at a Conservative minority, although I am hoping for a majority as our government needs to be responsive and effective as it overhauls 12 years of Liberal rule.

For your information, the Conservatives have been endorsed by every major newspaper in the country and others like the Economist which is one of the most respected media sources in the world (endorsed Kerry this past US election). The long list of endorsements: Globe and Mail, National Post, The Economist, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Calgary Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, London Free Press, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Windsor Star, Montreal Gazette, La Presse, Le Soleil, Winnipeg Sun, Brandon Sun, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Sun, Toronto Sun, Edmonton Sun, Moncton Times.

Even if you are not voting along the same lines as I, please vote...it's a right and freedom, something people fought hard for.

You knew this post was coming, I have been following the election thoroughly, and decided not to blog about politics through the holidays, but now with a federal election around the corner I feel compelled to give my 2 cents.

First I want to thank the Canadian people for listening to what the Conservative Party has to say and not buying into the Liberal fear mongering like last election. The Conservatives started the campaign releasing major policies on a daily basis, setting the tone for an election based on ideas, policies and respect. These policies included shorter hospital wait times, GST tax relief, income tax breaks, federal accoutability act, assistance for childcare through tax credits and incentives to open more childcare spaces, tax credit for users of transit, and cracking down on crime.

The conservative party of Canada supports a woman's right to choice, and will support goals outlined by kyoto. This is a stark contrast to the Republican party in the US and should not be compared as such.

Steven Harper is finally connecting with voters and proving to Canadians why they deserve better, and should not have to put up with the lackluster track record of the current Liberal party. They have shown they are a national alternative to the Liberal party, ready to govern and roll out policies mainstream Canadians support and despirately need.

They are the only party who continues to voice a positive and productive message, the polls are a good indicator of the electorate's trust in the drive towards change. When you have a prime minister shunning the US for Kyoto initiatives, when they are closer to their target than we are; this just screams patriotic ignorance and stupidity. Our closest ally and trading partner should not have to put up with the bashing of 3 of Canada's 4 largest political parties. Canadians should not be comparing themselves to the US but looking for the issues that matter to them the most.

Many out there are worried about national unity under a Conservative government; this fear is misguided. It is not the Conservatives that have push Quebec away from Canada, but the Liberal party's scandals, illegal acts and ignorance. The conservatives are at a healthy 16% in the province of Quebec, which is nice to see as Quebecers tend to either vote for or against the Liberals through the Bloc. Once Conservative roots are laid in the province (at least one Conservative MP will come from Quebec this election); the support will grow much like it did in Ontario (Conservatives had 2 seats in the province merely a couple elections ago, now sitting at a healthy 25 of 100+, and polling in a dead heat).

For those who are skeptical of the Conservative party or wish to debate the issues in a reasonable manner (Harper is scary is not an argument), I'd be happy to.

The following is the most recent poll:
Canada Decided Voters (Tracking ended January 3, 2006)
CP 36%, LIB 33%, NDP 15%, BQ 13%, GP 4%, 17% undecided

In Quebec
BQ 51%, LIB 24%, CP 15%, NDP 7%, GP 3%, 20% undecided

In Ontario
CP 39%, LIB 38%, NDP 16%, GP 7%, 15% undecided

The concept of farm subsidies seems to be a topic rarely discussed these days by politicians, and for good reason. Fiscal liberals support government assistance for farmers, and the fiscal conservatives who are technically against assistance, get most of their support from rural areas. This allows farm subsidies to get out of control, with little discussion or push for reform.

Currently the industrialized nations are spending well over $350 billion dollars a year into farming subsidies (most of which used to compete against each other). This huge influx of capital investment and notorious trade barriers, block all poorer countries from entering the marketplace. For those interested in how much of that money actually makes it to farmers, it is less than 1 in 5 dollars spent; not a huge benefit to our society.

These excessive government handouts don’t stop at traditional farming, but also the dairy farmers where $2.5 billion was given to the dairy industry propping dairy prices 155% above the world price of the commodity.

What is the solution to this whole mess? Simple; eliminate the subsidies. The New Zealand case would be a prime example of how the agriculture industry can work without the need of government handouts. Before the reform, subsidies accounted for 30% of the value of production; higher than current North American subsidies. The government made this commitment expecting 10% of all farms to go out of business, nonetheless they understood the need for independence. Today, after implementation of this hard-line stance; the expected mass bankruptcies never happened with only 1% of the farms going out of business, the economic output has increased 3% and the value of the farm output rose to a staggering 40%. The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) confirms New Zealand is the least subsidized farm sector in the industrialized world, and subsidies only account for 1% of agriculture value (mostly scientific research funding), compare that to 22% of US farm production value.

It’s time for the first world to wake up and quit looking out for its own rich citizens through unproductive government waste. Protectionist policies have time and time again shown to be quite negative to our society; it’s interesting to see something given as aid turn out to be so destructive.

