Bright Tory idea #457: Let's jail the press corp

No joke.

Tory Colin Mayes thinks it might be a good idea.

In a column mailed to constituents this week, the conservative MP suggested, "Maybe it is time that we hauled off in handcuffs reporters that fabricate stories, or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens.”

I guess liable laws aren't enough. I'm not sure which stories were fabricated or twisted, but hey, a conservative would know more about that than me.

As all government communications are required to be vetted, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mayes cleared this through PMO communications.

But I've got a better idea.

Let's try out the "time for slime law" on MP's first and slide it in under the Accountability Act.

So if an MP suggested the government was involved in a billion dollar boondoggle for instance, and say it turned out that it was really less than 100k that went missing, then the MP would go to jail?

Is that "falsely accusing" enough?

Or maybe an MP promises that all senators will be elected, and then appoints his leadership campaign chair to the Senate, maybe that MP could do some time in the Pokey?

Is that "twisting" enough?

Or perhaps an MP who says he has a constitutional right to something which can't be found in the constitution should be driven downtown via the scenic route? Perhaps led away in chains and an orange jumpsuit?

Is that "fabricating" enough?

Or maybe an MP promises to scrap an entire government program, but then says no, it will stay in place. Maybe that MP should spend a few years on the chain-gang?

Again, is that "fabricating" enough?

Or maybe an MP thinks cutting the GST is a stupid idea, but then becomes (hypothetically) the Finance minister and sets about doing just that? Perhaps they should have their gang tatts photographed and spend a night in the county lock-up?

Is that "twisting" enough?

William Stairs, you are the luckiest Tory of them all....

Clement: Guarranteeing higher healthcare costs..

According to "Two-tier" Tony Clement the Conservative Wait Time guarrantees will have legal force, and failure to meet them means patients will be able to sue.

Sounds like a good idea, eh?

No hip replacement this week? Grandma is off to see the lawyer so they can sue the lazy doctor and incompetent hospital.

Well, Grandma won't be the only person rubbing their hands together, no these kids just saw a whole new business line develop.

Buy insurance stocks kids, they just found a whole new growth area.

And who will pay that insurance premium increase? Well, the doctors and the hospitals.

But hang on, where do they get their funding from? Why the taxpayer of course!

Congrats. Two-tier Tony just jacked up your taxes for health care, and not a penny in the new costs will provide one more hospital bed, physician or MRI.

Or maybe Tories will get tough, and tell hospitals to be more competitive, and not screw up or see their bottomline take the hit.

In which case, no worries about additional costs, they'll take out of their current budget. And you know, spend less on other things, like... uh, health care?

But insurance brokers, well, they'll be happy. Because the government always pays their bills on time... it's like, well, a guarrantee.

A health care guarrantee, if you like...

Nice.

Harper's constitutional crisis & the media...

All those years in politics, two university degrees, and access to the internet, and I missed it.

Apparently Trudeau slipped one by all of us when he patriated the constitution in 1982. While we were all reading the BNA Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Trudeau slipped in the now infamous -- and hard to find -- cabinet meeting clause.

I'm talking about Stephen Harper's claim to have a constitutional right to hold secret cabinet meetings.

I'd never heard of this right until today, and I don't think anyone except Stephen Harper knew about it, but apparently it's there.

I just can't find it.

Maybe Stephen has the copy of the constitution with the invisible ink that only conservative decoder glasses can seen...

What, you don't have the decoder glasses?

But they come with every blue lawn sign... along with the instruction for the secret handshake, and the location of the clubhouse...

Ah, I remember government concerned about the constitutional rights of the individual, of the people... silly rabbit...

Stephen's also concerned about constitutional rights... his individual rights... nice, but it's not what you expect from some one who wants to be Prime Minister.

Give Indians the vote.

It's time to give Indians the vote.

Of course, they can vote in federal, provincial, municipal, and band elections.

But not for the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Most people are shocked to find out that Phil Fontaine's mandate comes from the Chiefs, ordinary Indians are not allowed to vote for their national chief. They never have been.

As a result, much of the AFN policy reflects what the Chiefs want, not what their constituents want.

Matthew Coon-Come was elected on a platform of one Indian, one vote. It took the regional vice-chiefs about six weeks to beat that idea out of him

But Coon-Come was replaced by Phil Fontaine, or the "Silver Fox" to his friends. And Phil is a much more smooth operator. He launched the AFN renewal commission to produce a report called "A Treaty Among Ourselves."

