Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Brian Wakamo notes that Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing for postal banking in the U.S. as an alternative to predatory lenders in underserved communities.

- Glen Hodgson discusses the rising fiscal costs of climate change - even as the Trudeau Libs plan to put public money into exacerbating it. And Damian Carrington examines the looming danger of severe destruction of insect habitat from even best-case climate change scenarios.

- Meanwhile, Yonatan Strauch points out that the threat of oil embargos being used to try to bully British Columbia into risking its environment for pipelines ultimately only highlights the need to stop depending on fossil fuels. And Gary Mason comments on the need for Alberta (among other jurisdictions pushing the Trans Mountain expansion) to pay attention to British Columbia's legitimate concerns.

- Murray Mandryk argues that Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party need to start doing something more productive than taking potshots at the federal government - even if it's obvious that they're desperate to distract from their own failings and scandals.

- Finally, Yves Engler discusses the Libs' Bill C-59 - which goes beyond authorizing surveillance to also allow for aggressive "disruption".

New column day

Here, on how little Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party ultimately seem to have learned from the fall of Grant Devine and the PCs.

For further reading...
- Geoff Leo continues to report on the GTH scandal, including the recent revelation that the Saskatchewan Party went out of its way to look for excuses to pay high prices for land. Alex Soloducha reports that Wall has been interviewed by the RCMP as part of its investigation. And Micki Cowan revealed that Wall's office had issued a warning to Bill Boyd about trading off of governmental titles before praising him effusively.
- Finally, Jason Warick reported on Devine's finger-pointing and denial in lieu of recognition of his own government's failings.

New column day

Here, on how simultaneous leadership campaigns in both of Saskatchewan's main parties seem unlikely to spark much new interest or discussion due to the familiar players and strategies involved.

For further reading...
- CBC has reported on each of the candidate announcements: Ryan Meili and Trent Wotherspoon in the NDP campaign, and Tina Beaudry-Mellor, Jeremy Harrison, Gord Wyant, Ken Cheveldayoff and Alanna Koch in the Sask Party's race (with Scott Moe expected to join shortly).
- The most memorable moments so far in either campaign have come from Harrison's thoroughly laughable attempt to position himself as a crusader against the GTH corruption which he personally tried to cover up. And Geoff Leo continues to break news about the Bill Boyd/Brad Wall scandals which seem to have precipitated Wall's hasty departure.
- Finally, I'll link back to my posts on the Saskatchewan NDP's previous leadership campaign as a useful starting point to assess the new race.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Vanessa Williamson writes that plenty of Americans want to see wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share of taxes - only to have that strong desire ignored by policymakers. And Joseph Stiglitz and Erika Siu discuss the glaring need for stronger tax enforcement around the globe.

- Andrew Coyne rebuts the assumption from Brad Wall and others that there's no cost to ignoring the harms of climate change.

- Murray Mandryk points to the Saskatchewan Party's slashing of funding for teachers for Northern Saskatchewan as a prime example of austerity being inflicted most directly on the people who can least afford it.

- Geoff Leo pieces together the story of the Saskatchewan Party's Global Transportation Hub scandal - now featuring a second, failed attempt to enrich Brad Wall's cronies at public expense before the purchase which was ultimately pushed through. And the question which figures to reverberate for some time given the Saskatchewan Party's refusal to answer it is which shady operator was granted privileged access to Bill Boyd to that end.

- Karen McVeigh reports on Nevsun's use of forced labour and intimidation tactics in Eritrea as the latest example of mining-industry abuses around the world which should be a source of significant shame for Canada.

- Finally, John Washington tells the story of a widespread strike among U.S. prisoners being exploited for their cheap labour whose large-scale protests have received virtually no public attention. And Larry Schwartzol and Abby Shafroth point out how prison debt prevents people who have served a sentence from building a life afterward.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Natasha Luckhardt examines what we can expect from Burger King's takeover of Tim Hortons - and the news isn't good for Canadian workers and citizens alike. But Jim Stanford reminds us that we're not without some public policy options by following up on the employment effects of an increased minimum wage.