As you are well aware, our governments are capable of running deficits, surpluses and debt. Many believe it is the government’s job to strive for surpluses and to minimize our debt, such that our children are not paying for our spending habits. With this piece I want to explain the positives and negatives of both deficits and surpluses; how they have an effect on our lives and what we should do about them.

The first thing I want to address is the effects money has on our way of life. When government gives money to departments, to administer social programs, funds are given to people, education, and infrastructure in the forms of schooling, hospitals, roads, and defense. When government gives money back to its citizens through tax cuts; funds again are used for goods, services all requiring people, education, and infrastructure.

Our economy as a whole is highly dependent on growth, investment and maintenance of those important factors; people, education, and infrastructure. Trying to reduce funding of these essential areas will have a significant impact on people’s lives. This is the main reason I condemn policies used to stop deficit spending (see Clinton, Harris), as it will have no effect other than creating sub-par education, medical care, over taxation, and other infrastructure in times of recession. Much like bull economies are cyclical, people’s livelihoods will become cyclical as well. Over time, as long as our country’s wealth, productivity, and quality of life increase; and our debt to gdp ratio goes down, there should be no reason to worry about temporal effects of deficits and surpluses.

Now lets fast forward to today. Canada currently has record surpluses, just had its 8^th consecutive year in the black and is touted as a shining light of fiscal balance in the first world. The US on the other hand is in the red with record deficits and is seen by people around the world as being in serious fiscal trouble. Just the sound of these two assessments alone it seems Canada is ahead of the game.

Looking closer, Canada as a whole has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US’s 65%, EU’s 76%, and Japan’s 164%. This means that the US is generating wealth at a far greater rate than its debt accumulation; interestingly, with all the deficits the US has posted over the years, the debt to gdp ratio has been declining as the nation invests more money in people, education, and infrastructure. Another aspect one must consider is the US’s phenomenal GDP growth; over the last 5 years, the economy has been growing at a pace of 2 to 5%. The Canadian economy on the other hand has been largely stagnant besides the increase in Oil prices from $20 to $60 in the same time period. This shift in economic focus is easily seen in the recent elimination of the Albertan debt, and the large fiscal deficits in Canada’s manufacturing regions.

It’s easy to compare the US to Canada; but in the end, Canada is the most overtaxed nation in the first world, our surpluses are creating a stagnant economy due to our lack of investment and our surpluses are will make it more difficult to generate wealth and raise our standard of living over the long term. Don’t get me wrong, large deficits can really hurt an economy, but the long term benefits can significantly outweigh the satisfaction of having money in the bank for a rainy day. Our government is really putting a stranglehold on our struggling manufacturing sector and denying hardworking people the ability to be productive individuals.

For those obsessed by the US deficit, and want to know how much too much is, there really is no answer to that. What I can do is show different country’s deficits (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%. As you can see, even though the US has a ‘massive’ deficit, it is in no more fiscal trouble than many other first world countries.

With all the political arguing in the US more recently, it seems as though the two American parties cannot agree on anything these days. Enter Illegal Immigration...the one topic all parties seem to agree on; Illegal Aliens are bad, drain social programs and ruin quality of life. Both sides have their own 'solutions' for the supposed problem, and many politicians have been elected with the key focus of campaigns to stop Illegals from ruining the American lifestyle.

This notion is completely incorrect and people need to understand that illegals are not ruining the country but in fact helping it progress. If Europe has taught us anything, minimum wage, low population growth, and socialist protectionism leads to economic stagnation.

To understand how illegals are actually benefiting the US economy, one can turn to macroeconomics; unemployment is proportional to minimum wage. Even though the US itself has a minimum wage, illegals fill the otherwise impossible scenario of having no minimum wage.

Another aspect to consider is the American population; predictions these days estimate the population will be over 450m by 2050, most of that growth coming from immigration and the higher birth rate of illegals and other immigrants (tend to have larger birth rates). The sheer amount of growth needed to bring all these people to the standard of living inherent in the American Society itself will create much more growth than anyone can imagine.

One concern people have is the taxation issue, I consider this a moot point considering the red southern states have reduced the income tax component (Texas is income tax free) and the next generation of Mexican-Americans are registering to have access to the same services and opportunities as every other American citizen. Meanwhile these people are spending money just like every other consumer in the US; generating sales tax on all the objects and services bought.

Economically, illegals and immigrants will be the one key driving force in maintaining the US status as a superpower and not one person in this world is less deserving of a first world lifestyle, whether that be in the US, Canada or elsewhere.

Lately everyone has complained about gas prices, I admit I am guilty of this at times, I wanted to post this article because for the most part it represents my views on our energy craving ways.

In business and life, finances drive evreything; a sad fact of life, but this has become our passion, our motivation, our livelihood. In life, if something is inexpensive, you will take it for granted and write it off as insignificant. It is not until our bottom lines are effected that we actually start to use our brains for solutions. For example, gasoline until more recently has been fairly cheap, everyone hopped on board and consumed it like nothing else. We've known for years this resource is limited, unfortunately this has come to bite us in the ass; our economy is so dependent on the resource, we are caught in a vicious cycle.