Over the next 48 hours, the Chiefs are gathered at the Casino de Lac Leamy in Gatineau to consider the report which recommends essentially one Indian, one vote.

They should seriously consider voting to accept the recommendation, and for a number of reasons.

Firstly, gee, it's about freakin' time.

We can prattle on about tradition and custom, and the rest, but let's be clear: The AFN is a modern creature. It will create its own tradtions and customs, and there is no Aboriginal historical precedent. Get with the times.

Secondly, gee, it's about freakin' time.

The National Chief of the AFN has suffered traditionally from one major weakeness: The Mandate.

Time and time again, when faced with disagreements, other governments have poo-pooed the National Chief on the basis that the chiefs hold direct mandates from the people, and the National Chief does not. And it's true. Moving to a direct vote cuts the knees out from this argument.

Thirdly, gee, it's about freakin' time.

AFN elections and assemblies have been a mess for years. The rules are ignored, decisions reversed, then reversed again, and again, until no one knows what the Assembly's position on anything is.

A clear set of rules and a mandate will give the National Chief the clarity and the mandate to act, both externally and internally. And that's good thing for everyone.

Finally, gee, wouldn't it be fun to turn the tables on the Federal and Provincial governments?

I mean, hell, no one has ever voted directly for a Prime Minister or Premier. Enjoy the opportunity to say, "Whitey - hey, where's your mandate?"

Tell me that wouldn't be fun.... just once...

The Press needs to put their money where their mouth is...

... or maybe where their camera lense is.

Yet another story tonight about Harper muzzling the media like he muzzles his caucus.

Today, Harper tripled security and barred the media from a photo-op (a bit of a strange tactic for a photo-op).

What was the high-risk, post 9/11 dangerous photo-op that required the national guard in an Ohio-like state?

It was children giving the PM daffodils for national cancer awareness month. It appears the PMO wanted to take their own pictures...

This is the umpteenth story about censoring the media, but by far the most ridiculous to date, but jee whiz willickers... enough.

"I don't think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being well run," said Sandra Buckler, the PM's Directed of Communications.

If the media is so ticked about this, then stop running the stories.

Cut off the oxygen of politics: coverage.

Black out Harper just like he blacks out the press and his caucus.

Stop covering the feel-good, nicey-nice stuff... stop running footage of announcements. Simply provide an editorial synopsis, and run the other guys responding.

I figure it should take about 24 hours to see an change in attitude from the PMO... But until then, don't expect any change, why would he?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Other planned changes to restrict access and muzzle the media:

• Withholding basic announcements of visits by heads of state and premiers.
• Issuing in-house photos of closed meetings between public officials, such as visiting premiers and heads of state, rather than allowing news photographers access.
• Refusing to use the national press theatre, where simultaneous translation is provided, in favour of a more prime ministerial podium in the House of Commons foyer.
• Making lists of media wishing to ask questions during availabilities, then picking and choosing which reporters get to ask those questions.
• Allowing only technical staff, but not the customary two "pool" reporters who relay events to the wider press gallery membership, into photo-ops.

Jim Prentice: The Waterboy

Earlier this week, Jim Prentice moved on First Nations water quality with a no-money and no-resources announcement aimed at improving the situation on reserve.

He is an excellent choice as minister, with solid experience in dealing with First Nations issues and an approach which is very similar to Bob Nault, the longest serving INAC minister since Chretien vacated the post back in '74.

But he has drank the departmental kool-aid on the water issue, we can only hope it was bottled and not tap-water.

Indeed, his announcement looks a lot like this announcement, from back '04.

Prentice pushed the notion of making it mandatory for FNs to have certified plant operators. And the backgrounder says that this will be the responsibility of the FN.

But I sure hope Prentice didn't pay much for the consultant to write his backgrounder, which bears a striking resemblance to this backgrounder in '04. I could go on, but.... well, doubtless the department mentionned this in the briefing...

I'm all about re-announcing stuff if you can get away with it, but I'm not sure I'd be re-announcing a Liberal program if I were new Conservative minister.

However, it's a legitimate question that if the Libs had been working on this for almost two years, why no change?

Well, if you read Prentice's list of high-risk communities, and the list from two years ago, you'll notice they don't label the same communities as high-risk. Things are improving.

But the real issue here is not money - or a mandatory code which is already mandatory - it's a human problem.