- Of course, that would require a government committed to ensuring that the benefits of public policy go where they're needed. And we plainly can't count on that as long as the Cons are in power - as Kathleen Lahey, Jennifer Robson, and Scott Clark and Peter DeVries all note in discussing the distortions created by income splitting. Per Clark and DeVries:

According to the Harper government, income-splitting will cost Ottawa $2.4 billion 2014-15 and $1.9 billion in 2015-16. That’s an awful lot of revenue to give up just to make a small group of well-heeled taxpayers happy. Why do these households deserve a deep tax break more than the vast majority of Canadian taxpayer? How can the government justify a re-distribution of income that benefits the wealthy?
...
There is no justification whatsoever for introducing income-splitting on social or economic grounds — certainly not in the current economic environment. The argument that the government makes — that it did it for seniors and therefore it should be applied to other families — doesn’t make a particle of sense. The fact is that the Harper government gave income-splitting to seniors to make amends for its decision to tax income trusts.

Income-splitting is being done to placate a small part of the Conservative base at the expense of virtually everyone else.

- Meanwhile, Canada Without Poverty highlights the Cons' targeted attacks at those who most need help, this time through a budget which attacks benefits to refugees.

- But in case anybody thought that meant the general public is safe from the Cons' action, Scott Anderson and Vanmala Subramaniam report on the latest example of gross regulatory neglect - as Transport Canada let GM vehicles with a deadly flaw stay on the road after failing to follow up on an investigation. (And as an added bonus, Lisa Raitt lied to the public about her department's knowledge - though that seems to be the trend among Harper and his provincial puppet governments.)

- Finally, the CP reports on the NDP's work to pass an environmental bill of rights.

On inexplicable delays

Yes, the positive media response signals how important the impending debate over the NDP's Bright Futures Fund proposal figures to be in the lead-up to Saskatchewan's November election. But the even more significant bit of fallout looks to be part of Bill Boyd's panicked response which has less to do with the fund than its source of revenue:

A review of resource revenues would “make some sense” after the incentives in place to grow the mining industry wind down in 2014 or 2015, Boyd said.

Keep in mind that to date, the Sask Party's usual position has been that any review of resource royalties to make sure Saskatchewan's citizens receive a fair price for their shared resources would be absolutely intolerable at any time and under any circumstances. Which is at least a logically coherent position, if not likely to be a popular one.

But in his response to the NDP's proposal for a resource revenue fund, Boyd has effectively given the game away on royalty rates as well.

After all, it surely can't escape notice that the royalty rates applied over the next few years - before any new development is actually finished - have nothing at all to do with incentives to promote that development. In fact, any argument actually based on certainty for new investments would work in the opposite direction: better to review royalties now and set up a structure that will last in the longer term, rather than opening up a window for some future review which would affect new projects just as they begin production.

Meanwhile, the obvious beneficiaries in the absence of a royalty review are...resource extractors who have existing operations that don't require further investment. After all, they can take advantage of what are generally acknowledged to be unduly low rates by seeking to extract as much as possible over the next few years and skim off the profits - without any reason to think that the temporary windfall will result in any additional development whatsoever.

So the difference between the NDP and the Sask Party on a royalty review is now merely whether one should be carried out 8 years after the previous one or 11 years afterward - when there's nothing even faintly approaching a reasonable economic argument for the latter.

In effect, Boyd is declaring on behalf of the Wall government that the province needs to put up with three or four more years of handing hundreds of millions of dollars in undeserved free money to his party's corporate benefactors - while simultaneously arguing that the prospect of a review when the Saskatchewan Party deigns to get around to it won't affect investment which will be subject entirely to the new rates. And the combination of abandonment of principle and glaringly flawed logic in the Sask Party's new position should do nothing but help the NDP make the case for an immediate royalty rate review as a matter of fairness to Saskatchewan's residents.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On impending giveaways

Remarkably, it doesn't seem to have received much comment yet aside from a mention in James Wood's legislative notebook. But the fact that the Wall government is actively looking to hand free money to oil companies would seem well worth criticizing as the province debates how best to secure and invest its resource revenue:

Saskatchewan is considering competing with Calgary.

Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd says the Saskatchewan Party government could expand head office tax incentives beyond the potash industry, with oil companies a potential target.

In 2009 the government introduced a five-year, $100,000 per employee annual tax credit for each head office job created or relocated in Saskatchewan by potash companies.

Potash was seen as a natural choice because of the size of the industry in Saskatchewan, but others are also being eyed, acknowledged Boyd.

"Would we look at any kind of an incentive for oil companies and try to attract them to Saskatchewan? It might be something we would consider, yes," he said.

