The Wall government's move to make personal health information available for fund-raising purposes has been duly panned as a matter of privacy. But there's an even more worrisome message being sent about the Sask Party's preferred funding model for health care.
After all, there wouldn't seem to be much reason to change provincial regulations to facilitate begging patients for money if that step wasn't combined with an expectation that health foundations will make use of the opening to fund more of the province's health care through that system. And particularly in the wake of the Sask Party's broken promises in funding a children's hospital and other plans to restrict public spending on health care, that has to raise questions about the Wall government's apparent preference for treating health care as a matter of private charity rather than public responsibility.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
On legacies
Shorter Harper Cons:
What better way to preserve one of Canada's richest ecological areas in the Arctic than to cover it in a thick layer of nourishing crude oil?
What better way to preserve one of Canada's richest ecological areas in the Arctic than to cover it in a thick layer of nourishing crude oil?
The reviews are in
Murray Mandryk on how the Harper Cons are hurting Saskatchewan by taking its voters for granted:
To listen to Regina-Qu'Appelle MP Andrew Scheer smugly tell us that the federal Conservatives are just being prudent in not supporting things such as a new stadium in Regina even as they are pouring billions into Ontario and Quebec is a little too much to take.
The reality is that we have a prime minister who places little value in any promise or commitment that doesn't yield the additional seats he needs for a majority government.
And he's already got about as many Conservative seats out of Saskatchewan as he will get.
The other truth is that we've elected a bunch of Conservative MPs who put their party's interests -- and perhaps their own cabinet aspirations -- ahead of standing up for Saskatchewan and the people who elected them.
So when the Conservatives come knocking on your door with their list of what they've supposedly done for you, you might want to remind them of what they haven't done.
A lost perspective
If anybody wasn't already saddened by the announcement that the Sasquatch's March/April issue will be its last, there's reason to be all the more so in noting the last response in Shayna Stock's interview with NDP leader Jack Layton:
Keep up the good work. I mean, how many times have I sat down with people who’ve said, “What we need is our own press!” You know, a press that will bring a critical perspective to our work too, which I can tell that you’re willing to do, and I think that’s vital.
A brief response
So the main response to the a Nova Scotia NDP budget which necessarily changes the provincial financial picture from the one Rodney MacDonald claimed to the one Darrell Dexter actually found seems to be "if you were really against the HST, you wouldn't run to govern a province where we imposed it!!!1!eleven!"
Needless to say, I don't see the spin as deserving of much rebuttal. But suffice it to say that there's a huge difference between making an unnecessary choice to change a provincial tax structure to relieve corporations of the obligation to pay consumption taxes while increasing the burden on citizens, and making needed changes to increase revenue in the near term when the machinery to enforce a broader sales tax has been trashed over a decade ago. And indeed that's in part exactly why provincial governments shouldn't be secretive and dishonest about the consequences of eliminating that capacity in the first place.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Needless to say, I don't see the spin as deserving of much rebuttal. But suffice it to say that there's a huge difference between making an unnecessary choice to change a provincial tax structure to relieve corporations of the obligation to pay consumption taxes while increasing the burden on citizens, and making needed changes to increase revenue in the near term when the machinery to enforce a broader sales tax has been trashed over a decade ago. And indeed that's in part exactly why provincial governments shouldn't be secretive and dishonest about the consequences of eliminating that capacity in the first place.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
On expanding horizons
Meanwhile, the NDP has unveiled its new Quebec website as part of the party's expanded presence in the province. And it's hard not to like the contrast between an NDP expanding in Quebec and the Cons' apparent retreat:
Le dévoilement de ce nouvel outil s’inscrit dans le virage pris par le NPD d’augmenter sa présence et sa visibilité chez nous. En effet, le parti inaugurait en février ses tout nouveaux bureaux montréalais sur l’avenue Papineau. Ironie du sort, lorsque Jack Layton tenait la première conférence de presse à cet endroit, les conservateurs annonçaient la fermeture de leur bureau à Montréal. Deux événements dont la simultanéité est significative aux yeux de la présidente québécoise Françoise Boivin. «C’est révélateur d’une tendance. Nous sommes en expansion et les troupes de Harper sont en repli. C’est très clair aussi dans les sondages où nous constatons que nous rattrapons les conservateurs. Ils sont sur la pente descendante et c’est une bonne nouvelle pour tous les progressistes.»
An obvious solution
Robert Silver and Scott Tribe want the Libs to embrace open nominations rather than insulating MPs from democratic accountability. But there's no indication that the Libs' hierarchy will stand for such a loss of control.
Scott Reid thinks the Libs should start paying more attention to the deteriorating well-being of working Canadians. But there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually confronting the Lib power structure's role in exacerbating the problem.
So let's ask the question: if everybody who reasonably wishes the Libs were more like the NDP actually made the jump themselves, wouldn't we have a far better chance of actually overcoming the Lib institutions which are holding back progress?
Scott Reid thinks the Libs should start paying more attention to the deteriorating well-being of working Canadians. But there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually confronting the Lib power structure's role in exacerbating the problem.
So let's ask the question: if everybody who reasonably wishes the Libs were more like the NDP actually made the jump themselves, wouldn't we have a far better chance of actually overcoming the Lib institutions which are holding back progress?
Saskatchewan NDP - Regina Nomination Roundup
To date, I haven't followed up much on the Regina Coronation Park and Regina South nomination races since mentioning the entry of each candidate. But now that the fields look to be fairly well set, let's take a closer look at what each candidate is currently doing to build support online.
Off the top, it's worth noting that each one of the six candidates has put together at least a reasonably well-updated Facebook group in support of his or her effort - not to mention that all six candidates attended the Prince Albert provincial convention to interact with the broader party. But it's worth also pointing out some of the creative steps taken beyond that strong baseline of activity for all of the candidates. So let's go through the candidates in alphabetical order by riding to see what they've been up to.
Regina Coronation Park
The first candidate to review also looks to be winner in the creativity department so far. Jaime Garcia's campaign has left no stone unturned in getting his name out into the public, with the efforts so far ranging from billboards to custom pop bottles in addition to active Facebook, Twitter and web presences. And the fact that he's also held a fund-raising dinner hints at how he's been able to afford forms of advertising not normally expected in a nomination race. About the only question I'd have about Garcia's campaign so far is his degree of focus on candidate branding over policy - but he's certainly done well in getting his name known.
