Multiple choice

Based on this painful excuse for a blog post, is Leader-Post Deputy Editor Online Kevin Blevins:
(a) angling for a patronage appointment with the Harper Cons?
(b) angling for corporate largesse from Bruce Power?
(c) actually a bot programmed to spew two-decade-old Reform talking points in conjunction with random news stories?
(d) or, engaged in a performance-art impersonation of one or more of the above?

On track records

Shorter Mia Rabson:

Shame on the NDP for actually exposing how little value Canadians get from the cost of the Senate. Why, how would they like it if anybody thought to track their own MPs' performance?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On destructive engagement

Impolitical is rightly skeptical about the Cons' attempt to pretend they're not the leading obstacle to a global climate agreement at Copenhagen. But let's remember that it's hardly new for the Cons to pretend to care about reaching an agreement while doing everything in their power to sabotage any effort to develop one.

Here's what the Cons said publicly all the way back in 2007:

Environment Minister John Baird says Canada will head to a UN climate change conference in Bali with a "solid" plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and will push for a "constructive" agreement with other countries to encourage global reductions.
...
Shortly before leaving for Bali, Baird told CBC News on Sunday that "we'll be arriving at this conference with a solid … plan to cut emissions here in Canada by 20 per cent by 2020 … and we want to work to get a constructive agreement, and such an agreement has to have countries, like the United States, China and India — all the big emitters — in order to be successful in this battle against climate change."

Yet here's what the Cons were found to be doing in the time since they shed crocodile tears over the lack of results in Bali:

The Harper government recognized last year that its plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions was extremely weak compared to other developed countries. As such, government documents show it devised a strategy that included trying to split European Union members and tying assistance to developing countries to binding emission reduction targets as part of a bid to influence international talks.
...
The Harper government's approach to international climate change negotiations has long revolved around two important positions.

The first is that any new framework and commitments post-2012 must include major emitters, especially emerging economies like India, China and Brazil. The government states that any agreement will be ineffective without major emitters, while there are concerns over the competitive advantage emerging economies will have if they don't need to reduce emissions.

Secondly, the EU and other developed countries have agreed to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent from 1990 levels. In contrast, Canada has made much lower commitments, which the documents admit will have ramifications going forward.

"Canada's negotiating challenge is compounded by the fact that our domestic goal for 2020 is a reduction of 20 per cent from 2006 levels (this is equivalent to roughly two per cent below the 1990 levels)," read several documents.

They also include talking points for Canadian officials warning their counterparts not to expect too much in negotiations for a post-Kyoto framework by the end of 2009.
...
Those were not the only messages prepared for Canadian officials and intended for officials from specific European countries. In fact, a great deal of the briefing notes dealt with trying to identify allies within the European Union who would press the bloc to require developing countries like India, Brazil and China commit to greenhouse gas emission targets along with developed countries.

Needless to say, nothing the Cons have done since then suggests that they've shifted from their long-held position of pairing a public facade of caring about climate change with desperate behind-the-scenes efforts to block any agreement. And if the Cons and their allies once again manage to put roadblocks in front of the global effort to reach a deal, then Harper should be at the top of the list when it comes time to dole out the blame.

On blackouts

With the Globe and Mail's latest report offering some important answers as to what it is that the Cons have been covering up when it comes to torture in Afghanistan, the focus figures to shift away from this weekend's discussion of the Cons' information suppression processes. But it's worth following up based on the spin the Cons have continued to offer up:

The Chronicle Herald sought clarification, first from the Defence Department, who handed the file to Justice late Saturday. Justice officials on Saturday provided an email describing, in general terms, the redaction process.

Justice said that the markers are held by "officials from the Department of Justice National Security Group," who consult with officials in the affected departments before deciding what to black out, guided by principles established by federal court rulings.

The Herald posed a followup question, asking whether the officials consulted in the redaction of the Colvin memos included political staffers.

On Sunday morning officials provided clarification.

"The consultations have not included ministerial staffers as these discussions take place between subject-matter experts at the working level," said an email from the Justice Department’s Carole Saindon.

Which means that the Cons have effectively admitted to exactly the kind of concern I'd raised in my earlier posts on the subject. In effect, the Cons have completely ignored the system of responsibility actually set out by law, instead setting up a catch-22 for anybody seeking to hold the Cons accountable for their suppression of important information.

If anybody asks the departments and their ministers who hold legal responsibility to decide about disclosure, they're saying the decision was actually made by Justice. And if anybody starts taking Justice to task for blacking out full documents, it'll surely take roughly two seconds for them to respond that their proposed redactions weren't final, and that it's ultimately a departmental responsibility to decide what will and won't be released.

Now, one's immediate reaction might be that there oughta be a law against that type of manipulation. But as I've noted before, there is: the precise purpose of establishing ministerial responsibility under the Access to Information Act is to prevent governments from carrying out the shell game that the Cons are now playing.

Once again, though, the supposed party of law and order couldn't care less how blatantly it flouts the law when there's a political calculation to be made. And if there's anything the Cons have learned to do even more efficiently than throw themselves in front of a camera to claim credit for anything popular (whether or not they had any role in it), it's to kick up dust around any damaging issue to obscure what's actually going on (whether or not they're obviously responsible). Which apparently counts as progress in the eyes of some pundits.

Meanwhile, there are other stories emerging about similarly questionable withholding of information from Parliament - with some vague allusions to "public interest" being spouted as justification for preventing Canada's MPs from holding the government to account. I'm not particularly familiar with the legal underpinnings of that process, but based on the Cons' behaviour when it comes to the public's right to know it seems highly doubtful that they have any remotely plausible position there either.