Now, it would be hard to blame any company for taking up the offer: after all, they surely can't say "no" to having Saskatchewan pay its employees while being able to reap the profits of their work. But the fact that an incentive program would largely be intended to lure businesses from Alberta only proves that there's no expectation of long-term gain: as soon as anybody else offered a better deal, they'd have an equally strong incentive to bolt rather than actually setting down any meaningful roots in Saskatchewan.

As a result of both that reality and the sheer absurdity of shoving more public money at already-profitable industries, I highly doubt that most Saskatchewan citizens see paying the oil industry's bills as being the best use of Saskatchewan's resources. And since there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that another term of the Sask Party would see millions upon millions more in giveaways, it's long past time to highlight the Wall government's desire to make sure the proceeds of Saskatchewan's boom are funneled into corporate coffers before it's too late.

On notable omissions

It isn't much surprise that the Wall government has decided to put a corporate front group in charge of advising it on a possible potash takeover. But it's remarkable just how brazen the Sask Party is being in declaring that as far as it's concerned, nothing matters but big business:

The Saskatchewan government has commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to complete a report to understand the implications for Saskatchewan of a proposed takeover of PotashCorp.

1. The report will identify general risks to and opportunities for:
- All aspects of potash industry employment in Saskatchewan;
- Revenues of the Government of Saskatchewan including royalty revenue, corporate tax
revenue, indirect revenue;
- Saskatchewan's strategic position in the international potash industry; and
- Saskatchewan's reputation for a positive investment climate.

Now, some of us might think that a provincial government should have some interest in figuring out how a takeover would affect the scope of future policymaking, or that it might be worth considering the interests of Saskatchewan's citizens as the ultimate owner of our potash resources. But instead, the provincial government is mentioned solely from the perspective of "revenue", while the long-term interests of Saskatchewan's people are left out altogether.

But while mere people apparently don't rate a mention in the Sask Party's terms of reference, a "reputation for a positive investment climate" is proclaimed to be an explicit end goal. (Though I suppose the Wall government does tend to see that as the polar opposite of giving people any say in how their province is governed.)

Now, one might want to excuse the Sask Party by suggesting that those questions should be dealt with elsewhere. But the report is supposed to cover the "implications for Saskatchewan", full stop. And based on the Sask Party's track record, there's no reason to think it'll do anything but take a corporate-focused report as the definitive word on the subject.

Which means that the Wall government's hand-picked terms of reference create an inescapable conclusion that it doesn't see Saskatchewan's citizens as having any legitimate interest in how their publicly-owned natural resources are managed.

An improbable failure

Not surprisingly, the Saskatchewan NDP has been all over the apparent demise of the province's joint carbon capture project with the government of Montana. But it's worth pointing out just how remarkable it is that the Wall government has managed not to get any support from the Harper Cons.

After all, carbon capture and storage has been basically the only idea with any environmental application that the Cons happily funded at every turn. And the reason for that is obvious based on their consistent desire to hand money to the oil patch.

If CCS gets fully developed on a commercial scale, it would at least eliminate much of the risk associated with future greenhouse gas emission regulations. But even more significantly, CCS would effectively create a license for the oil industry to print money if combined with the Cons' plan for "intensity" targets - as the industry would be able to ramp up production (and maybe even overall emissions) while using technology developed at public expense to sell carbon credits as well.

That combination of theoretical environmental appeal and a potential windfall for the oil industry is why the Cons have made CCS a regular recipient of federal largesse while they've been in power. So the province's pitch for funding should have been roughly as difficult as selling water to a traveller stranded in the desert.

But even a bar that low is apparently more than the Wall government can clear. Which makes the failure of the Montana project just one more reason to wonder how much else the Sask Party is managing to foul up against all odds.

But are they listening?

While he's more optimistic than he probably should be as to the likelihood of anything improving, Murray Mandryk is right to note a common thread linking most of the Wall government's most glaring mistakes:

(I)f you look at where this government has struggled, it usually boils down to a minister who didn't listen.

Consider the government's problems in the last year: The massive overestimation of potash revenues, changes to Bill 80 that appeared to have been written by the construction industry; the more legitimate union concerns about abuse of the new essential services law and unfair bargaining; the privacy commissioner's concerns about disclosing patient hospital stay information to fundraisers; the unpopular changes to the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act (WHPA); the surprising furor over SCN cuts; the witch hunt over the NDP leak on the wrongly released sex offender, and; (sic) even the piddling budget cuts to Dutch elm disease and mosquito control.