The other Regina Coronation Park candidate with a complete set of online campaign tools is Tamara Harder, who likewise features regular Facebook and Twitter updates to go with the strongest web presence among the Coronation Park candidates. (Disclaimer: As mentioned before, I'm helping out with Tamara's campaign.)
Not surprisingly, Fred Kress is somewhat behind the younger candidates in his online presence, as he's the candidate with the longest gap in online updates (having last posted on March 21). Hopefully he'll get back in the habit of posting, as his earlier updates offered some sharper and more candid commentary than most of the candidates have provided.
Finally, Tory McGregor has also gone awhile since his last update on March 23. But it's worth highlighting a few of his earlier entries which reflect the most direct effort of any of the candidates to educate voters about an area of interest (that being the Sask Party's proposed changes to environmental regulation).
Regina South
As expected, both of the candidates in Regina South have maintained a strong online presence. But the most notable new development looks to be Heather McIntyre's Coffee Talk feature, offering visitors the chance to hear conversational interviews about Heather's campaign (with more apparently to come) to accompany her regular written updates.
Meanwhile, Yens Pedersen's campaign has provided updates primarily through his Facebook group, featuring a bevy of photos and outside links. It's worth noting that much of Yens' website (including the blog portion) has been pared down or cleared since last year's leadership race, and it'll be worth watching the extent to which he ends up offering less formal commentary on the nomination race to counter McIntyre's personal focus.
Update (April 9): To his credit, Jaime Garcia has been posting plenty of policy links and commentary over the past few days since I posted the above. For my next demand, I'd like to see a musical number.
Off the top, it's worth noting that each one of the six candidates has put together at least a reasonably well-updated Facebook group in support of his or her effort - not to mention that all six candidates attended the Prince Albert provincial convention to interact with the broader party. But it's worth also pointing out some of the creative steps taken beyond that strong baseline of activity for all of the candidates. So let's go through the candidates in alphabetical order by riding to see what they've been up to.
Regina Coronation Park
The first candidate to review also looks to be winner in the creativity department so far. Jaime Garcia's campaign has left no stone unturned in getting his name out into the public, with the efforts so far ranging from billboards to custom pop bottles in addition to active Facebook, Twitter and web presences. And the fact that he's also held a fund-raising dinner hints at how he's been able to afford forms of advertising not normally expected in a nomination race. About the only question I'd have about Garcia's campaign so far is his degree of focus on candidate branding over policy - but he's certainly done well in getting his name known.
The other Regina Coronation Park candidate with a complete set of online campaign tools is Tamara Harder, who likewise features regular Facebook and Twitter updates to go with the strongest web presence among the Coronation Park candidates. (Disclaimer: As mentioned before, I'm helping out with Tamara's campaign.)
Not surprisingly, Fred Kress is somewhat behind the younger candidates in his online presence, as he's the candidate with the longest gap in online updates (having last posted on March 21). Hopefully he'll get back in the habit of posting, as his earlier updates offered some sharper and more candid commentary than most of the candidates have provided.
Finally, Tory McGregor has also gone awhile since his last update on March 23. But it's worth highlighting a few of his earlier entries which reflect the most direct effort of any of the candidates to educate voters about an area of interest (that being the Sask Party's proposed changes to environmental regulation).
Regina South
As expected, both of the candidates in Regina South have maintained a strong online presence. But the most notable new development looks to be Heather McIntyre's Coffee Talk feature, offering visitors the chance to hear conversational interviews about Heather's campaign (with more apparently to come) to accompany her regular written updates.
Meanwhile, Yens Pedersen's campaign has provided updates primarily through his Facebook group, featuring a bevy of photos and outside links. It's worth noting that much of Yens' website (including the blog portion) has been pared down or cleared since last year's leadership race, and it'll be worth watching the extent to which he ends up offering less formal commentary on the nomination race to counter McIntyre's personal focus.
Update (April 9): To his credit, Jaime Garcia has been posting plenty of policy links and commentary over the past few days since I posted the above. For my next demand, I'd like to see a musical number.
Burning question
Can we all agree that the Cons' GG diversion is officially spent when even the country's leading regurgitator of Harper talking points can't be bothered to do more than name random NHL roleplayers to fuel the story?
Monday, April 05, 2010
On cumulative effects
Most reporting on the civil service's advice to Jim Prentice is focusing on the seemingly obvious point that the world's best scientific information on climate change remains so no matter how loud the shrieking from denialists. But there's another piece of the multidepartmental message to Prentice which deserves far more attention as Canada sets its climate policy in the years to come:
Of course, we can't expect the Cons themselves to offer up anything but delay and denial. But for those parties who actually see preventing catastrophic climate change as a priority, the suggestion is well worth taking into account in developing plans on the subject. And hopefully that will help highlight the gap between a government determined to ignore the best advice available to it, and an alternative which actually takes the issue seriously.
The memo also advises the government to consider cumulative emissions over the years when it sets an individual target for a given year, since carbon dioxide emissions stay in the atmosphere for decades and will continue to warm the planet, regardless of whether there are reductions in pollution in the future.That recommendation stands in stark contrast to the Cons' determination to set no targets whatsoever until 2020 (presumably to be put off further if by some chance they're still in power as that date draws near). But given that the effect of CO2 emissions is no less an issue in the time period before those targets come into play, it only makes sense that any increases in the meantime should be taken into account in determining what kind of cuts are needed in the longer term. And for a responsible governing party, that should provide some impetus to put serious work into reducing Canada's emissions in the near term to help us meet our longer-term targets.
Of course, we can't expect the Cons themselves to offer up anything but delay and denial. But for those parties who actually see preventing catastrophic climate change as a priority, the suggestion is well worth taking into account in developing plans on the subject. And hopefully that will help highlight the gap between a government determined to ignore the best advice available to it, and an alternative which actually takes the issue seriously.
On pointless giveaways
Erin looks at the numbers comparing corporate costs in countries around the world. And if anybody was operating under the illusion that tens of billions of dollars of corporate tax cuts over the last decade had served any useful purpose, let Erin put those to rest (italics in original, bolding added):
First, “taxes typically represent up to 14 percent of location-sensitive costs.” Since corporate income tax (CIT) is only one of the taxes paid by business, it alone accounts for an even smaller percentage of costs. Therefore, changes in the CIT rate have very little effect on total business costs.
Second, Canada’s effective CIT rate is about 4 percentage points below the next lowest country (Holland) and about 10 percentage points below the other countries examined (see exhibit 5.10 on page 60 of volume I). So, Canada could raise its CIT appreciably and still have a lower CIT than our main competitors.
