And Quebec Gets One Wrong..

At least partially....in the case of the Hijab.

As we all know now Quebec's Bill 94 bans women from wearing the Hijab (aka face mask) from receiving its provincial government services.

As a Libertarian, I do not really care what people wear in public, within the bounds of modesty.

Therefore, Muslim Women receiving services from their own government should be able to dress as they wish in public. Full Stop.

It is not up to our Society to say they are being forced to adopt this dress by Male Muslims, even if true. Muslim Women must come to this conclusion themselves and liberate themselves.

There are other Muslim Traditions that are not consistent with our Values (e.g. female genital cutting) and cannot be tolerated, but dress does not and should not fall into that category.

That is not to say the wearing of the Hijab is appropriate in all circumstances. It is not.

Here are some areas where I oppose its wearing:

• Bureaucrats providing service to the public. I believe that citizens should have the right to see the face of whomsoever is serving them. In addition to civil servants, this would include teachers, hospital workers, police / fire, armed forces and so on. This would not extend to the private sector- that should be the decision solely of the employer.
• Obtaining and using various permits and cards - e.g. driving permits, health care cards and the like. This would include the act of driving itself.
• Voting.

I have heard it said that the Hijab should not be worn by patrons of our banks and other financial institutions. I disagree since I see their right to wear this garb supersedes the concern that it could be used by robbers. If it becomes a big problem - the matter could then be revisited.

I cannot imagine wearing a Hijab- especially with the many restrictions noted above but if a Muslim Woman wants to wear one - that should be her sole decision without Big Brother - in this case Quebec - interfering.

As I see it...

"Galagher"

Quebec Gets One Right...

Quebec recently announced a number of tax increases including one that will charge patients $25.00 for each visit to their Doctor.

Being the L'Enfant Terrible of Confederation, no other Province, other than Quebec, could get away with this - but in this instance Quebec is bang on.

Canadians are approaching the expenditure of 50% of all their government revenues (read taxes) on Health Care and the trend upward will only worsen as our aging population - ages further. As a per centage of our Budget, we are paying as much on our Health Care as the Americans pay for their military (i.e on a per capita basis) And the Americans want to emulate our Health Care System. Soon all the US will be able to afford are bullets and needles. But that is the stuff of a future editorial.

Now back to Quebec.

Quebec realizes, as does any thinking health care provider, that unfettered (read free) access to our Health Care system simply cannot be sustained. As it is, there are not enough Doctors for all of our citizens.

Those who pay no taxes, get their care free and those who pay taxes, pay for everyones' care. In both cases, there is no disincentive to use the system, regardless of how minor your health complaint. A runny nose, a sore throat, flu and the cold take time away from more serious conditions.

One of the best ways in which to discourage needless Doctor visits is to charge a fee for each visit. And then watch the numbers decline.

In this sense, Quebec is on the right track and because it is sacrosanct from federal censure, we, in the ROC will all ultimately benefit from its initiative. If Quebec can do it, then everyone can do it.

Where I differ slightly from Quebec's proposal is in regard to the amount of the proposed fee. Twenty-five Dollars ($25) per person, per visit seems a little on the steep side. This could really add up if you factored in a family of 4 struggling to to get by in today's high cost of living.

A $10.00 charge per visit would, I believe, be equally successful in significantly reducing demand.

In any event, the fee per visit is a welcome step given Health Care's out of control costs. It is though only a start. Many more tough decisions will need to be taken to tame the beast.

But in the levying of a visitation fee, Quebec has it right. Bravo.

As I see it...

Taking The Supreme...

Out of the 'Supreme' Court of Canada.

While all eyes were on the Guergis firing, our illustrious House of Commons was voting in favour of a fully Bilingual Supreme Court.

By a vote of 140 to 137 - Member Yvon Godin's Private Bill C-232 passed the House of Commons and is now being considered by the Senate. All Conservatives present voted with the no's.

If it passes the Senate, Bill C-232 will represent the most divisive law since the passage of the Official Languages Act in 1969.

I say this because with the advent of the Charter of Rights in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada's role changed from one of just interpreting laws to one that includes making laws - as history has shown since then. In some very important instances, the Court's power now exceeds that of Parliament itself.

But hardly a word in Print or in the other media about this Vote.

That said, there was an excellent piece written this past weekend by Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen under the heading 'Most of us need not apply for top jobs'.

Gardner points out that Bilingualism "bars at least 90% of candidates before the search even begins".

Here are some other interesting figures he floats: bilingualism among Anglophones is only 9.4%; among allophones it is but 12.1%; and among francophones 42%.