First, an operator first needs a high school diploma to qualify for the training and certification. Unfortunately, First Nations have the lowest number of high school diplomas of any group in the country, so the talent pool is limited.

Second, if you live on reserve, a place where there is regularly inadequate housing, no jobs, and little opportunity, but you have a high school diploma... do you really want to stay? And if you stay, don't forget you've also got to drink the water.

Third, if you've got the certification and the diploma, you are hot commodity in the job market my friend. So maybe you get more than one offer, maybe an offer for a reserve that's closer to the city and a modern health care, that pays more, has a better school for your kids, where you don't lose you job when the chief loses the election... etc...

There's no easy solution to those challenges. It's hardly a question of a mandatory code. It will require real investment and not necessarily in water quality.

But the Kelowna Accords are off the table ... right?

Putting the 'bright' back in Breitkreuz

Garry must be a busy boy these days. The member for Yorkton-Melville is going to have some explaining to do to his constituents.

Garry is one of those conservatives who wanted to scrap CAIS, noting “CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program) has done nothing for farmers and it has to be scrapped.”

And not just a couple of years ago either, only about eight or nine weeks ago, according to this news release which says the Conservative policy promises: "the replacement of CAIS with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs;"

Of course Garry is likely busy with Minister Flaherty on budget consultations as well.

N0 doubt that the Throne Speech and budget will contain a commitment to let you and I designate where our tax dollars are spent, and also decide where they won't be spent.

Because that is the legislation that Garry introduced a few years back, the Peoples Tax Form Act.

Normally, I might just write this off as the rantings of some crazy back bencher, but the legislation gained some real support back in the day. In particular, from one Jason Kenney, PS to the Prime Minister who seconded the legislation. Kenney takes great pride in being consistent as he stated on CTV newsnet on Monday.

"It's the people's money, why shouldn't they have their own tax form? Shouldn't they have a say in how it's spent? Haven't we been sending the government a blank cheque long enough?"

I don't know, Garry, has it been long enough?

Perhaps Garry should consider a new private members bill aimed at dealing with all these broken promises... we could call it the Conservative Principles of Convenience Act...

On a case by CAIS basis...

The Tory Guns & Buns platform committed to:

"Replace CAIS with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs. The new income stabilization program must become a simpler, more responsive program that properly addresses the cost of production, market revenue, and inventory evaluation. The federal government should be ready to pitch in when disaster strikes, funding disaster relief separately above and beyond its income stabilization program."

Today Minister Strahl, a decent guy, decided to join the long list of adherents to the new Principles of Convenience when he decided to cancel yet another plank in the Tory platform by deciding the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization programme (CAIS) would not be scrapped.

CAIS represents about $1.7B in payments to about 170,000 Canadian farmers.

It's too bad really.

If Chuck read the transcript of the Ag Committee on this, he'd see that reworking CAIS isn't a bad idea.

The Ag sector in Canada needs a serious shake, and he might actually be the right guy to do it.

Agricultural subsidies are serious drain on the economy, and the taxpayers pocketbook. They are also a sticky subject with many of our trading partners who make our handouts look like pennies compared to their own subsidies.

But darn those principles of convenience, it's just not convenient I suppose.

Shapiro clears Emerson, Harper, and Richard Nixon

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro said he would look into what influence Harper wielded to convince former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson to cross the House of Commons floor.

And what did you expect? What a sham.

I am loath to believe an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House.

This Conservative-approved appointee's actions have strengthened my resolve to work towards a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament.

I guess we won't be hearing those kind of words from Harper today....

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You know, it's not like some people didn't suggest this what was going to happen....

Ah, Stephen, it didn't have to be like this.

You could have had what some people call 'credible exhonoration,' but oh no, you had to do this... and publicly knee-cap the guy who could have made this go away...

Whooops. Too bad.

Darn those Principles of Convenience...

No choice in Choice for Childcare

The Blogging Tory and stay-at-home dad, Brent Colbert has begun a campaign to ensure that his own political masters follow through on their promise to send him his $100 a month baby bonus.

The campaign centres around his view that he deserves some choice in childcare. It's a fair point. We all deserve choice.

But Brent may have been misled. And that's where I can help.

As I have noted before, the Caledon Institute debunked this crazy notion that anyone was going to see $100 a month under the Tory Plan.

They also point out that the wealthier you are, the more of the after-tax money you get to keep. Too bad if you're poor, you should have chosen to be rich.

