Leadership 2009 Links

I've added a new set of links at the top right for the duration of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, including the candidates' sites as well as media sources which have reported on the race so far or at least figure to do so as the race progresses. And for those looking for a complete set of coverage so far, I'll point out that last week's Moose Jaw leadership forum managed to receive some local reporting from Discover Moose Jaw (which naturally tends to be a particularly good source for Deb Higgins news).

I'll be looking to add to the list as the campaign progresses - so if you know of any additional local coverage which is available online, let me know and I'll include it in the list.

Compare and contrast

Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect the warranty on a new vehicle? Have no fear: Tony Clement is here to save you.

Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect pension benefits which you earned through decades of service? Let there be no doubt: Tony Clement couldn't care less.

On illusions

Andrew Steele's post on the advantages of incumbency obviously reflects a Lib/Con-centric view of politics. (No, "parties of all stripes" don't set up artificial barriers to nomination challenges - it's the Cons and Libs alone who do so.) But the post is definitely worth a read in outlining evidence that the only real effect of incumbency is to dissuade otherwise-viable challengers:

Stephen Levitt, famous for Freakonomics, and Catherine Wolfram from Harvard did a complex econometric study into the causes of incumbent advantage, rather than simply measuring the advantage as earlier studies had done. They found that the source may actually be incumbents getting better at scaring away high-quality opponents.

Rather than anything based in reality, the advantage is that people thinking about running for public office over estimate the ability of the incumbent to retain office. High-profile candidates decline to run, fundraising goes uncollected by default, volunteers sit unmotivated on the sidelines and the incumbent gets back in because no one bothered to run hard against him.

Ken Carty from UBC found similar evidence in Canada. Where they are not intimidated, "local party organizations of non-winning candidates are in the position of being able to realize potentially significant electoral returns through the mobilization of additional personnel or financial resources in their constituency campaigns.

Now, Steele uses the evidence to suggest merely that the Libs and Cons should rethink their arbitrary barriers to nomination challenges (which would seem obvious to some of us simply from the perspective of internal accountability). But it seems to me that the concept applies far beyond nomination races alone.

Indeed, the studies mentioned by Steele are themselves based primarily on general election results rather than internal party challenges. And the inescapable message is that a substantial amount of the actual advantage of incumbents is based on the fact that opposing parties tend to mount something less than the greatest possible challenge.

Applying that principle to the Canadian political scene, it's then worth wondering whether many of our current political assumptions are themselves a product of parties failing to appreciate what may be possible.

The current conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the approximate party results which have been relatively consistent over the past decade will continue to be so. But is there any reason to think that the seeming tiers among Canadian political parties are any more an inevitability than the supposed advantage of incumbency? And if convincing potential candidates and supporters to push forward in the face of a perceived advantage is more than half the battle in making up any actual ground, then doesn't that become an even more important task?

Burning question

Is it more problematic if Michael Ignatieff's latest love letter to Brian Mulroney is based on his agreeing with Mulroney's policies, or instead focused on their mutual agreement that all that counts is winning at all costs?

A teaching moment

Leftdog and others have rightly described the Sask Party's uranium development motion last week as a matter of mischief or nuisance rather than a serious policy issue. And that temporary effect went beyond creating at least a momentary division within the NDP, as it largely distracted the NDP's leadership candidates from presenting their vision for the province.

But fortunately, it doesn't seem to have taken long for the leadership contestants to get back on course. And Ryan Meili's education policy release today should help to push the discussion back toward where the NDP's potential leaders plan to take Saskatchewan. So with that in mind, I'll highlight what looks to be an important statement on one of the often-overlooked aspects of education policy:

Teachers—the heart and soul of the education system—deserve the opportunity to both improve upon their existing skills and learn additional and emerging skills throughout their careers. The central role of teaching needs to be recognized by providing pay that reflects the value of the work and the supports teachers need to do their work.
...
We need to find innovative ways to respond to the particular challenges of rural education. Many schools in rural Saskatchewan offer only a subset of the courses students need. For example, upper year science classes are absent in many schools in Northern communities. We will all be better served if local people return to their communities to become teachers, doctors and other professionals. We need to provide all students with access to the courses they need.

Not surprisingly, Meili covers plenty of more traditional questions about education policy as well. But greater recognition of the value of teaching may itself play an important part in improving Saskatchewan's education system - both to ensure that those currently in the role receive every opportunity to better themselves, and to attract more educators to increase the options available to Saskatchewan students.