So what do all these problems have in common? Well, the problems tended to start with either the minister concerned not seeking better advice or choosing to listen to only what he or she wanted to hear.
...
Too much government time has been wasted listening to friendlies blowing smoke -- the construction industry, the potash corporations promising gigantic production numbers and expansions, the business sector, etc. Not enough time has been spent listening to others that would help develop more rounded policies. For this, Wall must take responsibility. He's allowed too many ministers like Rob Norris, Bill Boyd and Don McMorris to cater to specific interest groups at the expense of others. In short, he's made it easy for them not to listen.

On choices

Needless to say, Joe's latest on the Sask Party's sponsorship of and involvement in a corporate propagandafest is a must-read. But it's worth pointing out more succinctly what the post ultimately says about the Wall government.

When it comes to consulting with mere citizens on its policy decisions, the Wall government can't be bothered. But Brad Wall, Bill Boyd and company always have time to hobnob with the corporate sector.

And the Sask Party is eager to use its deficit as an excuse to slash public services ranging from aboriginal employment to SCN to family support programs. But the Wall government can always find public money to be funneled to its cronies.

"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 possible outcomes

Having quoted Murray Mandryk's latest this morning, I'll take some time to deal with his somewhat more questionable column from yesterday on the effects of the RCMP's decision to charge Ernest Morin for (as Mandryk prefers to describe it) his "alleged criminal activity" in signing up the members of the Flying Dust and Waterhen Lake First Nations without their consent.

Off the top, it would seem obvious enough that to the extent the Morin story stays in the news, the result figures to be a negative one for the NDP - no matter how exemplary or correct the party's response to Morin's activities may have been. And I won't pretend that the apparent agreement between the NDP's investigation and the RCMP's changes that fact.

But there's a glaring disconnect between the issues which Mandryk seems to want to see discussed further, and the possible content of any Morin trial. Here's Mandryk on what he thinks a trial would involve:

But such a trial would also produce a lot of collateral damage to both Lingenfelter and the party -- damage that the aforementioned NDP sanitized version of the "controversy" isn't now talking about.

Was it really the Lingenfelter camp that first came clean on the membership "controversy" or was it those in rival camps that brought it to light? Why did no one in Lingenfelter's camp notice the alleged forgeries? Why did they simply forward them to party head office, and why did Lingenfelter's camp attach $10 and $20 bills to each membership application instead of writing one cheque?

Now, there's room to argue as to which of those questions have already been answered by the Hale report. But I'm not sure there can be much room for argument as to whether there's any likelihood of a Morin trial shedding any further light on the subject.

After all, in making out a case against Morin, what reason would the Crown have to call evidence about what happened as the membership forms were processed by the campaign office? Or about the NDP's subsequent investigation? Simply put, any "criminal activities" being alleged of Morin were complete at the point when the membership forms went from his hands to the Lingenfelter campaign.

In effect, there's no reason why either side would be expected to delve into subsequent events if they're focused on what a trial would actually be oriented toward proving or disproving. And likewise, any plea agreement by Morin would seem to involve only the facts as to what Morin did - not any further information about the responses by the Lingenfelter campaign and the party.

From that starting point, any actual talk about the questions raised by Mandryk as a result of the charges would have to be based on Morin fighting the charges and choosing to use a trial as a soapbox to point fingers elsewhere. But there's little apparent reason why he'd choose to do that now after keeping quiet while the matter was being investigated before - both by the NDP initially, and by the RCMP in the course of deciding whether or not to lay charges.

Of course, it's undoubtedly true that the Sask Party will want to keep up as much speculation as it can surrounding the events which wouldn't be addressed at trial, and they'll have a more ready excuse to do so if the charges offer an opportunity to raise the issue in the media. And the NDP may have reason for concern if Mandryk is signalling that he plans to join in.

But the answers to the questions which actually have some bearing on the NDP as a party have long been in the books. The party investigated immediately and made the results public; Lingenfelter chose not to punish anybody involved for the oversight issues raised by Hale, and won the approval of a majority of the party's leadership voters even with that fact known.