Although not specifically stated in his article, Statistics Canada shows that Bilingualism (English / French) over the past 50 years has increased a miserly 5% (from 12 to 17%) despite the billions of dollars spent on it.

Gardner deducts from the above that although "you still get good people (for the Court), ..." you won't get the best".

One could argue that with the Supreme Court challenging Parliament for Supremacy - you most certainly want and need the best.

Finally, Gardner makes a rather interesting analogy. Say women, who make up 51% of the population were excluded from consideration - "one half of the available intelligence and energy is squandered". Now compare that to Official Bilingualism where up to 90% of the population is excluded, as a matter of public policy.

Added to this mixture is the fact that Bilingualism exists in numbers only in Northern New Brunswick, Quebec - although it holds to unilingual status, and Ontario - east of Bank Street. Should the Court become exclusively Bilingual, vasts tracts of Canada and the Majority of the Population - in the East and for most off Ontario west - would be effectively excluded. This when Quebec currently already has one third of the Court's appointees (3 of 9).

I fear that should this Bill become law, Separation will soon again raise its ugly head, but this time it will not come from Quebec.

As I see it...

"Galagher"

I Don't Think I Would Like Helena Guergis...

Note: I took some heat from writing this editorial, the prevailing view being that Guergis got what she deserved. Maybe so. But what I was trying to say is - 'What happened to Cabinet Ministers only losing their jobs when involved in cooking contracts for friends and relatives and failing to disclose their personal interests when Government Financial Decisions are taken? I still do not see tandrums or a letter writing campaign rating the same level of concern! Poor judgment yes - a firing offence - you decide. G


...If I Knew Her.

But I Don't.

What I do believe is that she is being unfairly treated.

All the editorials of late, class Ms. Guergis as being totally unfit to be a Cabinet Minister and they are are critical of Harper for taking so long to boot her from Office.

I think it is all over-reaction and I am sticking my head out here somewhat because - like you, I do not know what the latest scandal is that forced Harper's hand and had him call in the Police.

I suspect it will amount to not too much - as in the case of all of the known complaints to date.

Let's review a few - beginning with the most grievous - that is to say - of the known ones - the PEI episode.

Guergis lost it when an airport security official asked her to remove her boots for scanning just prior to boarding her flight back to Ottawa. Having lived in PEI for 5 years I can tell you that anyone worth knowing is known by everyone in PEI. Hence that security official certainly knew he or she was dealing with a Minister of the Crown. Why would that person ask a Cabinet Minister to remove their boots? Who was more stupid - the Security Personnel for asking her to take off her boots or Guergis for losing it?

I suspect the official was a Liberal just trying to play one-up-man-ship on a high ranking Tory. But whether that was the case or not - it was in my opinion a dumb thing to ask of Ms. Guergis.

Plus, as you know from previous Blogs - I believe it is a dumb thing to ask of any traveller unless there is good reason - i.e. profiling and or security intelligence to back-up the request.

Indeed I suggested that I look forward to the day when the common traveller starts to balk at these inane requests. I didn't though expect it to start with a Cabinet Minister given that such action is unlikely to advance their career.

Complaint two was related to staffers writing to local media as if they were constituents and not her personal staffers. Wrong? Yes. Big Deal? Not really. Just another Dumb Move but hardly the stuff to get fired over. Suspend the Staffers involved for a period of time and you can bet that they will not be so slap happy with their pens in the future.

Now to the real stuff - her husband - former Tory MP - Rahim Jaffer.

Guilt by association but she is married to the guy.

Anyway - Jaffer's grand faux pas was to boast that as a former MP and as a husband of a Cabinet Minister he had ins with the Prime Minister's Office. Truth is, he probably did. But the over-riding truth is that anyone who is (or thinks) he or she is anyone in Ottawa makes the same claim on a regular basis. If Jaffer is guilty of that - half of Ottawa would be in the Docket with him.

And, oh yeah - he had a government issued blackberry. Just imagine. If I was Chief of Staff to a Minister, and I was once, I would see nothing wrong with the Minister's spouse being able to communicate quickly with their husband or wife. Indeed, in the crazy world of Politics it is ever more essential that families of politicians be able to do so at the public's expense.

So what does Harper know that we don't know? If it follows along with the minutia to date, it won't amount too much.

I truly hope that it is something worth while, to have brought the cops in, but I despair that it is not given the track record.

To date, Guergis has been given a bum rap. She is now history, but the bigger story here is what is does to prospective politicians out there watching all of this.

Sadly, they will likely conclude that they do not need any of this.

As I see it...

"Galagher"