Third, Canada had the second-lowest costs overall. The current round of federal CIT cuts was introduced in the 2007 Economic Statement. Looking back before that, Canada had also ranked second in the 2006 Competitive Alternatives report (PDF). Apparently, the latest CIT cuts have not affected our overall ranking.
Saskatchewan NDP Convention 2010 - The Long Term
Following up on last week's look at where the Saskatchewan NDP stands in the near future (i.e. the leadup to the 2011), let's take a look at the party's longer-term positioning. And for that, the most important talk from the Prince Albert convention is Cam Broten's talk on provincial demographics, which can be found here following his introduction to the policy review process.
Initially, it struck me as surprising that the party would set time aside for a discussion of demographic trends rather than focusing on its near-term political goals. But its long-term planning obviously has to be based on some awareness of what the province will look like several election cycles down the road - and there's reason for optimism that the NDP will be well-positioned for the changing look of Saskatchewan.
Importantly, Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces not facing the type of demographic time bomb of the type pointed out by Dan Gardner. Instead, we can count on a moderate but steady increase in base population - with that growth based almost entirely in First Nations communities. And likewise, the First Nations population may make for an important exception to the rule that residents will shift from rural to urban areas.
Meanwhile, the other factors influencing the makeup of Saskatchewan's population (being international and interprovincial migration) may be far more difficult to predict. Obviously the province will hope to keep growing in these departments as well, and all parties will try to ensure some inroads into communities of new residents - but it'll be a gamble to count on a mobile population as a party's base for the future.
Which means that beyond the current party starting points, the most obvious area for potential growth is First Nations voters present and future. And that dovetails nicely with the spotlight on Lawrence Joseph at the NDP's convention, as well as the party's commitment to First Nations issues (which is now being tailored to be more responsive to community needs).
Of course, there are still risks involved in counting on any one group as the source of future growth - and the NDP will need to make a particularly concerted effort to overcome a perception that the broader political system doesn't address First Nations needs in order to improve turnout levels. But at the very least, the NDP can point to the most obvious demographic trend as one which can realistically be expected to improve its position.
And the NDP's future strength is only amplified when contrasted against the latest Sask Party budget and its direct attacks on First Nations. One could see the Sask Party as trying to bypass traditional First Nations institutions and cultures to pull new voters into a melting pot, or perhaps figure that it's hoping for in-migration to overwhelm the growth in Saskatchewan's First Nations population. But either of those paths looks to rely primarily on blind hope rather than any great likelihood of success - and each could very easily backfire if the Sask Party's assumptions prove wrong.
All of which is to say that while the NDP's chances in 2011 may look better now than they did a few months ago, there's reason to think that the long-term future will be even brighter. And that should offer plenty of encouragement for citizens to get involved now, knowing that there may be an opportunity to implement the NDP's vision for the province over many election cycles to come.
Initially, it struck me as surprising that the party would set time aside for a discussion of demographic trends rather than focusing on its near-term political goals. But its long-term planning obviously has to be based on some awareness of what the province will look like several election cycles down the road - and there's reason for optimism that the NDP will be well-positioned for the changing look of Saskatchewan.
Importantly, Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces not facing the type of demographic time bomb of the type pointed out by Dan Gardner. Instead, we can count on a moderate but steady increase in base population - with that growth based almost entirely in First Nations communities. And likewise, the First Nations population may make for an important exception to the rule that residents will shift from rural to urban areas.
Meanwhile, the other factors influencing the makeup of Saskatchewan's population (being international and interprovincial migration) may be far more difficult to predict. Obviously the province will hope to keep growing in these departments as well, and all parties will try to ensure some inroads into communities of new residents - but it'll be a gamble to count on a mobile population as a party's base for the future.
Which means that beyond the current party starting points, the most obvious area for potential growth is First Nations voters present and future. And that dovetails nicely with the spotlight on Lawrence Joseph at the NDP's convention, as well as the party's commitment to First Nations issues (which is now being tailored to be more responsive to community needs).
Of course, there are still risks involved in counting on any one group as the source of future growth - and the NDP will need to make a particularly concerted effort to overcome a perception that the broader political system doesn't address First Nations needs in order to improve turnout levels. But at the very least, the NDP can point to the most obvious demographic trend as one which can realistically be expected to improve its position.
And the NDP's future strength is only amplified when contrasted against the latest Sask Party budget and its direct attacks on First Nations. One could see the Sask Party as trying to bypass traditional First Nations institutions and cultures to pull new voters into a melting pot, or perhaps figure that it's hoping for in-migration to overwhelm the growth in Saskatchewan's First Nations population. But either of those paths looks to rely primarily on blind hope rather than any great likelihood of success - and each could very easily backfire if the Sask Party's assumptions prove wrong.
All of which is to say that while the NDP's chances in 2011 may look better now than they did a few months ago, there's reason to think that the long-term future will be even brighter. And that should offer plenty of encouragement for citizens to get involved now, knowing that there may be an opportunity to implement the NDP's vision for the province over many election cycles to come.
Addition by subtraction
For those wondering when the opposition parties might start exercising their power to review federal spending (and I know at least one opinion columnist has done so, though it isn't turning up on my review this morning), here's your answer. It turns out that Pat Martin's motion to cut off funding for asbestos promotion wasn't his only move to rein in expenses, as he's now planning to directly challenge the Cons' bloated advertising budget:
(NDP MP Pat) Martin said "telling the public 10 times a night at primetime the government is spending money on an Economic Action Plan" clearly crosses the line of responsible use of public funds. This in mind, Mr. Martin said he will attempt to have the millions PCO spent on advertising management withdrawn from the central agency's budget.Of course, it seems all too likely that the newest move will be met with the same lack of interest by the Libs. But it'll be a shame if so - as this would seem to offer an ideal opportunity to force the Cons to defend their own waste of public funds, while also serving as another means of shifting the balance of power between Parliament and the PMO. And considering that the Cons themselves are still painting themselves as responsibile financial managers, it might not even be out of the question that a joint opposition effort could force the Cons into cutting some of their more egregious giveaways.
"When the estimates come before our [Government Operations and Estimates Committee] I intend to put forward a motion to subtract from the estimates of the Privy Council an amount equal to the amount they've been spending on advertising for their Economic Action Plan," he said.