But that's not all. The next part of their plan, recycled from the failed Mike Harris plan in Ontario, sets up a tax credit for"employers who cover the fullcost of creating spaces."

So people like me are about to schmucked on the choice thing. My daycare is a not-for-profit, run in a public school. They don't pay taxes. 'Cause their not-for-profit. So nothing for them, and a reduced choice for me.

It's structured this way so that "small business and rural communities" can access this programme as well as big business and urban turtle-neck dwelling parents.

I can see it now, dozens of local 7-Elevens will have to empty the chip aisle to make room for the coporate romper room.

The butcher in Collingwood near my in-laws will put that addition on because the four employees they have need somewhere to to store kids.

And the bookstore Meaford, well, they'll just let'em run wild among the stacks....

Because it was the tax system that needed changing, and putting a childcare worker really makes good business sense for them now.

If you want choice in childcare, you've got my support.

You've got a child tax benefit, the national child benefit, and you've got the childcare expense deduction. Providing and additional tax reduction for parents who stay at home makes good sense as well.

But if choice is sending me back $1200 my own tax money so you can tax it again, get stuffed.

My fourteen month old daughter is smart enough to see that's not choice, that's shell game.

The real question, is why can't you see that?

Omigod! Pat's got Belinda...

Bernie should be asking for over time.

It appears that Pat Martin has asked for an investigation of the Stronach floor-crossing.

All in the name of consistency, apparently.

In any other circumstances, the politics would be brilliant. Nail both the government and the opposition with the same bullet knowing full-well that only a complete lunatic would ever cross the floor to your party.

Except this is the basis of Mr. Martin's complaint:

"It is our opinion that the considerable increase in salary, augmented potential pension, staff and assorted perks enjoyed by members of cabinet, such as a personal car and driver amount to furthering Ms. Stronach's private interests."

In short, the Billionairess who donates here salary to charity because she doesn't need the money was interested in a raise?

The woman who was president and CEO a multinational car-parts company needed wheels and a driver?

Please, bring on the investigation... if only for the entertainment value...

Ralphs Weird Way

As my original province begins their discussion on health care, and the "third way" there are a few things I'd like to mention.

First, what the heck is "third" about this "way"?

I mean, hell, I'm not sure I want to opt for a third choice when it comes to my health care. But I digress.

You can check out King Ralph's latest brainchild here. For deep thinkers and non-ADD affected net users, the Tolstoy version is here.

It's really not as nutty on the surface as the MSM have made it out to be.

But there is the troublesome private service purchasing thing.

Innocuously enough the document suggests it would only be for hip replacements, cataract surgery, and spaying your cat or your neighbour.

The driver for renewal appears to be cost. Health care currently amputates one-third of the Alberta government's pin-money each year. And the cost-cancer is spreading. Alberta will soon not be able to afford it. So allowing Albertans to buy private services will decrease the cost....

Hang on a minute...

The province with the biggest surplus in Confederation, and the lowest taxes, and more wealth than Croesus is crying poor? I'm not sure I buy that....

A mixed system would be more accessible and allow more choice? Really?

Wow, did I miss the good old days before Saint Tommy of Douglas came along.

There must have been so much choice then, and so much cheap health care, I bet doctors were giving it away like prom dates ...

Oh, for the good old days, when health care was really accessible, and research moved ahead so quickly, and diagnostic technology was in every small town and hamlet...

I think we should all be very careful here. If ideology sneaks its head in the door, look out, the health care debate will be decided by something that looks like a high school debate club.

There isn't much on training new doctors (not filching them from underdeveloped countries either) and nurses. Nothing on the impact of insurance rates as we re-define the roles of doctors and other health care practioners. Nothing on the impact of health care professionals working in both public and private systems. That needs to change.

Ralph is doing the right thing by consulting and trying to have an open discussion, but the question is will he listen to the ideologues and the lobbies, or will he take a careful look at all of his options?

Harpergate: How the Tories mishandled Shapiro

Harpergate.

Some one had to say it. Pretty funny if you ask me.

But that's not the point here.

Oh, what a mess this Shapiro thing is. And it soooo did not need to be that way.

Mistake #1. Wrong issue, wrong approach.

The issue here is jurisdiction, not politics. That should have been the way out.

But oh no, we had to smack poor little Shapiro around, creating a little guy to take on Goliath. Watch out for your shins there, Stephen...

Mistake #2. Ad hominem when you should have gone ad ideam.