But have no fear, we as a people are innovative and will correct our mistakes as we have countless times in the past. This new age of higher oil prices is a blessing in disguise! You've seen it on wallstreet, i've seen it at work; companies are being creative, innovative, generating flexiblity to survive the next frontier of business and life as we know it.

Alcoa for example released horrid earnings for their energy intensive operations of aluminum processing. It took a quarter or two, but they are now on track with above expected earnings (but still very much effected by energy prices), and a new drive to compete. Also, My company more recently has created its first energy plan in hopes to reduce consumption and help our bottom line, maintaining our competitive edge.

I am excited to see how we as a society adapt to this new challenge; I welcome these higher prices! The road will be challenging and on the short term seem negative, but i encourage people to look forward and see what is possible with not just moral motivation but fiscal and economic pressures. Once again our economy will prove its resilience.

I have been asked many times by people throughout my life what my religious views are, so I have decided to post them for the whole world to see.

For those looking to categorize me, I am a "theist" as I am a firm believer in a "God" and a role in our lives, but not a believer in organized religion This definitely strokes atheism, agnosticism and others off the list.

I've debated my existence since I was about 6; it's one of those things that I've always been curious about as I was raised by atheist parents (no guidance as to origins of life), but traditionally Presbyterian.

I believe a God/Spirit/Energy initiated life, evidence seems to indicate it originated in a Big Bang like event; and as far as I am concerned, I am perfectly fine with that explanation. I'll try not to get too deep with my views, but give a bare bones run-down. I think life is too wonderful and beautiful for it to be an accident or a random occurrence; to me, science and creationism are totally different topics, not conflicting. Science is amazing at describing how things move and deriving laws and theories which have very valid applications in life. What science will never be able to do is explain why mass attracts mass, why constants are the values they are, how everything was created to work so seamlessly together to form what we know as "life". For example: Statistically our bodies should not function (complex molecules in our bodies absorbed by membranes cannot randomly enter in the speed it does), molecules should not form (molecules form to lower energy, but reaction mechanisms must form complex unstable molecules, before lowering energies).

This energy/spirit/god has created many great things and they all work together seamlessly almost magically. For all these infinite systems to integrate so flawlessly and with such positive characteristics in all its various forms; i have no doubt it was knowingly engineered.

Also, I like to think there is something greater beyond our petty lives with governing morals and reasons to be good. A universal conscience inherent of all beings on earth; a right and wrong to continue the positive nature of the global ecosystem for all eternity. I also believe in an underlying moral system for the purpose of punishing those who do ‘bad’ during their lives; as many people knowingly do harm, they deserve severe punishment. I am a firm believer that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction and this extends beyond our brief period of life.

I also want to touch on my views about this energy/spirit/god. I think he/she/it is a compassionate, moral force wishing its creation to live in a manner such that the positive nature continues, and livelihood is not cut short for others for the sake of one's self. That being said, I also think people should rely on nothing more than what "God" has given them to succeed, relying on compassion only after one has shown to not help one's self.

For key issues in today's society, god would not hold form of religion against any faith, unless the humane moral framework was broken. Therefore terrorism in the name of god is condemned, forcing your views on others is condemned, any form of fighting in the name of god. As for gay relationships, no harm is done to any party involved, being a compassionate and loving presence; god would fully support a caring relationship such as this. Sexual relationships in a loving and caring manner would not be looked down upon as it is a natural practice inherent in many aspects of life; humans are no different than animals. Consciousness is another main part of my beliefs; for example, animals have instincts, part of the design of life is to have this and if creatures unknowingly act un-morally, "god" cannot hold that against them. Similarly with drugging of children to fight in wars in Africa; unless they knowingly turned to these groups who drug them for militia, they cannot do held to account for their actions. People who are rehabilitated and come to the realization of their wrongs, learn from their life lessons will be pardoned to some extent (I imagine).

So that's it for now I guess...maybe I am an idealist to think this, but I don't look down on anyone who thinks otherwise, as we all don't know. Trying to explain the unknown logically is impossible; all we can do is assume and guess.

Many people, Americans and Canadians alike think Canada is more social and compassionate than our American counterparts. If you look at the numbers, Canada spends roughly $9,667 per person on government programs and spending (government control on the economy and handouts to its citizens); US is $11,126. Therefore technically the US is more socialist than Canada. (GB: $14,741, France: $16,895, Germany $15,473, Sweden: $22,130, Norway: 29,085 for reference)

The discrepancy comes when considering percent GDP spending, I can easily attribute this to far more productive US economy where GDP per capita is much higher. ($40,100 in US vs. $31,500, over 20% difference!) With this smaller piece of economic pie, more of the taxation burden falls on the personal taxes rather than the less abundant and productive Canadian companies.

This site considers the economic freedom of all countries; Canada and the United States are in the top 15. Canada's economic freedom was where the US was in 1999. Hopefully with some tax reforms, we can see freedoms for Canadian citizens improve. We have good potential moving forward as we continue to redistribute smaller amounts of national income through the inefficient public system.