Well said
John McClement's letter to the editor nicely sums up the folly of locking a province into the type of corporate-friendly long-term contracts that the Wall government loves so much:
(R)ather than taking advantage of the cost savings from Crown debt financing and owning power plants, SaskPower is paying a premium to buy power from the private sector -- a premium that will be reflected in future rate increases. With these take-or-pay purchase contracts, SaskPower is in effect "passing" on the debt financing advantage. Taxpayers are guaranteeing an uninterrupted flow of blue-chip dividends to the shareholders of investor-owned utilities -- a financial commitment now near $7 billion, one soon exceeding the province's total debt.
With major dollars required to replace aging generating capacity, and supply growing demands while ensuring competitive rates, Crown debt financing and ownership is by far the lowest long-term cost option.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Unenforced
As for the Cons' stance on the Quebec government's plan to impose health care user fees, it's worth pointing out the yawning gap between their words and their actions in office. Here's the Con response when the news broke:
(T)he federal government is avoiding getting sucked into what would be a contentious debate. It offered a curt reply when asked whether it would halt Quebec's move.Which is certainly a positive enough sentiment if taken at face value. But it rings rather hollow coming from a government which has ensured that the Canada Health Act won't actually be enforced at the federal level - and the fact that the Cons have relied purely on provincial self-reporting looks to have played a significant role in Charest's apparent belief that his government can get away with thumbing its nose at the law.
"The Canada Health Act is the law of the land," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas.
"Provinces and territories have continuously indicated they respect the Canada Health Act and obviously the federal government expects the Canada Health Act to always be respected."
Breaking the silence
There have been plenty of columns this week questioning the lack of much strong federal response to the Charest Libs' decision to impose user fees on Quebec citizens. But it's worth looking at the issue from an NDP perspective in particular to see why there's a massive opportunity available if the party takes a stand.
To start with, I'll note that I don't see the Libs' political calculations as favouring much action. Much as some within the party like to pretend to own the health-care issue, the primary point of concern for the Libs in developing a response figures to be the desire to be able to put Charest's political machine to use. And considering that the Libs preferred doing nothing to taking action in response to the last controversial step in Quebec health care even when that meant the fall of their last government, there's hardly a lot of reason to think they'd see more reason to take a principled stance now.
That leaves the NDP as the lone party likely to take any stand in favour of strengthening the Canada Health Act. And in addition to being the right stand in principle, such a move also looks to set up a useful contrast for the NDP in its effort to peel progressive support away from the Bloc.
After all, one of the main points of dispute between the two parties is which type of consideration should take precedence where provincial jurisdiction and progressive policy come into conflict. And the NDP hasn't been shy about, for example, painting itself as the anti-nuclear party in Quebec due to the Bloc's position that the federal government shouldn't limit a province's desire to push ahead with development in that area.
From what I can tell, the user fee issue looks to be perhaps the prime example of a policy debate where the two values will come into conflict. Which at worst would allow the NDP to set up a line of clash against the Bloc - and at best offers the prospect that voters in general may be more concerned with access to health care than with which level of government establishes policy on the issue.
Mind you, there might be reason to fear running into public-opinion headwinds if Quebec's provincial politicians were united in favour of the user fees. But that doesn't seem to be the case: in fact, the Parti Quebecois has vowed that the fees would "never see the light of day" - meaning that the NDP would have reason to think that a stance against the fees would actually find at least some receptive ears within the PQ even if the Bloc pushes back.
But what if the Bloc supports the NDP in opposing user fees? Well, if the worst-case scenario is for the NDP to be able to work with a federal ally on a hot-button issue, then that's hardly a bad outcome. And sharing the issue with the Bloc in Quebec wouldn't seem problematic if it allows the NDP to be the leading voice against user fees across the country.
For now, I can only assume that the NDP has preferred not to rock the boat until it sees how the other parties respond. But I'd think both the principle of the issue and the politics involve strongly argue in favour of the NDP taking a lead role in fighting against user fees in Quebec and across Canada - and hopefully we'll see a response to that effect before long.
To start with, I'll note that I don't see the Libs' political calculations as favouring much action. Much as some within the party like to pretend to own the health-care issue, the primary point of concern for the Libs in developing a response figures to be the desire to be able to put Charest's political machine to use. And considering that the Libs preferred doing nothing to taking action in response to the last controversial step in Quebec health care even when that meant the fall of their last government, there's hardly a lot of reason to think they'd see more reason to take a principled stance now.
That leaves the NDP as the lone party likely to take any stand in favour of strengthening the Canada Health Act. And in addition to being the right stand in principle, such a move also looks to set up a useful contrast for the NDP in its effort to peel progressive support away from the Bloc.
After all, one of the main points of dispute between the two parties is which type of consideration should take precedence where provincial jurisdiction and progressive policy come into conflict. And the NDP hasn't been shy about, for example, painting itself as the anti-nuclear party in Quebec due to the Bloc's position that the federal government shouldn't limit a province's desire to push ahead with development in that area.
From what I can tell, the user fee issue looks to be perhaps the prime example of a policy debate where the two values will come into conflict. Which at worst would allow the NDP to set up a line of clash against the Bloc - and at best offers the prospect that voters in general may be more concerned with access to health care than with which level of government establishes policy on the issue.
Mind you, there might be reason to fear running into public-opinion headwinds if Quebec's provincial politicians were united in favour of the user fees. But that doesn't seem to be the case: in fact, the Parti Quebecois has vowed that the fees would "never see the light of day" - meaning that the NDP would have reason to think that a stance against the fees would actually find at least some receptive ears within the PQ even if the Bloc pushes back.
But what if the Bloc supports the NDP in opposing user fees? Well, if the worst-case scenario is for the NDP to be able to work with a federal ally on a hot-button issue, then that's hardly a bad outcome. And sharing the issue with the Bloc in Quebec wouldn't seem problematic if it allows the NDP to be the leading voice against user fees across the country.
For now, I can only assume that the NDP has preferred not to rock the boat until it sees how the other parties respond. But I'd think both the principle of the issue and the politics involve strongly argue in favour of the NDP taking a lead role in fighting against user fees in Quebec and across Canada - and hopefully we'll see a response to that effect before long.
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging - Retreads
In most cases, it's a bit simplistic to try to sum up the philosophy of a team's general manager in a move or two. But sometimes, the fit is just too good to ignore: take for example Dayton Moore's trade of a talented pitching prospect for the worst player in baseball. Or Darryl Sutter's decision to send away two of the three most talented offensive players off an already scoring-challenged team due to insufficient Sutterness, with the returns consisting mostly of yet more low-firepower grit and depth.