Of course, one wouldn't expect too many candidates to disagree with the value of teachers in principle. But it's still worth highlighting the connection between the goals of the education system, and the people who dedicate their careers to achieving them. And the more any candidate keeps in mind the importance of the individuals involved in making any system work, the better that candidate's chances of being able to make positive changes within the system when the opportunity arises.

In order of precedence

The full CCPA report which I mentioned yesterday is now available. And in addition to dealing with my concern about accepting the Cons' estimates at face value, it also raises a few more important questions about the budget:

As the government’s 2009–10 fiscal year begins April 1, 2009, it stands to reason that the government expects almost all of its measures to begin within a month or two of that date. But that may be wishful thinking.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, for instance, worth $3 billion for Canadians who have the means to build a cedar deck on their cottage, flowed almost immediately following the introduction of Budget 2009. Such expedited funding shows how quickly funding can flow when government commitment exists.

In contrast, the hardest hit Canadians will have to wait longer than usual to see their benefit. The Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), the only tax measure for those making less than $25,000, does not get the same retroactive treatment as the home renovation tax credit for Canada’s cottage owners. Instead, the working poor will not be able to claim any additional support until early 2010, when they file their 2009 tax returns. As stimulus, it will be too little too late.

Changes in the Canada Child Tax Benefit and National Child Benefit supplement also do not receive expedited treatment. They will not be implemented in April when almost all other tax measures begin to be funded. Instead, those who live close to the poverty line and have children will have to wait until summer to receive their additional benefits.

The hardest hit in Canada are the first to face unemployment and sometimes bankruptcy, but they are the last to receive benefits from the government’s changes to the tax system.

Income transfers to low-income Canadians are also the most effective way to stimulate the economy through the tax system, based on Budget 2009’s own estimates. Low-income transfers are more than twice as effective as corporate or broad-based personal tax cuts. Yet the federal government is quickly implementing broad-based tax cuts that are least effective and procrastinating on those measures, like WITB, that have the largest stimulative effect on the economy.

Not that it should come as much surprise that the Cons' vote-buying efforts have been placed at the front of the line ahead of benefits for those who actually need them. But it's also worth noting how the Cons' timeline may influence the Libs' current calculations about when to pull the plug on the Harper government.

After all, the Cons' failure to actually get any benefits into the hands of Canadians who need them most would seem to make them vulnerable in the short term - particularly as they try to preach patience about a stimulus package which already falls short of dealing with the economic downturn to date. But it might be a lot more difficult for the Libs to vote non-confidence this fall just as the Cons' funding finally starts to trickle through to a slightly larger range of recipients.

Of course, the most likely outcome might well be for the Libs to find another excuse to keep propping up the Cons through the rest of the spring, then point to the start of funding as a reason not to force an election well into 2010. But it must surely be obvious that Canadians looking for federal leadership through a severe recession deserve better than a government which has chosen to slow down the flow of stimulus funds - and voters have every reason to be as impatient with the Libs who have chosen to keep the Harper government in power as with the Cons who have once again shown where their priorities lie.

The more things change...

The Hill Times offers up one more entry for the rapidly-growing list of failed Stephane Dion strategies which are getting reused for lack of any new ideas under Michael Ignatieff:

Liberal insiders told The Hill Times that Mr. Ignateiff (sic) is torn between those who say they have the momentum now and should pull the plug to capitalize on this opportunity, and those who argue that he should use the summer to raise money and build the party infrastructure for a successful election campaign. Another complicating factor that Liberals say could happen is that Prime Minister may pre-empt the Liberal leader by engineering his own defeat in order to fight the Liberals before they're ready.

Because if there's anything that makes an opposition party look strong and decisive, it's publicly waffling over possible election opportunities until the decision gets taken out of one's hands. Just ask Prime Minister Dion.

Leadership 2009 - Week in Review, April 5

With the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race headed into what may be the decisive stretch over the next few weeks, as the formal debates lead up to the membership signup deadline. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that some of us will be watching each development closely from an NDP perspective. But I'll use this edition of the Week in Review to highlight the fact that it isn't just NDP partisans who have a stake in the outcome - and to encourage participation in the leadership vote even from people who may not otherwise have any interest in NDP politics.

So why would it be worth the effort? I'd argue that taking part in the leadership vote figures to present the best opportunity for anybody with an interest in Saskatchewan politics to shape the direction of things to come.

For those who expect to decide between the NDP and any other party or parties in the next provincial election, the leadership race will do more to influence just what your choices are than anything else that happens between now and 2011. And indeed there's plenty of reason to think that a leadership vote will give you more incremental influence than any general election vote could.