Fortunately, in this particular case enough information has found its way into the public eye that the Cons don't seem to have any chance of avoiding reality. But the lengths they've gone to - and the lies they've told - in order to cover up their actions on the torture file should leave zero room for doubt that the Cons are downright proud of sweeping wrongdoing under the rug. And it'll all too likely take a change in government for us to find out just what exactly has been hidden from sight.

The full court press

I've mentioned before my concern that the Libs' decision to back the Harper government on the HST might result in a free pass for the Cons. But between the website and radio ad unveiled last week and Jack Layton's media blitz today, there's reason for optimism that the issue will be kept alive at the federal level.

Now that the NDP is running with the issue, it's worth pointing out the apparent reasons why it is that the NDP's strongest push against the HST has started only after the Libs decided to take a stand with the Cons against the citizens of B.C. and Ontario. And the timing makes sense on two fronts.

Obviously, the first point is one related to relative political advantage. Before the Libs took their position on the issue, any NDP efforts might only have served to reinforce a Lib decision to oppose the HST. So it helps matters that the NDP can now be fairly well assured that it'll be the beneficiary to the extent any public outrage sticks to the Cons.

But the flip side is that to the extent the HST can serve as an issue which can turn popular opinion against the Cons, the NDP now knows that it'll be the lone party making that happen: either the NDP has to use the tools at its disposal to make the issue to stick to Stephen Harper, or the Cons will skate by completely unscathed for initiating an unpopular policy. Which makes the issue as much a responsibility as it is an opportunity for the NDP - and means that the party should be able to test its ability to sway the public on an issue which could hardly have been designed any better for its purposes.

The reviews are in

Murray Mandryk:

Premier Brad Wall's frightening problem right now is that he truly does think he can get out of the dark deficit hole he's dug by digging even deeper.

That won't work even if he does strike potash. You can't sell it in today's market, anyway.

Wall's conviction that the billion-dollar deficit his Saskatchewan Party government unveiled last month will magically turn around when resource revenues recover is an economic and political disaster in the making. It's accomplishing what the NDP has failed to do for five years now -- give credence to the notion that Brad Wall is Grant Devine, reincarnated.

That's because Wall truly appears to be suffering from Devine's affliction -- the need for just one more hit of resource revenue to give the government one more spending high.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

It took only a few days after the end of the Grey Cup for talk and action surrounding the Saskatchewan Roughriders to turn toward the team's plan for 2010. So let's take a look at the 'Riders' free agents as to who should be back, and who we can expect to see playing (or not playing) elsewhere.

I'll note that the outset that the classifications below aren't based solely on the quality of the players involved. Instead, the CFL's strict salary cap and the ready availability of import replacement players at many positions mean that the question of whether a player should be brought back is based on age/potential, import/non-import status and presumed salary expectations as well as current ability.

Must-Signs

RB Stu Foord - Young. Talented. Popular. Local. And not well-enough established to demand starter money - though the 'Riders might want to consider paying him something close to it in order to secure a long-term bargain from a player who seems ready to step into at least a co-starring role at a skill position.

DE Stevie Baggs - He'll presumably want star money after a season where he could easily have been the league's Defensive Player of the Year. But he's both highly talented on his own and a perfect fit for Gary Etcheverry's defence, so I'd expect the 'Riders to be willing to find room in the budget.

CB Omarr Morgan - Based on how rejuvenated he looked in 2009, Morgan should be able to lock down a corner for the 'Riders for several more seasons as long as the price is right - and since he took a hometown discount to return in 2008, that shouldn't be a problem.

Worth Bringing Back

S James Patrick - Experienced and skilled enough to be a leader in the 'Riders' secondary, but young enough to stick around for many years to come.

FB Chris Szarka - He'd actually have been a prime candidate to go elsewhere if not for his successful run for City Council. But it's hard to see him leaving Regina now, and that should ensure that his price stays low enough for the 'Riders to bring him back.

RB Wes Cates - The flip side of Foord being a must-sign is that the 'Riders have a tough call to make with Cates. As long as he doesn't mind being a 1A back (and paid accordingly) rather than a feature runner, he'd be more than worth re-signing for his blocking and pass-catching ability. But the 'Riders' can't afford another season getting less than 5 yards per rush out of their feature tailback, and they may need to let Cates walk if he still expects to play that role.

QB Steven Jyles - A reasonably talented and experienced #2 if Saskatchewan can't find anyone better in the offseason. But with the Lions figuring to cut at least one former starter loose (Jarious Jackson? Buck Pierce?) and the Argos having to decide whether they want to pay Kerry Joseph MOP money to back up Cody Pickett, I'd take some time to see who else might be available before locking in Jyles.

DB Eddie Davis - When Davis was injured in 2007, the 'Riders' defence went into a funk until he returned. When he was injured in 2009, the 'Riders barely missed a beat with Chris McKenzie taking Davis' place. Which isn't to say that Davis wasn't still effective, but it may be time to transition a younger and cheaper starter into the defensive backfield.

WR Gerran Walker - Walker proved to be an effective #4 receiver in the latter half of the season. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's looking to be more of a feature receiver than he'll ever be in Saskatchewan - and the 'Riders shouldn't be heartbroken to let their next set of receiver recruits battle Johnny Quinn for Walker's spot in the lineup.

Probably Looking Elsewhere

LB Tad Kornegay - An effective utility defender who found his way onto the West All-Star team thanks to games missed by the likes of Maurice Lloyd, Rey Williams and Jojuan Armour, making for what figures to be a substantial gap between Kornegay's value on the field and his contract expectations in what's likely to be his only chance to get paid like a star. For a reasonable cost the 'Riders should be happy to have him back, but I'd expect him to get at least one big contract offer - and the 'Riders can get far better value finding somebody else to fill the spot rather than matching the price.