Now, I have to hope that Brendan Taman's first player personnel move as the Saskatchewan Roughriders' GM won't similarly prove emblematic of his tenure. But I have to wonder whether we've seen the start of a pattern which may significantly limit the 'Riders' long-term prospects.
After all, having presumably had the opportunity to do nearly anything to make his mark as the 'Riders' GM, Taman's first player pickup was...Kelly Bates. Yes, the same veteran lineman who was given away by B.C. before the 2009 season, then benched by a mediocre Winnipeg team for lacking mobility - and who presumably hasn't added much speed as he turns 35 this season.
Which isn't to say that it's necessarily a bad idea to look for some talent which may have been cut a year too soon. And if Bates was the only offseason pickup fitting the mold, I wouldn't consider it a problem. But as a rule of thumb, it doesn't figure to be a great bet that Taman will be able to spot upside in well-established CFL players that their previous teams have missed, or get a bargain deal on players who have provided years worth of game film for every team in the CFL to review.
Granted, Bates, Dan Goodspeed, Barrin Simpson and Dominique Dorsey all have plenty of success on their CFL resumes. But all are also past the best-before age for their respective positions - and it'll be a surprise if a single one of them has anywhere near as much success yet to come as he's achieved in years gone by. Which combined with the large number of 'Rider re-signed free-agents stands to make this year's team into one of the oldest and lowest-upside units in the CFL.
Of course, it's worth asking what the 'Riders' alternatives were - as veteran stopgaps might be a viable strategy for a team with some glaring holes that needed closing. But Taman actually cut two veterans on the offensive line who are younger than the players brought in from outside, and had loads of internal options at linebacker who will now end up stuck behind Simpson on the depth chart. Which means that there wasn't any particular reason to thumb at random through a 2007 or 2008 CFL guide in search of big names to add to the team.
What's more, it doesn't much look like the few younger players brought in by Taman will add much to the 'Riders' long-term potential either: in fact, their ranks look to be no less slanted toward pickups off the current CFL scrap heap. LaDarius Key couldn't beat out Denatay Heard for a 'Rider job in 2009, but will take over a spot in camp vacated by Heard's release this offseason. Aaron Fairooz washed out with Winnipeg; Lavarus Giles managed the trick with both Winnipeg and Calgary. But all three will also take roster spots which could otherwise have been used to try out new talent.
Mind you, there's one glaring exception which proves the rule. At nearly every position in the CFL, it's possible to plug in a talented newcomer and get at least reasonable results - which is why paying a premium for an import tackle or linebacker is usually a waste of a team's limited money under the salary cap. But at quarterback, it's virtually unheard of for players to succeed without at least some CFL experience: by my reckoning, only two current or recent CFL quarterbacks (Ricky Ray and Kerry Joseph) managed to perform even passably in their first season on a CFL active roster. For reasons unknown, though, Taman seems to have chosen the one position where experience is a must as the one where he's willing to throw untested rookies into the fire.
For now, it's not too late for Taman to fix the QB depth before camp. And it may be that the 'Riders will be able to either find their share of talent among their limited amount of youth in camp, or wring one last strong season out of Taman's group of veteran acquisitions.
But it's worth keeping an eye on whether Taman's focus on veterans over untapped potential ends up depleting the 'Riders' depth - particularly as the roster and negotiation list left behind by Eric Tillman erode with time. And while I certainly don't hope to be right, I'd think there's reason for concern that Rider Nation will end up looking back on Bates' signing as the first step in the wrong direction after the team's recent success.
Now, I have to hope that Brendan Taman's first player personnel move as the Saskatchewan Roughriders' GM won't similarly prove emblematic of his tenure. But I have to wonder whether we've seen the start of a pattern which may significantly limit the 'Riders' long-term prospects.
After all, having presumably had the opportunity to do nearly anything to make his mark as the 'Riders' GM, Taman's first player pickup was...Kelly Bates. Yes, the same veteran lineman who was given away by B.C. before the 2009 season, then benched by a mediocre Winnipeg team for lacking mobility - and who presumably hasn't added much speed as he turns 35 this season.
Which isn't to say that it's necessarily a bad idea to look for some talent which may have been cut a year too soon. And if Bates was the only offseason pickup fitting the mold, I wouldn't consider it a problem. But as a rule of thumb, it doesn't figure to be a great bet that Taman will be able to spot upside in well-established CFL players that their previous teams have missed, or get a bargain deal on players who have provided years worth of game film for every team in the CFL to review.
Granted, Bates, Dan Goodspeed, Barrin Simpson and Dominique Dorsey all have plenty of success on their CFL resumes. But all are also past the best-before age for their respective positions - and it'll be a surprise if a single one of them has anywhere near as much success yet to come as he's achieved in years gone by. Which combined with the large number of 'Rider re-signed free-agents stands to make this year's team into one of the oldest and lowest-upside units in the CFL.
Of course, it's worth asking what the 'Riders' alternatives were - as veteran stopgaps might be a viable strategy for a team with some glaring holes that needed closing. But Taman actually cut two veterans on the offensive line who are younger than the players brought in from outside, and had loads of internal options at linebacker who will now end up stuck behind Simpson on the depth chart. Which means that there wasn't any particular reason to thumb at random through a 2007 or 2008 CFL guide in search of big names to add to the team.
What's more, it doesn't much look like the few younger players brought in by Taman will add much to the 'Riders' long-term potential either: in fact, their ranks look to be no less slanted toward pickups off the current CFL scrap heap. LaDarius Key couldn't beat out Denatay Heard for a 'Rider job in 2009, but will take over a spot in camp vacated by Heard's release this offseason. Aaron Fairooz washed out with Winnipeg; Lavarus Giles managed the trick with both Winnipeg and Calgary. But all three will also take roster spots which could otherwise have been used to try out new talent.
Mind you, there's one glaring exception which proves the rule. At nearly every position in the CFL, it's possible to plug in a talented newcomer and get at least reasonable results - which is why paying a premium for an import tackle or linebacker is usually a waste of a team's limited money under the salary cap. But at quarterback, it's virtually unheard of for players to succeed without at least some CFL experience: by my reckoning, only two current or recent CFL quarterbacks (Ricky Ray and Kerry Joseph) managed to perform even passably in their first season on a CFL active roster. For reasons unknown, though, Taman seems to have chosen the one position where experience is a must as the one where he's willing to throw untested rookies into the fire.