Threatening to fire Bernie right out of the gate was pretty wild.

I've never seen that before.

And you nearly had something there with the Liberal appointee thing, until it came out that you'd been talking to Broadbent.

Kind of hard to argue that you don't want some political appointee in there when you were trying to get the former leader of the NDP into the game... whooops...

Mistake #3. Using the Enola Gay to fire a shot across the bow.

Warren Kinsella has often said that a good attack is hard-hitting and accurate. Um, we did well on the first count, but the accuracy thing is a bit of a problem isn't it?

We can't actually fire fire Bernie. Whoops.

Mistake #4. Being loath to do what you are legally compelled to do.

We are actually obliged to cooperate with Bernie

Check out section 72.1 of the Ethics Commissioner Act. Dunno if the Justice lawyers have mentionned this, but Bernie has these things called "sub poena" powers.

The latin is unclear here, but you might want to ask a lawyer, I think it mean you don't have a choice to testify.

And you didn't object to the Grewal inquiry, did you? I mean, it just didn't fit your calendar. It's unfortunate that you only lately came to such an ethical dilemma about Bernie.

If only you'd realized this during the Grewal inquiry, you'd be in a very consistent position right now, too bad you're not.

Mistake #5. Not reading the Tory Platform.

Yeah, this is a sticky one.

You might want to read this bit, it's the one about "Giving more power and teeth to independent watchdogs such as the Auditor General and Ethics Commissioner."

Mistake #6. Impatience.

You know, just about anyone could have figured out that Bernie would likely come out of this thing and say it was political schmoozle, that it was distasteful, but not really something for him to stick his nose into.

And if he hadn't, you could have done all of what you're doing now without anyone questioning you.

You would have been able to say you'd cooperated, provided the facts, and that Bernie was clearly off his rocker.

Yeah, this is a schmozzle.

Shapiro: Full Moon Fever & Free Advice

Dear Bennie,

Wow, you sure got Mr. "Principles of Convenience's" knickers in a twist! You might the first guy he fires outside his own office.

Cool.

But you're in a bit of pickle.

You need to communicate a little more clearly. Here's some free advice, likely worth every penny you paid for it.

You got 'splainin to do...

How about a letter to Harper and to the individuals who requested the investigation. It should say the following:

A preliminary investigation decides if there is a problem, and whether the Commish has jurisdiction to investigate and judge it.

Everyone needs to calm down until that's done.

Next you need to deal with the attacks that....

... you are a Liberal Hack:

The Ethics Commish reports to Parliament, not the PM. You might want to quote from your own enabling legislation which says:

"72.01 The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint an Ethics Commissioner after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons and after approval of the appointment by resolution of that House."

You might want to note that your appointment was voted on by the House, and that your candidature was approved by the leaders of the parties... like Stephen Harper. You need to cut through the Liberal appointee slur...

You might further quote the legislation on the process for firing your sorry ass...

72.02 (1) The Ethics Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term of five years and may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council on address of the House of Commons.

... that you are trying to decide who should be cabinet.

Emerson said he'd resign, not you. Your job is to judge, the sanction is Stephen Harper's job. Remind him of that.

Take the High Ground

You're just doing your job, the one the House asked you to do. Ask Harper to keep his comments to himself where they might hinder or taint your investigation.

Commit to providing an open and transparent investigation that can be judged by the House on its merits.

Suggest it's to his benefit that he not politicize a difficult situation, and that undermining the Office does no good to anyone. Because it doesn't.

Be Open

Put the letter on your website.

It's called being open and transparent. It removes the need to comment and fuel the fire. And leaves Harper to clean up his own mess while you get on with your investigation.

Well Bennie, as Tom Petty once said, "Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out / hey I will stand my ground /and I won't back down..." Coincidentally from his album "Full Moon Fever". Betcha it kind of feels like that these days, eh?

Best of luck Bennie,

A Canadian Publius.

Cooperating with Shapiro

Now it is Stephen Harper's turn, as Wayne Easter said, "Mr. Ethics himself is now under investigation by the ethics commissioner."

Harper's response was to state that an Ethics Commissioner appointed by a Liberal government had no business investigating him.

Nonsense.

If for no other reason than, if not the Ethics Commissioner, who then can theoretically investigate Stephen Harper?

The RCMP - with a Chief who was appointed by a Liberal government?

Evidently not, as Peter McKay noted during the election, the RCMP were, in his view, heavily politicized.