So the biggest question surrounding any idle speculation about the membership controversy is whether it'll be allowed to take the province's focus away from more important issues about how it's currently being governed and wants to be governed in the future. (Say, has anybody thought to ask Bill Boyd just how it was that he had no clue what he was supposed to be testifying about last fall? Or is mere cabinet incompetence something that doesn't merit follow-up?) And while it's indeed hard to see any positive outcome for the NDP in that event, it's equally difficult to see the province as a whole being better off either.

(Edit: fixed typo, wording.)

The Sask Party Uranium Response: "We Don't Care What You Think"

I've posted previously about the Sask Party's latest declaration of its intention to push nuclear development regardless of what Saskatchewan's citizens might think. But it's worth looking in somewhat more detail at just how thoroughly the Wall government has rejected the public's input into nuclear policy. So let's compare the findings of Dan Perrins' consultation report to the Sask Party's response.

Here are Perrins' findings on uranium exploration and mining:

There were 519 responses that dealt specifically with the province’s approach to the exploration and mining of uranium. Nearly three-quarters (70%, n=364) were against the exploration and mining of uranium, while one-quarter (25%, n=128) were supportive (see Figure 44). An additional 5% (n=27) either did not know and wanted more information, or did not state whether they were opposed or supportive.
...
More specifically, in terms of those opposed to exploration and mining, most (41%, n=215) said that they were opposed to any further expansion of exploration and mining of uranium.

Which naturally leads to the following response from the Wall government on the subject:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(a)ctively supporting uranium mining and exploration...

(The government) will examine its program incentives and competitiveness of its royalties, work with the federal government on a more thorough review of licence applications and on implementation of the recommendations of the federal competition policy review panel. It will work with industry on the infrastructure needed for new mine development.

So the public says "stop", the Sask Party's response is "barge ahead". Which of course looks to be a common theme when it comes to Wall's nuclear agenda.

Nuclear research and isotope production was the closest category in Perrins' review, but still one where opposition to nuclear development trumped support:

About four in ten (42%, n=174) responses opposed uranium research, training, and development. However, one-third of responses (32%, n=136) were in favour of going ahead with further uranium or nuclear research, training, and development, as shown in Figure 54. Another sizable number of responses (19%, n=81) spoke directly to the creation of isotopes for medical purposes, either without specifying how they would be created or by saying they wanted to see isotopes produced without nuclear fission. A small number of responses (2%, n=9) were against the production of medical isotopes for any reason.

But needless to say, the Sask Party decided to respond to a clear split in public opinion by utterly ignoring one side of the question:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(e)ncouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment...

The government...(supports) the concept of a nuclear research centre of excellence and expanded mining and exploration programs at academic institutions. It supports determining investment priorities in targeted areas of nuclear research and in partnering with the federal government on a research reactor that would produce medical isotopes.

In contrast, the question of nuclear waste and storage was one where a massive majority of Saskatchewanians interested in the issue registered their disapproval:

Approximately 900 responses dealt with nuclear waste disposal and storage, which includes references to used fuel or nuclear waste. The majority of these responses (86%, n=769) from people participating in the consultation process were strongly against nuclear waste disposal and storage in Saskatchewan, as shown in Figure 21. However, some responses (12%, n=103) did support waste disposal and storage in Saskatchewan.

Which of course means that the Wall government...wants to encourage future development as soon as anybody's willing to suggest it, contrary to the views of six out of every seven people who have an opinion about it:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...reserving decisions on supporting Saskatchewan communities interested in
hosting nuclear waste management facilities to when such proposals are advanced in a regulatory process...

And then there's the area most discussed by Saskatchewan citizens in making their submissions to Perrins:

Just over 1,400 responses dealt specifically with nuclear power generation in the province. Most petitions and form letters received centred on this area.

Of these 1,401 responses, 84% (n=1,183) were generally against nuclear power generation for the province, whether that included power generation for export or not (as seen in Figure 5). Many indicated that they did not want a nuclear power plant in their area of the province. Over one in ten (14%, n=190) were in favour of nuclear power, and 2% (n=28) of responses were either not given or expressed indecision.

But naturally, the Sask Party has responded to that red light on nuclear power by telling SaskPower to push ahead:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(d)irecting SaskPower to continue including nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for additional baseload generation capacity in the medium and long term after 2020.