G Marc Parenteau - An effective starter last season and reserve before that. But with Belton Johnson, Bobby Harris and (most importantly) Wayne Smith returning from injuries and Joel Bell firmly entrenched at the right tackle spot, Parenteau's starting job figures to disappear in 2010. And with the re-signed Chris Best added back into a deep pool of non-import reserves, the 'Riders won't have much need to pay Parenteau a premium to stay as a backup.

RB Hugh Charles - Charles has shown glimmers of ability the past two seasons, and is worth bringing back to camp if he doesn't have greater opportunities elsewhere. But he's a clear #3 on the 'Riders' depth chart behind Cates and Foord, and based on the success of three rookie RBs in 2009 there doesn't seem to be any lack of imports ready to perform as feature runners in the CFL.

LS Jocelyn Frenette - For two seasons now, the 'Riders have kept both Frenette and Kevin Scott on their roster. And while Frenette has done well to improve his effectiveness on the 'Riders' cover teams, it's time to cut down on the number of roster spots used for long snappers.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

What Paul said

Here. (Unless we're prepared to rewrite history so that the real villains of Watergate were the Democrats for having a hotel room worth breaking into.)

(Edit: fixed typo.)

The reviews are in

James Travers:

In short order and with scant regard for protocol or Parliament, Harper demonstrated the rich benefits of writing new rules.

First the Prime Minister left statesmanship ashore in Port-of-Spain by using the patrolling Canadian navy to take a wild, partisan shot at rivals for supposedly not supporting the troops over Afghanistan torture reports. Then he dropped the latest suspect economic stimulus update while flying high above Siberia and far away from scrutiny. Finally, MPs were at last given largely blacked-out prisoner transfer documents leaked days earlier to good media effect.
...
After learning the tricks of a dirty trade from the Liberals, Conservatives are now taking political gamesmanship to the next level by doing almost anything to win, even if that makes democratic practice the loser.

Prime ministers are constrained by convention and courtesy to leave domestic bickering behind when they go abroad. Parliament's defining duty to protect taxpayers is eroded when political theatre overwhelms economic disclosure. Public respect for MPs is lost when message management leaves them begging for information that's already yesterday's news.

On spinning heads

It's a pleasant surprise to see that Peter MacKay's dissembling on his responsibility for covering up damaging documents about torture in Afghanistan has actually received some follow-up. But it's particularly odd that the Cons are sticking to what could have been spun as simply a poor turn of phrase even after MacKay's department has acknowledged his clear statutory role:

In testimony before the Commons defence committee on Thursday, Mr. MacKay scoffed at the idea that there could be political interference in the censorship of the documents, as opposition critics suggest.

But his department said in an email Friday that the minister’s office is directing the lawyers in charge of blacking out documents.

"Instructions are given to Department of Justice counsel by the responsible minister and their officials," said an email from Josee Houde, a communications adviser at the Department of National Defence. "In this case, the responsible ministers and their officials are from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade."
...
Mr. MacKay’s spokesman, Dan Dugas, said late Friday that the email from the department changes nothing.

"The fact of the matter is ministers do not redact documents," he said. "Nor do they give direction on what is to be redacted. That is done entirely by experts in the matter and civil servants, who are trained and who have security clearances and have security of the country and people who act for it in mind."

Later Friday, Mr. Dugas said that the DND email was in fact not about redacting documents.

"The answer from department about minister giving direction had nothing to do with redactions," he said in an email.

Now, the issue as it's currently framed seems to be about whether any redactions were the result of "political interference", which is presumably why MacKay is still trying to point fingers elsewhere while running away from his explicit job description. So let's try to clarify exactly what we should be concerned about.

To the extent the issue is merely whether or not MacKay had any role in giving directions as to the redactions, there's no scandal involved in his having done so. In fact, it would be entirely expected that he'd exercise some form of oversight over an information management process for which he holds ultimate responsibility.

By the same token, though, there is serious potential for MacKay to be implicated in a cover-up in one of two ways. If he did give directions which resulted in important information being redacted without justification, then he bears direct responsibility for that. And if he failed to properly oversee the work of his department in handling requested information (i.e. by allowing some other group to make decisions which he should have made), then that too falls directly on him - particularly if paired with an actual torture cover-up in which the Cons' central command has dictated what information is released by departments which are supposed to hold independent responsibility for their records.

Musical interlude

Martin Roth & Bartlett Bros - Losing Gravity

Block the HST

I've noted before my concern that the Libs' decision to vote for the HST would effectively remove the issue from the federal political scene. But it's a great sign that the NDP is doing everything in its power to keep that from happening - which should prove a boon both for the NDP's political prospects, and for the chances of holding the Harper government up to proper scrutiny for paying off the provinces involved.

On hostile audiences

Congrats to John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) on his new place on the National Post's Full Comment page. But it figures to be a somewhat worrisome sign when a new recruit is announced with the following introduction:

Before everyone starts sending me nasty emails, think about this: There's nothing wrong with listening to other opinions; it's when you start agreeing with them that you need to worry.

Which raises the question: does it strike nobody else as odd that a media outlet would even consider highlighting opinions which (in its own view) weren't at least capable of being agreed with?

Mind you, the best possible result would be if more people come to agree with John's posts than anybody at the National Post would think possible. And I'll certainly be rooting for that outcome. But it seems rather counterproductive for everybody concerned for the editors to instruct their readers otherwise, rather than letting the public decide for itself based on the high quality of John's posts.

Previewing the holiday news dump

Saskatchewan's fall session of the legislature undoubtedly answered some key questions about the Sask Party. For example, on the all-important issue of whether Brad Wall's government can find its own ass with a map and a flashlight, the clear answer is that it can't even find the flashlight.