After all, the number of voters may not be much more than that which would vote in a provincial riding. But a leadership vote will be sure to have a direct effect on a major party's future course, rather than going toward electing a single one of 58 MLAs in a legislative assembly whose composition is mostly determined in votes outside one's own riding.

And the leadership race may be even more important for anyone who might sympathize with the NDP in principle but hasn't been happy with its actions in practice. Not only will the leadership race provide you with an opportunity to make sure the NDP gets things right in the future, but you'll also have a chance to make common cause with others within the party who share your concerns regardless of the outcome of the race.

Of course, there may be a tendency to see party membership as a barrier to getting involved. But there's no reason in principle why politically interested but non-partisan voters shouldn't participate in shaping the face of political parties - much as already takes place in the U.S. presidential primary system. And the comparison is one worth making at a time when many on the Canadian political scene are lamenting the relative weakness in leadership on our side of the border.

With that in mind, I'll encourage current non-members - whether or not they agree with my previous take on the leadership race or the political scene as a whole - to sign up in advance of the April 24 deadline in order to be able to cast a ballot in June. And if the end result is to get more citizens thinking about the ideas being presented on all sides of the leadership race, then that's a result which both the NDP as a party and the province as a whole can only see as a positive.

From day one

It's definitely a plus to see the CCPA pointing out how obviously inadequate the Cons' stimulus package looks - not only based on the expected losses yet to come, but even compared to the actual economic damage at the time the Libs chose to pass the budget. But it's worth noting that the study may actually be overly generous to the Cons and Libs in relying on Deficit Jim and Recession Stephen's questionable assumptions to begin with:

The CCPA report said the estimated effect the stimulus package is supposed to have on employment was eclipsed the day before the stimulus budget was made public.

The government says its $29-billion stimulus package would maintain or create 189,000 jobs this year, and rise to 250,000 by the end of 2010.

The study says 296,000 people have been thrown out of work since the economic decline began in October, and that job losses hit 189,000 one day before Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stood up in Parliament to deliver his stimulus budget.

"The Conservative stimulus plan wasn't enough the day it was introduced and since then Canada has lost 106,000 more jobs and the economy has shrunk another 0.7 per cent," Macdonald said.

His study, which uses Statistics Canada figures, said the government's stimulus efforts don't even make up for the economic shrinkage that had occurred by the end of 2008.

While the size of the economy declined by $20 billion between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, 2008, the government estimates its package will add 1.6 per cent to Canada's real GDP, or a growth of $19.7 billion.

This means the economic impact of the stimulus package was "exhausted" by the end of December, almost one month before the government introduced the package, CCPA said.

Now, the problem with the numbers cited by the Cons is that they themselves figure to substantially overestimate the effects of the Con/Lib budget. As some of us have noted from the beginning, the largest dollar amounts within the stimulus are directed toward measures where they either won't generate new economy activity, or may not even be used at all. Which means that the actual effect of any stimulus from the budget may have run out far more quickly than even the CCPA estimates.

That said, it's certainly worth highlighting how inadequate the Cons' budget was from the moment it was presented. And that fact should offer all the more reason to doubt that either the Cons or their enablers within the Libs can be taken seriously by Canadians looking for a meaningful response to the recession.

On slanted reporting

Before going into detail about the the UDP's nuclear wish list, let's start with a few high-level observations.

To begin with, let's note the extended time frames involved in the UDP's assumptions and recommendations - and particularly how the report encourages snap decisions which would have serious ramifications extending tens or hundreds of years into the future.

When it comes to nuclear power generation, the report can't avoid acknowledging that the plant construction is prohibitively expensive up front compared to any other alternative. Which means that any attempt to justify nuclear power based on cost relies on a 50+ year time frame for plant operation.

But the UDP report which actually sees Saskatchewan's uranium reserves running out within that time frame. And when that possibility is combined with the suggestion that nuclear development will continue to expand elsewhere, there's little reason to think that operating costs will actually stay at currently-assumed levels - calling into question the conclusion that lower costs over time could justify the massive construction costs associated with a nuclear reactor.

Meanwhile, the time factor involved in the report's recommendation to encourage Saskatchewan communities to become nuclear waste depositories is even more striking. It surely isn't by accident that the report notes that a community wouldn't want to risk any existing resources by placing the site near them, and that any future development near the waste facility would likely be ruled out over a time period of centuries.

But even from the starting point that a waste disposal site would severely restrict any future development for the community involved, the report is wholly bullish on the idea. Which results in its recommendation that the province should push the efforts of any municipality which holds its nose long enough to ask to be the home site - with no apparent concern for the possibility that the decision might be a dangerous one in the longer term.