Perhaps a member of the Supreme Court? Likely not, as they were all Liberal appointees, or drawn from a list of Liberal candidates.

So the next attack was the jurisdiction of Shapiro to investigate. The alleged incident took place before the new Parliament was sworn in. Harper argues that therefore Shapiro has no jurisdiction.

Note that there is no denial of an ethical lapse here, but rather a timing issue.

Harper's next response was to state this had redoubled his resolve to create an ethics commissioner who reports to Parliament.

So what's stopping him? Nothing. It is a machinery change, easily amended in the opening of Parliament.

In the past, Harper has not had a problem with other investigations targetted at Liberals.

In the Grewal Scandal, he did not raise any issue of legitimacy. Harper did not have time to meet with Shapiro, a fact he hid during the election campaign.

Nor did he state that he so opposed the system that he would refuse to cooperate before the current incident.

So the issue of who makes the appointment and jurisdiction appears to be one of convenience, not priniciple.

The Ethics system for Parliamentarians is far from perfect. But it is all that currently exists. Refusing to cooperate with that system without replacing it is not just an ethical lapse, it is a lapse in leadership.

More do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do from Harper.

Liberals... a VERY exclusive club

Three weeks ago, I filled out the on-line request for a membership in the Liberal Party.

Have I got a membership form?

Nope. Apparently, some people agree that I should never join a club that would take me as a member.

Ah, somethings never change...

Dalton is right

Guinty McDalton is calling for the abolition of the Senate, due mostly to the geographic inequity of the seat distribution. But also due to their continued use of junk food machines in the lobby of the Upper Chamber.

I think he's right.

The Senate is a vestige of political system which institutionalized patronage, and also sought to redress the imbalance of population and geography. In the second largest country in the world, those are still difficult challenges.

But they are different challenges.

The Senate was designed in a country with no transportation route or communication line from East to West, with four provinces, and population of just over 2 million.

We now live in a world of instant communication. A country that takes only hours to cross (if you avoid Air Canada and the don't get routed through Winnipeg) instead of weeks. Our population is made up largely of immigrants and and their children, growing at a rate of 180,000 each year. A sizeable portion of us weren't born here, and if we were, our parents weren't.

Our regional cultures are becoming increasingly homogeneous in their heterogeneousness... (Is that a word...?)

And the key to preserving traditional regional cultures is not rooted in an unelected Red Chamber... unless of course we start appointing Celine Dion and the Rankins.

In fact, every province in confederation has abolished their own senate - so why should the national government have one?

McGuinty has a legitimate point in wanting Ontario's regional issues dealt with. Putting them aside to rebalance, once again, in favour of the rest of Canada is short-term gain for long-term pain.

But hell, it's worked for every other region, even BC has done well with the pitch, maybe Dalton's on to something. And what Ontario voter won't support that... The rest of Canada will have to hope that it doesn't come to that.

Healthy Choices

As per usual, Ralph Klein is the one to toss the fox among the chickens.

Klein is proposing changes to the Alberta Health Care system and began his consultations yesterday, coincidentally "Self-injury Awareness Day" in the U.S.

And "Beer Day" in Iceland, if you care.

His proposals would allow individuals to pay for services out their own pocket, and jump the queue.

Some people think this would contravene the Canada Health Act.

And as John Ibbitson writes in todays Globe, Harper is in a bit of pickle. He has advocated for private healthcare, and advocated for Klein to tell Ottawa to get stuffed if they have anything to say about. And Klein has both the cajones and the cash to do it.

But there is an opportunity here for a real debate on healthcare, not just the delivery system. The private sector already plays a significant role in delivering healthcare, and no Canadian can say they've never seen a private practioner... or GP in common parlance.

We've wound up talking about wait times, and guarrantees when we should be discussing what we are to do.

So where should the private sector be involved? Should doctors be allowed to work in both public and private systems?

I am not convinced that the private sector delivers health care more effectively or more cheaply than a single-tier public system does.

Certainly, there does appear anecdotally to be more available in the US private system, but available to a select few who are beholden to their HMO.

Anyone who has lived through the British mixed system will likely tell you that it isn't as good as the Canadian system.

I am also suspect that the notion that simply allowing a two-tier system or private hospitals will solve anything. It's a complex issue, and won't be solved by such a simplistic response which appears to be grounded in an ideology more than common sense or practical reality.

And there is our opportunity in the coming leadership race, and policy work. Where do we stand?

For ideology or practical solutions?