But there also more than a few questions which the Wall government failed or refused to answer over the last few months. So let's note a few of the areas where it seems likely that there will be some important news trickling out over the next few weeks (and seemingly conveniently timed to avoid any questioning in the Legislature):

The Revenge of TILMA. As Len Taylor noted on Monday, the Sask Party has signed onto the "Western Economic Partnership Agreement" with a promise to finalize the details by January 1, 2010 - but hasn't actually carried out a minute of public or legislative consultation. Which figures to mean that we'll see the agreement emerge fully-formed during the holidays with little to no intention on the Sask Party's part to allow the mere public to influence its contents afterward. (See Owls and Roosters for more information.)

The Nuke Question. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Wall and company have rightfully backed away from nuclear power. But at last notice, Wall was still promising a final decision whether or not to push ahead with nukes by the end of the year - and given that the Sask Party has already spun itself into knots trying to keep open the prospect of nuclear power, there may be reason to worry it's simply been waiting until it can avoid answering for the decision before giving the go-ahead.

Cutbacks to Come. In yesterday's question period, Dwain Lingenfelter made a seemingly reasonable request for answers to written questions about the Sask Party's plans to try to make up for their own fiscal incompetence. And Wall's response was to ignore the request entirely in favour of resuming his party's "don't worry, be happy" reaction to evidence that the province might have problems worth addressing. Which would seem likely to signal that the answers will be dished out in tiny pieces intended to slip under the radar over the holidays, rather than being provided at a time when the government would face direct questions.

All of which is to say that there's plenty of reason for suspicion that the holiday season will be a busy one on the Saskatchewan political scene. And we'll find out before long just how much worse off the Wall government can make the province during the legislative break.

The Hated Sales Tax

While the NDP may be alone among political parties in presenting a coherent case against the HST, it most certainly isn't lacking support for that position in the general public:

Three-quarters of Ontarians oppose the looming 13 per cent harmonized sales tax, suggests a new Toronto Star-Angus Reid Public Opinion survey.

In troubling news for Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberals, 70 per cent of the 1,162 people polled said their opinion of the government has worsened due to the HST.
...
The online poll also found that 76 per cent of respondents are familiar with the tax, which melds the 8 per cent provincial sales tax with the 5 per cent federal GST as of July 1. That means an extra 8 per cent tax on many items that are now exempt from it but are already subject to the HST.

The poll, conducted Nov. 23 to 26, is considered accurate to within 2.8 percentage points.

With 75 per cent opposing the tax and five out of six – 83 per cent – predicting it will make goods and services more expensive, it's clear the government's message that the business-friendly levy will boost the economy is not taking hold.

Of course, the McGuinty government's response is that public opinion will shift if it just repeats its patently false "job numbers" claims often enough. But from an outsider's perspective on both provinces, it looks to me like Ontario has actually had far more of a pro-HST slant in the positions presented publicly to date - making it highly unlikely that a greater focus on the issue from both sides will do anything but further entrench the current state of public opinion.

The reviews are in

Jim Coyle:

Oddly enough, or maybe not in the realm of politics, the players who received the least credit and attention in the recent sound and fury over Ontario's proposed harmonized sales tax are those who probably merit it most.

For consistency, persistence and dignity, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath and her colleagues were best in class over the last several weeks.

"I'm proud to be a New Democrat – the only political party that's consistent across this country on this nasty tax," Horwath said.

On that score, with the almost laughable reversal of roles of a Liberal premier who was once wary of the tax now imposing it, and an opposition Progressive Conservative party once in favour of the tax railing against it, she could hardly be contradicted.

In almost every question period, Horwath brought the voice of the common man and woman in Ontario to the Legislature, outlining how the HST would impact Pam from Exeter, or Rick from Aurora, or Ron from Port Rowan.

It was a New Democrat's ideal fight – standing up for ordinary folk against the easily understood impact of a tax shift from corporate Ontario to consumers.
...
Horwath's attack was focused, sustained and – unlike her PC counterparts – grown-up and constructive.
...
They offered to extend the current sitting to Dec. 22 in order to accommodate public hearings. They received no formal response from the government. The day two Tory MPPs hijacked the Legislature, NDP House Leader Gilles Bisson tried to broker peace.

In the end, Ontarians won a little more time to have a say on the HST, thanks to an NDP-brokered compromise, leveraged through an artful exploitation of Legislature rules rather than their blatant flouting.

On responsibility

It isn't exactly news that the Cons' spin to avoid responsibility for possible torture in Afghanistan has ranged from implausible to insulting. But Peter MacKay's excuse as to why nobody should blame the Cons for the fact that their well-documented pattern of government-wide secrecy is being applied in particularly egregious fashion to documents related to torture in Afghanistan looks to be a particularly ludicrous one:

Earlier in the committee meeting, however, Mr. MacKay tried to explain the rationale for blacking out the documents:

“The decision around redaction or editing – if you will, because I think a lot of people are perhaps not familiar with the word redaction – those decisions are not taken by politicians or ministers. Those decisions are taken at an arms length level by officials, trained officials, officials with national security clearance aided by the Attorney-General’s special department on national security.

So what's wrong with that statement? Under the Access to Information Act, ultimate responsibility for the treatment of records under the control of a government institution lies squarely on the "head" responsible - which in the case of any federal department means "the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada who presides over the department or ministry". In other words, the entire basis of the accountability structure in Canada's access to information system is to make ministers responsible for the disclosure - or non-disclosure - of information in the hands of a department.

Now, it's true that a head is able to delegate that power - and nobody would expect that MacKay himself pored over any of the documents now being withheld to determine what to black out and what to disclose/leak. But that still results in a system in which it's a minister's authority that's being exercised by his or her choice of delegates - with ultimate accountability lying with the person originally charged with the task.