A second major theme worth pointing out about the report is its consistent focus on theory rather than practice - perhaps best epitomized by its statement on the role of the CNSC:

In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is responsible for ensuring the public, the environment, and workers are protected from any potential effects of nuclear energy and that all international industry guidelines are followed.

The CNSC operates as an independent agency of the Federal Government that reports to Parliament (via the Minister of Natural Resources). The agency has no role in promoting nuclear power and is split into a decision-making Commission Tribunal and a
staff organization including technical experts in nuclear safety and controls.

One of the main responsibilities of the Commission Tribunal is to run the nuclear licensing process. Before being granted a license or renewal, licensees are required to prove to the CNSC that their facility or activity is acceptably safe. The CNSC approach to safety assumes that nothing is 100 percent risk free, but that risk can be minimized through multiple layers of verifiable protection. When a facility is licensed, the staff organization supports the compliance activities (among other things) and ensures that domestic nuclear operators provide quarterly reports highlighting radio-active discharges.

Needless to say, anybody who's followed the actual operations of the CNSC over the past few years should have some serious questions about that description. To wit: what of Linda Keen? Political meddling in nuclear regulation? Discharges going unreported until well after the fact?

In the UDP report, the reality of how the CNSC has actually operated is conveniently whitewashed from the picture in favour of a depiction of the CNSC as a fully independent guarantor of nuclear safety. And the problem with a presentation of the CNSC is idealized terms rather than realistic ones isn't only limited to the current Con government. In general, any recommendation that the province should rely on federal actors to ensure nuclear safety is bound to carry some serious risk based on the federal government of the day - and the fact that we now have about the most problematic possible combination between the two levels of government only helps to highlight the point.

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from there as to how the UDP's depictions of other parties involved may similarly be based on wishful thinking rather than reality. And it's hard to imagine a starting point less compatible with a realistic assessment of the risks and opportunity costs involved in focusing on nuclear development.

That leads nicely into the last point which I'll make for now: while the report presents plenty of theoretical job and GDP figures associated with its proposals, it utterly ignores the question of how money and resources can otherwise be applied. Which may be entirely consistent with the UDP's mandate to cheerlead for the nuclear industry, but renders the report utterly useless as an assessment of nuclear development as compared to any other priority.

The reviews are in

Chris Selley:

Quite apart from the absurdity of the condition, Foreign Affairs itself had until recently been petitioning to have Abdelrazik’s name stricken from that list, citing all-clear verdicts from CSIS, the RCMP and Sudanese intelligence. Also, the blacklist doesn’t prevent anyone on it from returning home. Nevertheless, Mr. Cannon made it official yesterday: "I denied Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport on the basis of national security,” he said. No further explanation was forthcoming.

What the hell is going on here? The idea that Foreign Affairs is digging in its heels simply to avoid being seen to back down implies a lack of foresight and a level of sociopathy that I’m not willing to ascribe to Cannon, or to most cabinet ministers for that matter...

In case it actually needs to be said, the government knowing or suspecting something about a Canadian citizen isn’t enough to essentially exile him. Ottawa’s incredibly churlish behaviour on this file—endlessly setting conditions, then arbitrarily changing them when they’re met—brings the very foundations of government and citizenship into disrepute. It has to stop.

Mulronicons

As you'll see shortly, I'm in the early stages of using Photoshop to add a bit more visual punch to some of the ideas from this blog. Here's a first installment inspired by Michael Ignatieff's birthday greeting to Brian Mulroney.



As you may have guessed, I'm not entirely settled on a punchline. So additional suggestions are welcome.

On targets

I'll deal later with the less-than-surprising results of the Sask Party's attempt to push nuclear development on the province. But let's note that Dwain Lingenfelter's policy statement on the environment also came out yesterday - and while it doesn't figure to get as much public attention as the UDP report, it may have some interesting effects in both the NDP leadership race and the broader political scene:

Unfortunately, with per capita greenhouse gas emissions that are three times higher than the Canadian average and the highest of any Canadian province, we are not fulfilling our responsibility to protect our environment and show public policy leadership in embracing the green economy. I believe it doesn’t have to be this way. I believe there are public policy solutions that can make Saskatchewan a green economy leader.

In 2007, the NDP government moved to remedy this situation by introducing a comprehensive plan to secure our long-term economic prosperity through the setting of aggressive targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While the Sask Party committed to adhere to these targets during the last provincial election campaign, the Wall government scrapped the NDP’s climate change plan, and then refused to release a plan of its own. In a recent report, the David Suzuki Foundation congratulated the NDP for having put in place a “reasonably ambitious target for greenhouse gas emissions” but slammed the Sask Party for adopting the NDP’s target with “no plan or strategy to get there.”