For now, it's not too late for Taman to fix the QB depth before camp. And it may be that the 'Riders will be able to either find their share of talent among their limited amount of youth in camp, or wring one last strong season out of Taman's group of veteran acquisitions.
But it's worth keeping an eye on whether Taman's focus on veterans over untapped potential ends up depleting the 'Riders' depth - particularly as the roster and negotiation list left behind by Eric Tillman erode with time. And while I certainly don't hope to be right, I'd think there's reason for concern that Rider Nation will end up looking back on Bates' signing as the first step in the wrong direction after the team's recent success.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
On diversions
Despite the Cons' best efforts, at least some people are noticing the glaring gap between what the Harper government has loudly taken credit for and what it's actually delivered. Which can only mean one thing: quick, to the distractionmobile!
On private interests
Shorter Lawrence Solomon:
And while we're at it, just think of the corporate money-making opportunities we're missing out on by allowing air to remain a public good.
And while we're at it, just think of the corporate money-making opportunities we're missing out on by allowing air to remain a public good.
Compare and contrast
Doug Saunders on the important lessons being re-learned by most of the world in the wake of the financial meltdown:
Last time everything was ruined and trust had fallen apart, after the horrific experience of the Great Depression and the wars, we gave up on a strictly economical, cost-benefit calculation model of government and turned to the larger, more important questions. It became a time of high seriousness, a turn to the state.The Star-Phoenix on the course being taken by Canada alone due to the Harper Cons:
“The urgent question was not how to celebrate a magnificent victory and get back to business as usual,” he writes, “but how on earth to ensure that the experience of the years 1914-1945 would never be repeated.”
People were frightened of the economy: It had done terrible things to them. There was, by 1945, what John Maynard Keynes called a “universal craving for security.” This craving, Mr. Judt notes, led some people, even those not conquered by Stalin, to put far too much trust in the dangerous logic of planned economies. In the capitalist world, this widespread fear was “addressed by the provision of public services and social safety nets incorporated into postwar systems of governance from Washington to Prague.”
We didn't just use government to get us out of a trap. It, and its social-safety-net mechanisms and welfare-state provisions, became the backbone of the greatest stretch of innovation, entrepreneurship and employment that capitalism has ever seen. It was only when those mechanisms began to be winnowed down that capitalism became dangerously wobbly.
“Today,” he writes, “it is as though the 20th century never happened.”
We will have to relearn it.
...
Only governments can address the huge problems of a global economy that is increasingly only beneficial to those with elaborate educations. Only governments can keep the deep troughs of economic downturn from becoming recursive cascades of ruin – but they can also turn the peaks into periods of shared prosperity for entire communities, something we've forgotten. “The task of the state,” he writes, “is not just to pick up the pieces when an under-regulated economy bursts. It's also to contain the effects of immoderate gains.”
One suspects the loneliest jobs in Ottawa these days involve being either technical experts or program overseers responsible for advising the government on adopting best practices.
Over the past four years, the Harper government has mocked, ignored or fired almost everyone it has in place to provide guidance on the most complex issues that Canada needs to address.
...
(Christian Paradis) expects commercial interests to pick up the responsibility for producing isotopes, while the government cuts the role played by such agencies and ministries as Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada, Western Economic Diversification, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Industry Canada and Natural Resources -- all of which will lose more than 40 per cent of their funding beginning in next year's budget, according to a study by the Globe and Mail.
This government's plan to get out of deficit seems to be to get out of governing. Only the Corrections ministry is expected to see a significant increase in government involvement, growing to $3.128 billion from its current $2.267 billion -- a 36 per cent increase -- by the 2012-14 budget year.
Although innovation and support for research were a crucial aspect of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speech from the throne, that research apparently had better fit into a tough on crime agenda if it's to receive any government support.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Book Review: How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot by Brian Topp
I've posted a couple of times already about Brian Topp's book - once to note Topp's central role in documenting the events of the 2008 progressive coalition, and once to raise some questions about the tone taken by the book. But Lorimer Publishing was kind enough to pass along a copy for my review - and I'll take some time to offer up some comments for those who haven't yet had a chance to read it.
At the outset, I'll note that few of the events documented in Topp's book will come as too much surprise to those who have read his extensive blog posts on the coalition. If anything, the book adds more by way of prologue and explanation than it does to the events of the coalition itself, as Topp's discussion in the 1999 Saskatchewan coalition government and the NDP's strategic planning over a period of years from the time when Jack Layton took over as leader offers a useful context for how the coalition came to be and why the NDP was so well-prepared to move it forward (unfortunately in contrast to the Liberals).
Indeed, Topp makes clear that the NDP's work on the coalition was based on a far more thoughtful and positive intention than merely "giving the Tories the boot", while also having roots going far deeper than any aspect of the fiscal update that got the Libs interested in the possibility. And Topp's repeated observations on the importance of building friendly connections into all parties are reflected in the NDP's ability to develop and sell a workable coalition structure in a matter of days when the possibility arose, all while keeping some reasonably close tabs on even the party which the coalition was looking to remove from power.
If there's a point to be criticized in Topp's book, it's that his take winds up being somewhat more narrowly focused in terms of the time frame and perspectives considered than might have been ideal. And for a couple of reasons, I won't necessarily stick with the "working draft of history" line I'd previously suggested might apply to the book.
The first limitation on Topp's scope is a focus on top-level NDP/Lib negotiations with little discussion of the public movement which also coalesced around the coalition. That's understandable to a point given Topp's place in the negotiations, but results in his falling into the trap of talking about public opinion turning on the coalition without examining what the public was actually doing at the time.
The focus on top-level dealings also creates a rather glaring gap of a month in Topp's narrative between the point when Ignatieff broke off communications in December 2008, and a meeting between he and Layton in January 2009. Which seems to be a time period deserving of somewhat more exploration, as plenty of supporters (built on an NDP foundation) continued to work to promote the coalition in public based on the possibility that Ignatieff might come around once the budget was unveiled.
The second key limitation is that while Topp provides loads of detail about the events from his own perspective, the book sticks to chronicling Topp's own observations at the time rather than supplementing those with new detail from other parties' camps. And that leaves some obvious questions to be answered by others who seem to have been far more reluctant than Topp to provide an open account of the events.