Which is to say that if MacKay's statement were true based on any even remotely meaningful definition of "arm's length" (implying a complete lack of political oversight over the redactions, rather than express political accountability for them), it would represent a stunning shift in responsibility for the handling of information.

Of course, MacKay's statement doesn't figure for a second to reflect any actual "arm's-length" decision-making about the treatment of information. But the fact that the Cons have such utter contempt for the concept of responsible government that they're willing to lie about their own job descriptions by pretending that their statutory obligations are outside the realm of political responsibility looks to be a particularly dangerous sign - particularly if it isn't answered with an immediate rejection of the assertion that ministers can get away with inventing non-existent "arm's-length" relationships to escape their duties.

The reviews are in

Eric Howe via Murray Mandryk:

One of the province's foremost economists says the Brad Wall government is suffering from the same mindset that plagued the Grant Devine government and added $10 billion in debt in 10 years.

University of Saskatchewan economist Eric Howe -- whom the Saskatchewan Party government recently praised for insisting that this province had avoided the recession -- said in an interview Wednesday that the current government has a spending problem and not a resource revenue problem caused by falling potash sales.

"If I were to ask the Finance Minister (Rod Gantefoer) one thing, it would be: 'Where did the money go?' " Howe said Wednesday, adding that the Devine government also blamed its deficits on recessions even when Saskatchewan wasn't in recession.

Just three years ago, the provincial government had only $8 million in revenue and still managed a billion-dollar surplus, Howe noted. Even with the $1.8-billion decline in potash revenue from what was projected in the March budget, the mid-year financial statement shows that the government still has $10 billion in revenues.
...
Describing himself to be as "fiscally conservative as anyone you'll ever meet," Howe said the Saskatchewan Party government has dug itself a "fairly deep hole" -- the largest deficit the province has seen since the Progressive Conservative government's last budget in 1991.

On wedge issues

The Cons may have picked up a reputation for building their political base by adding key groups into their core support. But it's worth wondering whether their decision to slash funding for ecumenical social justice group Kairos might manage to accomplish just the opposite. After all, Kairos' list of partners doesn't exactly look like a list of organizations that the Cons would want to be facing as adversaries:

Kairos represents, among other organizations the United, Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches, the Mennonites and the Quakers.

And there's an even wider group of organizations involved in the climate change work which seems to have drawn the Cons' ire:

Last May, a Kairos delegation of church leaders toured Alberta's oilsands region to see how the projects are affecting aboriginal people and to help determine if they are environmentally sustainable.

The delegation included leaders from the Anglican, Christian Reformed, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian and United churches, as well as representatives from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

So might the Cons' effort to silence anybody seeking real action on climate change serve only to drive plenty of voters of faith out of their own camp?

On board games

If last night's post didn't say enough about the Sask Party's complete lack of any idea what it's doing in government, consider this: Bill Boyd may not have been the most prominent member of Brad Wall's cabinet to show the most ignorance of his responsibilities in just the last week. Simple Massing Priest has the details paraphrasing a sudden revelation to Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer:

Pat Atkinson: When did you find out about this 40 million?

Rod Gantefoer: I'm not sure. Let me check. [confers with officials] I'm informed at mid-year.

Pat Atkinson: After the money is spent?

Rod Gantefoer: I take the member's point. That's probably not a good thing.

Trent Wotherspoon: But who is actually on the board? Who approves spending the money?

Rod Gantefoer: I don't know who is on the board, let me ask. [confers with officials] I'm informed that the two members are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

...
That's right. Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer does not realize that he is one of two people on the Saskatchewan Municipal Finance Board. Neither does he remember what he has done as a member of that board.

If there's any good news to be found, it's that with the NDP's help in committee, the Sask Party's highest-ranking cabinet members seem to have finally discovered at least a small amount of what their jobs actually involve. And all after only two and a half years in office.

But it's hard to escape the sense that the province would be far better off cutting out the middle man so that the party with some idea what's going on is actually in charge - rather than leaving the province's finances in the hands of a Finance Minister who can't be bothered to find out for himself what his duties are.

Uninformed

Last month, I noted that Bill Boyd is apparently the lone Sask Party MLA or member who Brad Wall trusts to carry out tasks more complex than tying his own shoes. Now, we learn that any such trust in Boyd looks to have been another example of the Sask Party's unwarranted optimism.

Here's Boyd - the Minister responsible for SaskPower, appearing before the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies to discuss a revised SaskPower borrowing estimate - trying to figure out just what it is that he was summoned to discuss in response to NDP MLA Trent Wotherspoon's justifiable skepticism at being told borrowing was actually going down:

Mr. Wotherspoon: —...So just to make sure we understand here tonight, we’re looking at vote 152, which looks at increasing borrowing by 64.5 million. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — The borrowing is 598.

Mr. Wotherspoon: — So the borrowing for the year is 598?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — I’m not sure. Let me just check this for a moment, please.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Member, indeed you are correct. Vote 152 is for 64.5 million.

Mr. Wotherspoon: — So just to make sure we understand that. I maybe misunderstood the preamble at the start, but I believe I heard that there was going to be a reduction from the original budget that was 598.7 million in the original budget document this year. This estimate here, to my understanding, then reflects that we have an increased pressure or increased need of borrowing on top of that of 64.5 million. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — Well the supplementary estimates would deal with a certain period of time and the balance would be within the rest of the year.