Elsewhere too, the Wall government is moving our province backward on the environment. Brad Wall:

• Abolished the NDP’s $320 million Green Future Fund that provided funding for projects to fight climate change

• Eliminated the Saskatchewan Office of Energy Conservation

• Scrapped the Climate Change Secretariat

• Gutted renewable energy programs

• Bought his Cabinet Ministers brand new, gas-guzzling SUVs

Brad Wall’s Minister of the Environment has mused about not only backing away from the NDP government’s targets, but adopting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are even “less stringent” than the extremely minimal targets set by the Harper government.

Due to Brad Wall’s lack of leadership, Saskatchewan will fail to meet the NDP government’s target of stabilizing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and we will waste valuable time as other jurisdictions work to build their green economies and create green jobs...

Electrical generation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan and the decisions we make in this area will be key for our future economic prosperity as well as environmental sustainability. Instead of recognizing the important role that renewable energy plays in a vibrant green economy, the Wall government has halted the progress on renewable energy that had been made under the NDP. In doing so, Brad Wall is out of step with the rest of the world. All of the member countries of the European Union recently agreed that 20% of their energy consumption would come from renewable sources by 2020. Similarly, sixteen American states now have legislated a ‘renewable energy portfolio standard’ that requires a certain percentage of their future electrical generation to come from renewable sources.

Consistent with Peter Prebble’s 2006 report on Renewable Energy Development and Conservation, I believe Saskatchewan should legislate a renewable energy and conservation portfolio standard that will require at least 50% of our electrical generation to come from conservation measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro electricity by 2025. In order to reach this target, the provincial government should provide financial incentives to Saskatchewan communities to build small-scale renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass projects. These projects could sell their excess production to the SaskPower grid.

At the same time as Saskatchewan gets serious about building its renewable energy capacity, we should strengthen our energy conservation efforts. I believe we should introduce energy efficient building codes, provide larger grants and tax incentives to retrofit homes and businesses, and require the provincial government and municipalities to lead the way by improving their energy conservation practices. This should include a commitment to install solar panels or other renewable energy sources on all new public buildings and in all planned renovations of existing public buildings.

The first point worth noting about Lingenfelter's policy position is the angle it takes toward the Calvert government's efforts. I've mentioned a few times that to my mind, Deb Higgins figured to be the leadership candidate best positioned to take credit for (and stand up for) the legacy of the outgoing NDP leader. But with her campaign apparently placing the focus elsewhere, it looks like Lingenfelter is making a play for that position on the environment file at least.

In the absence of anybody else taking on the continuation of Calvert's legacy as part of their leadership message, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Lingenfelter tries to take on that role on more issues as the campaign progresses. While that type of move might seem to be counterintuitive, an effort to bring Calvert's more devoted supporters under Lingenfelter's tent (however unlikely that may have seemed at the start of the campaign) could well be as significant an incremental gain as Lingenfelter can expect to make now that his head start is over with. And that boost might in turn offer the best chance for Lingenfelter to try to get back toward a message of inevitability even in the face of three strong opponents.

Meanwhile, considering that it represents the most nuclear-friendly take among any of the NDP leadership candidates, Lingenfelter's policy position also figures to be an interesting one in response to the UDP's report. In particular, his endorsement of Peter Prebble's recommendations for Saskatchewan's power mix would seem to make Lingenfelter's stance incompatible with the UDP's recommendations. And with the Sask Party likely looking to hide behind the UDP rather than sticking out its neck with a separate suggestion as to what percentage of power it wants to hand to the nuclear industry, a firm commitment to that position could go a long way toward ensuring that the NDP ends up on the right side of the nuclear issue next time it gets debated in the Legislature.

Then and now

Shorter Cons last week:

Sure, funnelling $3 billion into a slush fund with no accountability except to a secretive and highly-partisan government might seem like a bad idea. But we pinky-swear to have oodles of federal accountability mechanisms in place.

Shorter Cons today:

We take absolutely no responsibility for how stimulus money is spent. Buyer beware, suckers.

CanWest math

Reality:

The latest numbers show only 40% of respondents approve of the Cons' handling of the economy, with 48% disapproving. And the Cons' approval rating is down to 38%, with 51% disapproving.

Which evidently has little overlap with CanWest World:

Like most Canadians, we are satisfied that Mr. Harper has handled the recession in a measured, serious way.