So never mind that a strong majority of Saskatchewan citizens with any interest in nuclear issues at all took the time to express their disagreement with nuclear power. Having received about as compelling a public statement of objection as one could possibly imagine, their reaction has been...to tell those who made their views known that they can go pound sand, as they'll be ordering SaskPower to ignore the will of the people.

Of course, there are other serious issues with how the Sask Party is handling the nuclear issue. As a noteworthy example, having tied Perrins' hands in the type of recommendations he was allowed to make, they're now trying to frame public debate around the very UDP recommendations which were called into question by the public's input.

But most glaring problem is the fact that the Wall government has just declared that it couldn't care less what the public thinks about nuclear development. And as long as the public's views are being tossed out the window so casually, there's plenty of reason for concern that the public's interests will fare no better in Wall's decision-making.

When no means yes

A couple of shorter Bill Boyds from his nuclear announcement today.

To Bruce Power:

That lousy public has forced us to make a show of saying "no for now" to your current plans. But move a couple of commas around and we'll talk again next year.

And to the rest of the nuclear industry:

We've decided that saying "no for now" on power gives us cover to approve absolutely anything else you throw at us. So help yourself: the province is ripe for the plucking!

Someday, this could all be...hey, it's ours already!

CBC:

The uranium mill at McClean Lake, Sask., will close next summer, resulting in about 140 layoffs, but company officials say it will reopen when the economy improves.

Areva owns 70 per cent of the mill, while Denison Mines Corp. and OURD Canada Co. Ltd. own the remainder.

Denison said Tuesday that the McClean Lake project is being placed on "care and maintenance" mode, starting in July 2010.
...
The company didn't provide a date for reopening, saying processing will begin again "when economically viable."

The layoffs will take place at the mill site and Areva's office in Saskatoon. Areva employs about 270 people at McClean Lake and about 200 at the Saskatoon office.

So what can we learn from the closure? Well, let's recap the interaction between the Wall government and Areva since the Sask Party took power just two short years ago.

When the Sask Party took office, it declared its intention to make the nuclear industry an economic centrepiece. And in hopes of making that happen, it handed the industry millions to draw up a wish list for future development.

Not surprisingly, Areva and other participants responded by putting together a report which claimed that exploration and mining should be a top priority for immediate expansion due to the certainty of a global boom in demand. And of course the report featured nary a mention of even a remote risk of downturns in the industry to counterbalance such optimistic declarations as "demand for primary uranium will grow substantially over the next 10 years".

But Areva's enthusiasm for provincial investment apparently wasn't matched by its own willingness to keep its existing operations going. And so when the chips were down, the Sask Party's eagerness to be the uranium sector's best friend didn't save a single job.

Just so we're clear: it's not that Areva can be faulted for the decision it's made. After all, its job is to value the interests of its shareholders over those of the province where it does business.

But while the story doesn't necessarily have a villain, it certainly stars Brad Wall as Chump #1. And hopefully the combined lessons from today's closure announcement and this year's potash fiasco will encourage the Sask Party to stop basing its expectations on unreliable and unrealistic resource development plans in time to set its direction for the industry in the future.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Fixed

The Leader-Post misses what's sure to have been part of its story about 2011 election planning. So here's the fixed version:

(The NDP's Kevin) Yates said he hope(s) the Sask. Party is not so caught up in thinking about the 2011 election that it neglects the work it needs to do in government.

But Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd -- recently named by Wall to be Sask. Party campaign chair -- said that won't happen.

Pressed as to whether the answer should be "will happen" or "won't happen", Boyd noted that he might not have the correct information with him, and asked for time to allow his aides to work it out. After 90 minutes of Boyd cursing under his breath while whispering back and forth with his staffers, Sask Party MLA Tim McMillan stepped in to advise that the interview was over.

So much to learn

Sure, we anonymous wannabe opinion makers may have been the ones who publicly reported the recent committee meetings where Bill Boyd and Rod Gantefoer demonstrated that they lack the slightest clue about issues for which they're directly responsible as Sask Party cabinet ministers.

That said, though, CanWest's superior news-gathering resources and insider access still count for something. And it apparently took James Wood to report that Boyd also whispered the word "bastards" under his breath at the same meeting which he singlehandedly turned into a farce with his lack of knowledge about the subject involved. So clearly we bloggers have a long way to go in matching the corporate media's ability to cover what's really important.

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.

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.