Mr. Wotherspoon: — So in the preamble, there was a discussion about a reduced need to borrow, I believe, on behalf of SaskPower?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — That’s correct. The original borrowing forecast was $598 million over the 2009-10 period. For that entire forecasted period of time, now the borrowing need is down to $516 million. But this particular estimate, the supplementary estimate is accurate at the 64.5, 64.5 million.

Mr. Wotherspoon: — So then am I correct to assume that we have the original budget estimate of 598.7 million; we’re adding this amount of debt to that in this budget year; and so we’re at 663 million this year of borrowed dollars?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — Mr. Chair, members, we’re going to ask for some additional folks from SaskPower to provide some information on this. We want to make sure that we are providing the committee with the proper information with respect to that. And there seems to be some concern that we may not have the correct information with us.

The comptroller is being called for right now. So, Mr. Chair, committee members, with your indulgence, if you could perhaps move to some other questions. We’ll certainly supply that information as soon as it becomes available.

That's right: in a committee appearance to discuss an increase in borrowing for SaskPower, with the Finance Minister having already announced the higher borrowing figure, Boyd had to turn to the staff appearing with him to figure out whether any increase in borrowing was actually happening.

But surely it couldn't be that difficult for a high-ranking cabinet minister and his choice of qualified civil servants to figure out whether the single number under discussion was set to go up or down, right? Well, let's check in about halfway through the same meeting:

Mr. Wotherspoon: —...I would like to get to the actual discussions around the estimate here tonight. And so the Chair’s wanting us to cut to the chase. I would look to the minister, if there’s any clarity at this point in time. I know when I came in with the budget book here tonight, I was looking to question an increase of $64 million of borrowing. Now the minister suggested here tonight that that estimate book is incorrect and that . . .

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — No. I didn’t suggest that.

Mr. Wotherspoon: — Okay. Though my understanding was though that the borrowing needs here for the current year will not be 598 million but 519 million, which would mean that we should actually be looking at a reduction here tonight in the borrowing needs of SaskPower.

So we have quite a difference between those two numbers, a $64 million increase or a reduction of the amount that the minister has discussed. Do we have any clarity on those numbers yet at this point?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — The SaskPower officials are working on that information right now, and we’ll have it as soon as it’s available.

Yikes. But surely by the end of the meeting Boyd would at least have figured out the concepts of "up" and "down", right?

Mr. Wotherspoon: — Mr. Minister, thank you for the clarity that we will receive. That’s very important. But we’re also going to need the process that was similar to what we had laid out here tonight — that being a committee structure and some time to look at whether or not we’re looking at a reduction in borrowing, as the minister suggests, or an increase in borrowing, as the Minister of Finance suggests.

So in either event, Mr. Chair — specifically I guess, if there’s an increase because that’s where a supplementary estimate would then come into effect — we’re certainly going to need and be required to have that time. And it would only be fair to the people of Saskatchewan, many who will be watching here tonight, to be provided that time. So I guess I look to the minister to offer that commitment to this committee.

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — We’re prepared to provide the information as it becomes available through the SaskPower officials.

So there you have it: the Sask Party's Minister of Everything - the man responsible for determining whether to rush forward with nuclear development - the man charged with running the Sask Party's 2011 campaign - isn't quite well enough acquainted with his ministerial responsibilities to figure out the answer to a single yes-or-no question during the course of an hour-and-a-half committee meeting convened for the sole purpose of discussing it.

But have no fear: Boyd does appear to have at least offered the NDP another crack at the estimates which so baffled him. And that should prove much more productive - at least until somebody has to stop the meeting to help Boyd out with the significance of the S with a vertical line through it.

(H/t to a reader.)

The reviews are in

Rafe Mair's latest column features enough provocative statements and theories that few readers will have trouble finding something to disagree with. But it also raises some noteworthy possibilities - especially if the HST remains as powerful an issue in B.C. as it's been so far to go along with Mair's proposed focus on environmental issues:

We may be seeing what no person in his right mind would have dared speak of just a handful of years ago. I speak of the chance that the NDP may overtake the Liberals as the government in waiting. It could happen. Indeed it may already have happened.
...
Under Jack Layton the last three elections have show some promise for the NDP. In his first election he got 19 seats. This moved to 29 in 2006 and 37 in 2008. The fact remains that the NDP has a long way to go in order to be the opposition but with some luck and skill it could happen.
...
Layton faces an uphill struggle and if he's to move up the ladder and pass the Grits he must do better in Quebec and Ontario, make headway in Atlantic Canada and really do well in B.C. In order to do that, the federal NDP must do better -- much better -- in rural B.C., which has become a Tory stronghold. This is where Carole James comes in.
...
Our environment isn't a casual chip to be used in the great game of making money for money's sake. We're dealing here with a moral and ethical issue. Do we sacrifice our waters and our fish not even for our own profit but for others who have no stake in our province?

This is where Carole James comes in...My sense of it is that James knows that and, if she is listened to, will provide the boost for Layton’s campaign that it will need. She's liked and respected, personally is a good campaigner and unlike most of her caucus, understands these issues.
...
Layton will learn, if he listens, that the best weapon Kim Il Campbell has going for him is that people are reluctant to believe that any government could be this insensitive and indeed stupid. They are that insensitive and stupid and I offer as proof, as if proof were necessary, Mair's Axiom I, namely that you make a very serious mistake if you assume that those in power know what the hell they're doing.
...
Layton might find comfort from Mair's Axiom II, namely that you don't need to be a 10 to win in politics, you can be a three if everyone else is a two.

At the worst, Jack Layton is a three in a sea of twos and with a little self-education on the Fraser Institute-inspired ravaging of our bountiful home could turn that into a big plus both for him and for the British Columbia we love.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Since the ol' browser tabs need some clearing out...