In particular, Topp's narrative as to the Libs' actions in response to the coalition leaves room for at least a couple of books to be written on how the respective camps of Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae dealt with each other and with the other opposition parties in response to the coalition. And some more answers as to the "why" in evaluating Ignatieff's skepticism about the coalition would seem to be rather crucial for the NDP in deciding how to handle future opportunities.
While Topp may not be able to offer a complete chronicle of the coalition showdown from all sides, though, he definitely provides a lively and engaging take on the events which any New Democrat will be glad to have included in the history books. So for those who haven't yet taken the time to take a look, I'll highly recommend giving Topp's book a read.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
At the outset, I'll note that few of the events documented in Topp's book will come as too much surprise to those who have read his extensive blog posts on the coalition. If anything, the book adds more by way of prologue and explanation than it does to the events of the coalition itself, as Topp's discussion in the 1999 Saskatchewan coalition government and the NDP's strategic planning over a period of years from the time when Jack Layton took over as leader offers a useful context for how the coalition came to be and why the NDP was so well-prepared to move it forward (unfortunately in contrast to the Liberals).
Indeed, Topp makes clear that the NDP's work on the coalition was based on a far more thoughtful and positive intention than merely "giving the Tories the boot", while also having roots going far deeper than any aspect of the fiscal update that got the Libs interested in the possibility. And Topp's repeated observations on the importance of building friendly connections into all parties are reflected in the NDP's ability to develop and sell a workable coalition structure in a matter of days when the possibility arose, all while keeping some reasonably close tabs on even the party which the coalition was looking to remove from power.
If there's a point to be criticized in Topp's book, it's that his take winds up being somewhat more narrowly focused in terms of the time frame and perspectives considered than might have been ideal. And for a couple of reasons, I won't necessarily stick with the "working draft of history" line I'd previously suggested might apply to the book.
The first limitation on Topp's scope is a focus on top-level NDP/Lib negotiations with little discussion of the public movement which also coalesced around the coalition. That's understandable to a point given Topp's place in the negotiations, but results in his falling into the trap of talking about public opinion turning on the coalition without examining what the public was actually doing at the time.
The focus on top-level dealings also creates a rather glaring gap of a month in Topp's narrative between the point when Ignatieff broke off communications in December 2008, and a meeting between he and Layton in January 2009. Which seems to be a time period deserving of somewhat more exploration, as plenty of supporters (built on an NDP foundation) continued to work to promote the coalition in public based on the possibility that Ignatieff might come around once the budget was unveiled.
The second key limitation is that while Topp provides loads of detail about the events from his own perspective, the book sticks to chronicling Topp's own observations at the time rather than supplementing those with new detail from other parties' camps. And that leaves some obvious questions to be answered by others who seem to have been far more reluctant than Topp to provide an open account of the events.
In particular, Topp's narrative as to the Libs' actions in response to the coalition leaves room for at least a couple of books to be written on how the respective camps of Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae dealt with each other and with the other opposition parties in response to the coalition. And some more answers as to the "why" in evaluating Ignatieff's skepticism about the coalition would seem to be rather crucial for the NDP in deciding how to handle future opportunities.
While Topp may not be able to offer a complete chronicle of the coalition showdown from all sides, though, he definitely provides a lively and engaging take on the events which any New Democrat will be glad to have included in the history books. So for those who haven't yet taken the time to take a look, I'll highly recommend giving Topp's book a read.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Friday Morning Links
Since we're all up for some politics for the long weekend, here are a few pieces worth a look...
- Erin slams the National Post for its exceptionally biased coverage of the Fraser Institute's anti-stimulus diatribe. Though it's worth noting that there's likely at least a grain of truth behind the study: while the institute's predictable anti-government bias obviously affects its assessment of the effect of stimulus dollars spent, there's certainly reason to think that the Cons' choice of a photo-op-friendly distribution scheme led to relatively little money actually flowing when it was most needed.
- The Star Phoenix on the HST: getting less plausible by the day, but now prebutted for your convenience.
- While I don't agree with Bob Plamondon's view that less choices are better on the federal scene, there's little reason to disagree with his main point about Michael Ignatieff's missed opportunity.
- Douglas Bell is right to note that the federal opposition parties haven't taken a strong enough stance in opposing the Cons' costly and useless "dumb on crime" policies. But while there's room for improvement on all sides, it's worth noting which party has both had MPs take stands on principle, and which has been closer to the mark in rejecting the worst of the Cons' excesses.
- Finally, is this officially Unveil Unpopular Policy Week for Brad Wall's Sask Party government? Because Rod Gantefoer has tossed more fuel on the fire by pointing to health care user fees as a way to deal with unnamed "abuses" in the system. Naturally he's backtracking again, but considering that he looks to have brought them up unprovoked this looks to be even less plausible than his denials about tax harmonization.
- Erin slams the National Post for its exceptionally biased coverage of the Fraser Institute's anti-stimulus diatribe. Though it's worth noting that there's likely at least a grain of truth behind the study: while the institute's predictable anti-government bias obviously affects its assessment of the effect of stimulus dollars spent, there's certainly reason to think that the Cons' choice of a photo-op-friendly distribution scheme led to relatively little money actually flowing when it was most needed.
- The Star Phoenix on the HST: getting less plausible by the day, but now prebutted for your convenience.
- While I don't agree with Bob Plamondon's view that less choices are better on the federal scene, there's little reason to disagree with his main point about Michael Ignatieff's missed opportunity.
- Douglas Bell is right to note that the federal opposition parties haven't taken a strong enough stance in opposing the Cons' costly and useless "dumb on crime" policies. But while there's room for improvement on all sides, it's worth noting which party has both had MPs take stands on principle, and which has been closer to the mark in rejecting the worst of the Cons' excesses.
- Finally, is this officially Unveil Unpopular Policy Week for Brad Wall's Sask Party government? Because Rod Gantefoer has tossed more fuel on the fire by pointing to health care user fees as a way to deal with unnamed "abuses" in the system. Naturally he's backtracking again, but considering that he looks to have brought them up unprovoked this looks to be even less plausible than his denials about tax harmonization.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Unclear on the concept
Shorter Dan D'Autremont:
The NDP opposition has some nerve actually opposing us. Somebody make them stop!
The NDP opposition has some nerve actually opposing us. Somebody make them stop!