Musical interlude

Orbital - Illuminate

Selective comparisons

Shorter Jim Flaherty:

And furthermore, our government's track record for honesty and openness looks far better if your point of comparison is Apate, Greek god of deception.

The reviews are in

Paul Wells, with another in our continuing series of reviews which apply equally well to most files under the Cons' control:

“There’s nothing to hide, we’re sticking to the plan,” (the communications director who suppressed the Transportation Safety Board's report on the death of Laura Gainey) said. Well, not quite: the plan, as the new emails show, was to hide. So there was something to hide, but they were sticking to the plan.

This is unacceptable. The latest round of denials is as transparently false as the first several rounds of denials were.

For further study

While the Saskatchewan NDP caucus' handling of yesterday's nuclear development motion was definitely problematic, that's not to say the Sask Party is emerging unscathed on the issue. And indeed a couple of Lyle Stewart's comments from yesterday's question period hint at just how vulnerable they see themselves as being.

Remember that last year, Sask Party ministers happily joined Bruce Power in announcing both the start of its "feasibility study", and the government then declared its fealty to Bruce Power after the study was done. And of course all indications are that Bruce Power figures to be the main beneficiary of any actual nuclear development that takes place.

Which makes it rather stunning that Stewart is now trying to distance the Wall government from a study which it did so much to promote:

Mr. Calvert: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today have to do about the Bruce Power feasibility study. We‟ll come to the UDP [Uranium Development Partnership] in a few moments but right now we're talking about the Bruce Power feasibility study, of which many paragraphs and pages have been blacked out. But interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, some sentences that have been released have some points of interest. It is indicated by this document that the Bruce Power feasibility study began by public announcement on June 17. But
interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, this document indicates that the government was aware of the findings of that study by September 29 — September 29. Mr. Speaker, that's a period of about 15 weeks.

Does the minister believe a period of 15 weeks was an adequate time to do a full, comprehensive feasibility study about the future of a nuclear reactor or reactors in Saskatchewan?
...
Hon. Mr. Stewart:
...
Mr. Speaker, on that specific question, the answer is that that was Bruce Power's study. I don't know if that's enough time or not. It has nothing to do with this government.
...
Mr. Calvert: — So, Mr. Speaker, we are predicting then and planning the future of the electrical supply of Saskatchewan —
never mind what it might cost the electrical consumer in this province — on a feasibility study to which the minister now volunteers in the House that he's not sure if it's any good or not, Mr. Speaker. It's a very peculiar situation.
...
Hon. Mr. Stewart: — Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly in this House and in public forums and privately, this government was not responsible for the Bruce Power . . . whatever it was. Whatever it was.

Now, the contradictions in the Sask Party's position are certainly worth pointing out in and of themselves. But it seems even more noteworthy to me what Stewart's refusal to defend Bruce Power's report says about the province's relationship with the company which is driving the entire process.

After all, there's no indication that Bruce Power sees any problem with its feasibility study. Yet the Sask Party government is effectively conceding that it's so woefully inadequate - both in the limited amount of time involved and apparently its contents - that even one of ministers who proudly announced its creation has been reduced to describing it as "whatever it was".

On its face, that position seems to be based on an attempt to avoid answering for the contents of the study. But it raises an even more important question: if the Sask Party doesn't disagree with the conclusion that Bruce Power was hurried and sloppy in putting together a mere feasibility study, why in the world would the Wall government trust Bruce Power to run a nuclear reactor?

Bad for everybody else

The good news for Lib supporters: for one brief and shining moment, Michael Ignatieff actually took a principled stand based on common sense rather than parroting the spin of corporate interests...

Last weekend, on a tour of Vancouver Island, Ignatieff was asked about his position on asbestos, and he said he favoured banning exports.

"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware, but if asbestos is bad for Parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else," he said. "Our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

But needless to say, a complete reversal wasn't far behind:

But in a scrum with reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday, Ignatieff was asked about his statement and he didn't mention a ban.

"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."

It's left as a challenge for any reader to figure out how one can square the statement that Canada "has got to stop" exporting a "dangerous product" with the recent position. But that figures to be no less an exercise in futility than any other effort to justify most of Ignatieff's actions since he took over the Libs.

On one-sided votes

Apparently Saskatchewan's current NDP MLAs saw a different political calculus than I did in responding to the Sask Party's attempt to favour nuclear development over all other priorities. Rather than voting down a motion which seems like nothing but a poor attempt at political cover for Brad Wall's nuclear obsession, the NDP caucus (an abstaining Deb Higgins excepted) voted in favour of the motion.