- Tom Bradley comments on how the HST will affect the financial sector:

Canada's regulatory patchwork, cut up by geography, product type and ancient history, has already inadvertently shaped how investment products are designed and sold. Structured products, for example, fall between the regulatory cracks and have been given freer rein to make marketing claims and obscure their fees and risks. A whole industry has been built around this regulatory arbitrage (playing one off against the other).

The HST will distort the industry more broadly, however, because some financial services are HST-able, while others are not (Note: The tax experts I consulted with are cringing at the simplification). The relative competitiveness of every product on the shelf will be affected, some good, some bad. The inequity lies in situations where there are products that are indistinguishable as to their objectives, risks and underlying investments that sit on opposite sides of the HST line.

- Devin points out what Stephen Harper used to consider contempt of Parliament until he decided to engage in it himself.

- Michael Geist makes Tony Clement's weird decision to point to a frequent critic of his government as the leading authority for those interested in copyright issues into all the more of a head-scratcher.

- And of course there's the latest from Brian Topp's series on the progressive coalition - with this instalment detailing the negotiations between the Libs and the NDP on the composition of a coalition government. For those of us who remember the outcome, it's especially remarkable that the NDP seems to have ended up getting more than it asked for originally: six seats in a 24-member cabinet along with six parliamentary secretary positions, rather than eight cabinet seats alone.

Epilogue

Last week, I pointed out Joe Comartin's valiant attempt to make sure that the Cons couldn't ram through a bill by refusing to provide information they'd promised to the opposition parties - as well as the subsequent disappointment when the Libs voted to rush the bill through anyway. Well, the story seems to have come to a close with an admission that generally looks to have been noticed nowhere other than on the pages of Hansard:

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of privilege that was raised by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh related to information that he sought at parliamentary committee from the head of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head. This information was to be conveyed by Mr. Head on a timely basis for consideration before the matter was dealt with in Parliament. It was provided to my office. It was conveyed to the hon. member and to others. However, that was not done on the timely basis it should have been done. There is in fact no good reason why it was not done on a timely basis, and for that reason I come before you to apologize unreservedly to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and to the House for the failure to provide those documents. While he did have them early enough, they were not conveyed in the proper fashion and it should have been done properly and I apologize for that.

Now, Van Loan conspicuously avoided saying when the documents actually were passed along, or offering any explanation as to why they were sent to his office for vetting in the first place. But at the very least, Van Loan's statement yesterday confirms that the Cons' failure to provide promised information prevented the opposition from doing its job in properly vetting the bill.

Unfortunately, that also offers a signal that the Libs' decision reflects an abdication of their own role in holding the government to account for wrongs that even the Cons can't avoid acknowledging now. Indeed, if anything the Libs' actions send a signal that the Cons are better off covering up everything they can in the short term and daring the opposition parties to do anything about it, rather than allowing anybody on opposition benches to do their job in the first place. And it shouldn't come as much surprise if the Cons end up stonewalling even more than they might have otherwise on the Afghan detainee file and other issues as a result.

Update: Fixed timeline - it seemed longer than a week ago that the issue first arose, but apparently not.

On outcasts

Sure, we all know that the Cons have gone out of their way to turn Canada into an global pariah on climate change, and may have some inkling that they're doing the same when it comes to torture and Middle East relations. But Erin only hints at the fact that they're doing the same in another rather important area of international reputation:

Japan defines tax havens as countries whose corporate taxes amount to no more than 25% of profits.

How will the Canadian subsidiaries of Japanese companies be affected if and when Canada completes legislated plans for a combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate of 25%?

This makes for a particularly important question in light of Deficit Jim Flaherty's explicit goal in trying to brand Canada:

In a speech to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, Flaherty challenged provinces to help him create a Canadian "brand" for business taxes by reducing their take of corporate profits.

"I've challenged the provinces to drive down their business tax rates to 10 per cent by 2012," he said during his speech.

Flaherty said by combining that with a 15 per cent federal rate, he would "brand our country globally as a 25 per cent business tax jurisdiction."

In sum, then, Flaherty is actively working to have Canada turn into the equivalent of the Cayman Islands as a country which deliberately sets tax rates outside the accepted range of reasonable policy. And the result is that Japan and any other country which seeks to discourage tax avoidance will end up imposing penalties on companies based in Canada. (Not to mention that Canada will itself create a relative advantage for companies whose main priority is tax avoidance - and a concurrent disadvantage for those which actually accomplish anything useful.)

Well said

While the Cons are trying to get one last rerun out of their anti-coalition hysteria (featuring the least threatening attack graphic ever), Fred Wilson points out some lessons actually worth learning from last year's events:

I think we learned why progressives should favour coalition politics over the “big tent” strategy. In every case that I know of where social democratic or Liberal “big tents” have formed governments, they have implemented neo-Liberal policies, marginalized progressives, and shattered the hopes of social change activists. The coalition brought forward a program developed explicitly in opposition to the neo-liberal agenda at that time, and provided major roles and real influence for progressive voices. Yes, it is possible to achieve political breadth without eviscerating everything you stand for.

We also learned that Canadians are very open to coalition politics, provided that parties are open and transparent with them. One of the noteworthy analyses of the coalition was that original hostility to the coalition turned more favorable after a period of public discussion. Strategic Counsel polls for the Globe and Mail on December 5, 2008, showed 58% opposition to the coalition and 38% support. By January 15, support for the coalition had increased to 44%. An EKOS Globe and Mail poll published January 21, six days before the budget, showed support for a coalition government at 50%.

Unfortunately there are some lessons we didn’t learn, and for me chief among these is the centrality of Quebec for the future of the Canadian left. I was excited by the coalition, because it included the Bloc Quebecois. The coalition did not envisage Bloc ministers, but it did contemplate a working relationship towards shared social and economic goals.