"Pure nonsense"
It seems that there's general agreement in Saskatchewan's media that the Sask Party's attacks over Dwain Lingenfelter's pension are completely uncalled for. And unlike Murray Mandryk in the Leader-Post, the Star-Phoenix rightly focuses on the party responsible rather than trying to spin the issue into Good News for Brad Wall(tm):
The unfair attack by the Saskatchewan Party on Dwain Lingenfelter over the NDP leader collecting a pension for his past services as an MLA only serves to undermine the entire political system for short-term partisan gain.
Despite Saskatchewan Party MLA Bill Boyd's attempt to paint Mr. Lingenfelter in a bad light for collecting a pension while serving in the assembly, the NDP leader is doing nothing wrong.
...
To argue as Mr. Boyd does, that Mr. Lingenfelter should have asked the government to change the law to allow his pension to be temporarily suspended, because the rules of the plan don't allow members to defer their payments, is pure nonsense.
On wrongful disclosures
All indications to date were that the Wall government's attacks on Saskatchewan's health care system would be aimed mostly at the public delivery of services, no matter how obviously flawed a move to privatize might prove. And sure enough, there's more news on that front today. But just to make sure nobody recognizes the health-care system by the time they're done with it, the Sask Party also seems to have decided to do away with patient confidentiality.
Here's Don McMorris' gratuitous shot at a patient who dared to speak up about his government's decision to stop funding chiropractic care:
And there are multiple points in yesterday's disclosure which raise reason for concern. McMorris' statement itself makes for a problematic disclosure of personal health information by the person ultimately responsible for the Ministry of Health. But there's also reason for question as to who found out about the patient's treatment history and how before passing it along to McMorris for public airing.
Meanwhile, in case anybody was wondering: no, the fact that McMorris didn't actually use the patient's name doesn't make matters any better. Personal health information is protected just as thoroughly when it's "identifiable" (i.e. can be linked to the patient's identity) as when it's actually identified by name. And that's for obvious reasons, as a statement that "the provincial Minister who deals with questions related to chiropractic care has a raging case of foot-in-mouth disease" reveals just as much information about the subject as one which mentions a patient by name.
In sum, we now know that under the Wall government, your personal health information is shared between you, your health care providers, and your Minister of Health and his political hacks to the extent it can be used to further the Sask Party's agenda. (Or at least, that seems to be the applicable standard for anybody who dares to criticize the government's policies.) Which may do wonders to help Wall's long-term agenda by undermining confidence in the public health care system - but surely makes for a reckless abuse of power on the Sask Party's part.
Here's Don McMorris' gratuitous shot at a patient who dared to speak up about his government's decision to stop funding chiropractic care:
Ms. Junor: — I can’t believe this minister can stand in his place and talk about prudent. If we’re talking about what’s prudent, they have no leg to stand on — last year’s budget, this year’s budget, absolutely ridiculous.Now, presumably McMorris would be familiar with the fact that in addition to general principles of patient confidentiality, Saskatchewan also has a law making clear that personal health information generally can't be used or disclosed except with consent or for a valid purpose. And not surprisingly, "political gain" isn't included among the permitted grounds for breaching a patient's expectation of privacy.
Mr. Speaker, from the time the minister announced the delisting of the . . . The implementation date was one week, seven days. Chiropractors today don’t know if they can refer patients for X-rays or to a specialist. That’s absurd. Mr. Speaker, chiropractors have agreements for services with SGI [Saskatchewan Government Insurance], WCB [Workers’ Compensation Board], and private insurance companies that end tomorrow and have to be renegotiated. Well we understand what he knows about negotiation, so perhaps he missed this.
Mr. Speaker, Ontario allowed a 6-month transition period, and Alberta allowed a 3-month transition period. Will the minister at the very least move the implementation date to July 1st to allow for a smoother transition?
The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister of Health.
Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Mr. Speaker, this question was asked a number of days ago regarding referral. The only thing that has changed, Mr. Speaker, is our government is no longer subsidizing a portion of the visits. If chiropractors referred in the past, they will be able to continue to refer into the future, Mr. Speaker. That doesn’t change.
What changes is the portion of subsidization that our government covers, Mr. Speaker. And it’s interesting. Some of the cases we’ve seen come forward, the one just recently in the media, the person was at the chiropractor about 130 times. There isn’t a province or state in the country that would cover that many visits, Mr. Speaker. We will cover, what we will cover . . . 12 visits, Mr. Speaker, for low-income as in Alberta and 10 in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.
And there are multiple points in yesterday's disclosure which raise reason for concern. McMorris' statement itself makes for a problematic disclosure of personal health information by the person ultimately responsible for the Ministry of Health. But there's also reason for question as to who found out about the patient's treatment history and how before passing it along to McMorris for public airing.
Meanwhile, in case anybody was wondering: no, the fact that McMorris didn't actually use the patient's name doesn't make matters any better. Personal health information is protected just as thoroughly when it's "identifiable" (i.e. can be linked to the patient's identity) as when it's actually identified by name. And that's for obvious reasons, as a statement that "the provincial Minister who deals with questions related to chiropractic care has a raging case of foot-in-mouth disease" reveals just as much information about the subject as one which mentions a patient by name.
In sum, we now know that under the Wall government, your personal health information is shared between you, your health care providers, and your Minister of Health and his political hacks to the extent it can be used to further the Sask Party's agenda. (Or at least, that seems to be the applicable standard for anybody who dares to criticize the government's policies.) Which may do wonders to help Wall's long-term agenda by undermining confidence in the public health care system - but surely makes for a reckless abuse of power on the Sask Party's part.
The reviews are in
Don Martin on yesterday's tributes to Jack Layton - and the reasons why Layton should be receiving accolades more often:
(Y)esterday was, until the love turned to the more traditional loathing, a rare Jack Layton Day on Parliament Hill.
Ovation after all-party ovation erupted as tributes were read to a leader who has yet to slow down despite radiation therapy, although some days his pallor looks decidedly grey.
Even crusty partisan Conservative MP Jim Abbott stood to declare Mr. Layton “has my admiration for raising the level of awareness about this disease. His public gesture of courage showed Canadian men and their families that they are not alone in their daily fight to combat this illness, but more needs to be done.”
Good for the MPs. Now, let me continue with some more Jack Layton back-patting by noting, cancer or not, he’s been by far the best leader at advocating Big Ideas.
The New Democrats have been at the forefront of almost every major issue, be it cancelling a corporate income tax, demanding pension reform, advocating auto sector bailouts, boosting EI benefits and even writing off the Afghanistan deployment as a lost cause long before it became fashionable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)