Needless to say, that makes for a disappointing result - and one that presumably would have been different if Dwain Lingenfelter had joined his leadership competitors in raising concerns about the motion. But the good news is that with three of the four leadership contenders rightly opposing the motion, there's still a strong chance that the NDP will soon have a leader who recognizes the folly in prioritizing nuclear power over every other concern in the province. And while that may not take place in time to factor into the Sask Party's farce of a consultation period, it hopefully won't be too late to turn the tide before anything irrevocable gets done.

Ready. Aim at foot. Fire.

It won't come as much surprise to those who have followed my thinking on the federal gun registry that I'd view Michael Ignatieff's declaration that he plans to whip a Senate vote in favour of the registry as an utterly boneheaded stance. And it's doubly so to the extent that it actually feeds into two of the Cons' long-standing hobby-horses, as Harper will be able to blame the Senate for the move even though the strategy comes from Ignatieff himself.

But let's leave that aside for a moment to consider Ignatieff's timing.

After all, the gun registry has been in the news regularly over the past few months, revolving primarily around Garry Breitkreuz' Bill C-301 (which I discussed here). And even after the Harper government effectively signalled its approval for that bill - which would loosen other restrictions beyond the gun registry alone and also invite the Auditor General to criticize gun laws through regular audits - Ignatieff didn't bother to take a position one way or other.

Now, Ignatieff has been presented with a bill in the Senate which is mostly tailored toward doing nothing but dismantling the registry as it concerns long guns. But it's in response to that seemingly lesser threat that he's personally decided to whip his party's vote. And in doing so, he's also used phrasing which suggests that he doesn't see any basic difference between the two bills - which can only make it easier for the Cons to justify ramming C-301 down the Libs' throat (or at least appearing to do so for financial gain).

Again, that calculation is only made worse by Ignatieff's extra misstep in whipping the Senate vote rather than allowing the bill to be voted on by the elected members of the House. But there's plenty of reason to question why Ignatieff would attack both bills simultaneously now after leaving Breitkreuz' bill untouched for months. And the answer figures only to highlight the fact that Ignatieff has once again missed the boat.

Endorsed

Following up on my earlier posts about endorsements in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, let's add one more public show of support to the list, as SNDW President Leah Sharpe is included in Deb Higgins' list of supporters. Aside from Sharpe's statement (which seems to have been publicized only through Higgins' website), it's been an extremely quiet couple of weeks on that front - but we'll see how long that lasts as the candidates move into the stretch run to sign up party members.

The judicial reviews are in

Kelen J. of the Federal Court on Jason Kenney:

(I)n his 13-page ruling yesterday, Justice Michael Kelen said the minister "may have breached the duty of fairness" for not giving the group notice that an annual $1 million funding contract would be cancelled and for not providing the group with reasons for the cut.

"The court finds that the evidence to date demonstrates that the respondent minister did probably breach his legal duty to act fairly to the applicant," Kelen wrote.

"This is a serious issue, an elementary principle of administrative law, and the minister and his officials must act according to the law."

A step forward

There is some good news on the environmental front, as the Libs were apparently cowed enough by the backlash against their plan to abandon any binding targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions to vote in favour of the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act:

Climate change harmony has been restored between the Liberals, New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois and Ottawa environmentalists – for now.

The three opposition parties joined forces Wednesday afternoon, winning a 141-128 second reading vote on a NDP private members bill dealing with climate change. The bill will now be studied by the House of Commons environment committee.

New Democrats stirred up a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign over the weekend after receiving signals that Liberals intended to break ranks with a long-standing opposition pact on climate change targets.
...
"We're going to take this bill to committee and we're going to examine it. We're going to examine the targets," Mr. McGuinty said. "And we're going to rework it."

Whether the targets will be reworked up or down, Liberals aren't saying. But for now, all of this is fine with Mr. Layton.

"We're certainly open to fine tuning but this bill," the NDP leader said.

Mind you, it's not clear that the Libs' new position - to the effect that it's the targets within the bill that they want to see reworked - makes the least bit of sense given their rhetoric last week. After all, McGuinty's previous stance was supposedly based on disagreeing withthe idea of implementing binding targets at all without a complete plan to reach them - in effect holding any progress on the emission reductions hostage as long as Michael Ignatieff keeps the Cons in power.

But even if the Libs have contradicted themselves, they at least come out on the right side of the issue for today's vote. And hopefully they'll remain there as the bill continues on its way through Parliament.

Edit: fixed typos.