There are some who see the relationship with the Bloc as the achilles heel of the coalition -- but I believe they could not be more wrong. First, there was no coalition possible without the Bloc’s support. Second, 80% of Bloc supporters in Quebec supported the coalition and showed by their support the possibility of a new unity between English and French progressives, and ultimately the basis for a truly representative bi-national Canadian government.

On giveaways

I very much hope CuriosityCat is right in theorizing that the Libs' decision to vote with the Cons on the HST will operate to the federal NDP's benefit. But while I'd think it's probably safe to say the Libs managed to give away seats one way or another, I'd worry that the result might be something else entirely.

Particularly with Ignatieff mirroring the Harper government's language framing the issue as a "request from the provinces" (while glossing over the $6 billion in federal bribes to push the provinces to comply with Deficit Jim Flaherty's wishes), I wonder whether the effect will instead be to direct public anger over the HST toward the provincial scene rather than the federal one. That could end up producing an increased backlash against the provincial governments which the Libs are trying to appease - while taking the Cons completely off the hook for one of the few issues which has actually raised public anger during their stay in office.

On preparation

Brian Topp has already put up two entries in what's sure to be a much-analyzed series of posts about the development of the progressive coalition. But what jumps out so far is the contrast in planning between the two parties who entered into the coalition.

Here's Topp on the NDP's course of action after Jim Flaherty introduced his FU to the country:

“CTV is reporting that the per voter public financing scheme is to be cancelled in tomorrow’s update,” he wrote. “I believe that the Liberals could be tempted by our earlier proposition, faced with such a catastrophic proposal. Self-preservation could provoke out-of-the-box thinking. I would like to discuss having you re-open your line of communication with your contact.”
...
I took a bit of time before replying to our federal leader’s email, to get my mind around the idea we were going to try to reactivate our coalition proposal (we had floated the idea of replacing the Conservatives through a coalition during the 2008 election and then again earlier that fall, and had been rebuffed by the Liberals, who were now focused on a new leadership convention).
...
“What is the state of the ‘letter’ that we had been considering sending to the political leaders?” Layton asked me at 7:24 a.m. via his BlackBerry. “Was there a list of legislative initiatives that would form the basis of a relationship? (such a list would have to be revised in light of emergency in any event).”

Layton was referring here to a draft letter, never sent, which we had planned to present to Stéphane Dion on election night had the numbers justified it, proposing a coalition government.
...
“He said the Liberals are voting against. It would seem this might be real!” I wrote to Layton and McGrath (4:52 p.m.). “Indeed,” Layton replied (4:56 p.m.). “I intend to meet him tonight to start the process. He’s saying no because he knows our option can work and that Duceppe will support it. Good job we were prepared.”
...
I was also suggesting Mr. Layton think about his working group. I hoped that the members of our “scenarios committee” (a study group that included chief of staff Anne McGrath, former federal leader Ed Broadbent, former Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney, and myself) would be part of our bargaining team, since we had spent many hours thinking about these issues over the past four years. In the alternate I wanted to be cleanly severed from the process so that I could stop thinking about it.

In other words, the NDP had been ready for the possibility of a coalition for some time. Not only had it raised the topic with the Libs at times previously after having thoroughly discussed the possibility internally, but it actually had a letter prepared to go to the other opposition parties to set the steps in motion to replace the Cons.

Mind you, Topp can only shed so much light as to the Libs' response. But all indications seem to be that they weren't able to do much other than react to the NDP's preparations. They did eventually demand a shift in the numbers of allocated cabinet seats, but don't appear to have made any fundamental changes to the plan that the NDP put forward - and of course it was the Libs' lack of preparation to put together a first set of communications about the coalition that helped to derail the initiative before Michael Ignatieff killed it off.

And Tim Naumetz offers some of the explanation as to why the Libs have indeed been unprepared to deal with developments as they've turned up:

(From 1988 to 1993 there) were no elections, no chances of an election, and none of the temptations and internal struggles that precede or follow an election with the prospect, a dream or not, of winning back power.
...
"I was in opposition from 1988 to 1993," said Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan, Ont.) in an interview with The Hill Times. "I know the work we did, we had the Aylmer conference, everybody in caucus was beefing up, everyone was travelling, travelling to help other candidates. There was a sense of clear direction."

He said the inevitable turbulence for the Liberals under three minorities in a row can only contribute to party instability, especially with two losses in the same period. "What happens in a minority situation is you always think you're months away from winning an election or at least attempting to win. After you've been in power, you obviously think you're going to be (back) in power soon. These minority governments didn't allow us the time to say, 'Look, we have a certain period that we need to re-focus, reshape, re-think, reinvigorate the party and that should have been, perhaps, more of a priority than it was. Today, we would have been probably in year four of the rebuilding process. What these minority governments have done is interrupted that."

Now, Naumetz' focus is on party-building issues rather than political scenario development. But it would stand to reason that the same factors are at work when it comes to the strategic political planning which is vital in a minority Parliament.

While the NDP has been able to develop response plans to deal with all types of political developments, the Libs haven't been able to do much but scramble to respond to what the other parties have put on the table. And that's created a vicious cycle for the Libs, particularly when the agenda is largely being driven by a governing party which enjoys nothing more than backing its opposition into a corner.

Of course, the Libs are hoping that they'll have more time now. But all indications are that they're still making things up on the fly rather than having even a single consistent direction, let alone any planned options to change course. And the fact that they're once again starting from scratch under the direction of a new chief of staff would suggest that they'll face plenty more important choices before they've had a chance to plan out any strategic responses.

Ouch

Kent compares the Sask Party's "guiding principles" to its track record in office. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that the results are...well, not pretty to say the least.