The Right to Proportional Volume

This Letter to the Editor was inspired by a comment in The Right to be Cold and has also been posted on http://fairvotesask.blogspot.ca/.

When asked by the late Jack Layton to enter federal politics, renowned Inuk environmental activist Shelia Watt-Cloutier's declined because she "couldn't possibly survive the loud and uncivil manner in which the House of Commons conducts itself." Where does this loud and uncivil manner originate from? It is from our winner-take-all first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system that produces phony majorities.

FPTP works well in a two party system. With more than two parties there is always the potential that more people will vote against the winners than for them. Our 2011 federal election gave 54% of the seats to a party that won 40% of the popular vote. Then, 40% of the people didn't vote (perhaps because they recognize it is as futile), so the Conservative mandate was from 25% of the eligible voters. Conversely, FPTP gave 100% of the power to a party not mandated by 75% of the eligible voters. 

As soon as a party forms the government, the goal becomes to win the next election by competing with the other parties—not collaborating, so we have a "loud and uncivil" House. 

FPTP has to go. Insist your candidate commit to proportional representation (PR). PR is designed to produce a House that shares out its seats in proportion to the way voters vote so that the volume of each party's voice is genuine, not phony. 

Let's make 2015 the last time a party wins a phony majority. If your candidate commits to electoral reform through PR, then Go Vote. 

Nancy Carswell
Co-spokesperson Saskatchewan Chapter Fair Vote Canada

MRI Scans Not Business-as-usual

Health Minister Dustin Duncan on proposed changes to allow private MRI scans said, "What we want to see is whether or not this concept of two-for-one ... can demonstrate that a business case actually could support this type of alternative arrangement." I want you to pause here and reflect on the phrase "business case."
My spouse recently announced that his comfy reading chair was broken although it appears functional. It was hard to keep a straight face during his announcement because for years guests who have unwittingly sat in this deceptive chair have needed help extricating themselves. Replacing the broken chair is a market transaction because buyer and seller can agree to an exchange or walk away.

What if it was not our chair but my spouse that was broken? Like the chair he might look functional but he was in pain and the doctor said he needed an MRI. This is not a transaction he will walk away from if he has the money and if he does not have the money the stress of waiting for an MRI will worsen his health.
Economist James K. Galbraith declares that "There is not only no market in health care, there are no markets within health care either." Please write, phone (306-787-7345), or email (he.minister@gov.sk.ca ) Minister Duncan and explain to him that there is no business case possible for MRIs or anything else health related because we are not dealing with inanimate things but with loved ones.

Our Rhino

Do you remember reading a Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) article this summer which employed a rhino, ticks, and oxpecker birds to build an analogy? It subjectively concluded "…Saskatchewan has too many government employees [oxpeckers] and taxpayers [the rhino] are paying higher taxes [ticks] as a result." As an educator I appreciate the power of analogies but like all power, it can be abused. 
A flaw in the CTF analogy is that the oxpeckers are also taxpayers.  Let's say that our rhino weighs 2,000 pounds.  The CTF says that 25% of our workers, 500 lbs. of rhino, are on the government payroll and the government is on target to reduce its rhino weight by 15% or 75 lbs.  The CTF advises, in addition to excising 75 lbs., the government needs to tell school boards, universities, and health regions to not fill in "not-so-essential" positions when baby boomers retire.  But this means even less tax money and more retirees who generally need more health care necessitating further cuts and putting more stress on our health care system. 

What 75 lbs would you remove?

A greater flaw in the analogy though is that the CTF wants us to see taxes as ticks—irritations that we can do without.  However, taxes give us collectively a quality of life we could never afford individually; services like hospitals, schools, parks, and roads.  Instead of risking severing an artery in our tax rhino, why don't we direct our governments to suture the malignant corporate tax gap estimated at $170 billion?
Submitted as a "Letter to the Editor" 29-Dec-2014