We've heard this one before

And the award for worst April Fool's joke of the day goes to...

Jim Prentice, for reusing the Cons' one-liner about planning to implement fuel efficiency standards that was unfunny enough the first time.

Poll position

All the usual caveats about reading too much into poll results are only amplified when a poll is taken early on in a race involving unfamiliar candidates. And Sigma Analytics' survey on the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race looks to be particularly problematic in that it seems to have polled the general public rather than the NDP members who will actually decide the leadership race. But there are still a couple of points worth noting about the results:

Relatively few Saskatchewanians are following the race for the leadership of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party, but among who are, the clear favourite is former cabinet minister Dwain Lingenfelter, a new Leader-Post-Sigma Analytics poll says.

He drew the support of about 62 per cent of those who expressed a preference.

Coming second was Moose Jaw MLA Deb Higgins with 16. 7 per cent, followed by Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili at 11.9 per cent and 9.1 per cent, respectively.

“I think that what you’re seeing is that Dwain Lingenfelter is a known name — and has been for a couple of decades,” said pollster Cam Cooper. “He’s kept up his profile even though he’s been away, so he’s sustained his position in the public consciousness whereas the other candidates have a much lower profile.”

It's difficult to disagree with Cooper's analysis that the numbers likely have far more to do with merely recognizing a name rather than detailed individual preferences. But it's worth highlighting how the candidates seem to have lined up in that department.

In principle, one would think that Higgins' profile would be relatively close to Lingenfelter's level. After all, in addition to being the lone current MLA in the race, she too has spent a substantial amount of time in cabinet, including some files which (for better or for worse) have placed her at the centre of attention at times. And of course her time in the spotlight was more recent than Lingenfelter's.

But from the looks of the poll results, Higgins doesn't seem to be benefiting from much more of a profile than relative newcomers Pedersen or Meili. Which would apparently serve as evidence either of strength on Lingenfelter's part in getting his name back in the news since the race started, or weakness on Higgins' when it comes to building up her public image.

Again, all of the candidates have reason to take the results with a truckload of salt. While there doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lingenfelter holds the lead, it would seem highly likely that his majority-plus in the Sigma poll is based at least in a part on a combination of name recognition with respondents who aren't following the race closely, and his relative right-wing position which might make him the preferred candidate of other parties' supporters who wouldn't be voting in the NDP race. But Sigma's findings do suggest that the competition behind Lingenfelter is far closer than might have been suspected - which can only bode well in giving all the candidates reason to keep the pedal to the floor as the membership deadline approaches.

The reviews are in

Carol Goar:

The only opposition leader who has put forward a clear alternative to the government's position is Layton. His New Democrats want every Canadian with 360 hours of paid work to qualify for EI benefits.

The NDP has been consistent on this issue since the budget was tabled on Jan. 27. Last month, the party put a resolution before Parliament, proposing this reform. The Liberals and Bloc Québécois supported it.

The Liberals said afterward they voted for "the spirit of the motion." Ignatieff would unveil his own proposals soon.

Last week, he accused Harper of "trying to patch EI with duct tape while evading the real issue, which is eligibility." When asked what he would do, he said it was the Prime Minister's job to govern.

Ignatieff has done this repeatedly. He could have proposed an amendment to the budget, calling for specific EI reforms, but didn't. He could have endorsed the substance of the NDP motion as well as the spirit, but didn't. He could have told Canadians what changes a Liberal government would make, but hasn't...

Unfortunately, neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc have enough votes in Parliament to force this issue. That puts the onus on the Liberals to spell out what they want and what they're prepared to do about it.

This is not a time for posturing. Canadians are losing their jobs at a rate of 3,800 a day. Many paid EI premiums, believing they were entrusting their money to the government for a rainy day. Now it's pouring and they can't claim it.

Finley doesn't want to hear any more "whining" about it. Ignatieff doesn't want to commit himself to anything concrete.

The EI system isn't the only thing that's broken in Ottawa.

Forum shopping

When Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen announced their plan for a joint La Ronge forum, I theorized that the other two Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates might see it as being in their interest to rely on each other for cover in not attending. But a source now suggests that Deb Higgins has confirmed her attendance at the April 14 forum.

That would then leave Dwain Lingenfelter's camp alone in trying to delay any northern appearance until after the April 24 membership deadline. As I'd noted before, though, Lingenfelter would seem to have a far more difficult time holding out with Higgins on board. And while it's never easy for a front-runner to be seen to back down, it would be surprising if Lingenfelter is so bent on pushing ahead with what looks to be a solo forum as to snub one which all three other candidates will be attending.