On safety concerns

One of the great mysteries of Scott Moe’s tenure in power is how he’s evaded scrutiny for a personal track record which has demonstrated a gross lack of judgment - including getting convicted of impaired driving, causing a separate accident which killed another person, and filing for bankruptcy.

In the Saskatchewan Party’s leadership campaign, Moe managed to stay just below front-runner status which might have caused competitors to focus more on his weaknesses. And since he took power, the NDP has understandably focused on the many problems with what Moe’s government has been doing more while in office, rather than his past personal actions.

To be sure, it’s a noble impulse to presume that people can overcome and learn from their past tragedies. But there comes a point where we need to ask whether somebody is repeating the patterns which caused them to happen.

And in Moe’s case, the answer is alarming.

Moe offered a brief media tour when his fatal car crash was raised during the course of the Saskatchewan Party leadership campaign. And his responses then are telling today.

While Moe acknowledged the collision, he avoided humanizing the victim (phrasing his descriptions along the lines of “there was a fatality”). And he's equally plainly dodged any self-awareness or responsibility - recognizing that the RCMP’s investigation determined that he drove unsafely, but portraying the crash as a mere matter of whether he proceeded “a few moments earlier, a few moments later”, rather than something for which he bore any fault.

Moe’s pattern of barrelling ahead with insufficient regard for the safety of himself or others has followed him into power. And now, it’s set the tone for his government.

It would have been telling enough for Moe to pursue a snap spring election at the best of times. Even leaving aside the lack of ethics involved in manipulating a fixed election date for partisan advantage, Canadian political history is rife with leaders who received a rude awakening after indulging in enough hubris to believe that an unnecessary early election was the road to holding power indefinitely.

Even worse, though, Moe was positively gleeful in taunting the NDP and the province about calling an election at a time when any avoidable person-to-person contact exacerbates the risks of a public health emergency - while his party also mocked the NDP's well-founded efforts to point out how dangerous that would have been.

Having reluctantly ruled out the snap election plan (while again refusing to admit he could possibly have been in the wrong), Moe has continued to demonstrate a glaring lack of attention to dangerous driving conditions, insisting on presenting budget documentation for political consumption long after anybody could possibly think it bore any resemblance to reality. It was only this week that he finally and farcically decided to erase the revenue side of the ledger altogether from a spending plan - which figures to allow his party to advertise its election platform on the public dime.

That’s all consistent with the Saskatchewan Party's political strategy of making loud announcements, spending millions of corporate dollars on slanderous attack ads, and hoping to have people make surface judgments based on a lack of information. (And if Moe had been able to get his way, an election held during a pandemic might well have helped in creating that political environment.)

And the problem goes far beyond Moe himself: as he's set the example, his passengers in cabinet have chosen to egg him on. Gord Wyant has taken to shouting insults at any passer-by brazen enough to suggest that Moe keep his eyes on the road; Don Morgan and Jim Reiter have gone out of their way to moon Meili and the NDP, rather than focusing on some of the most important cabinet roles in a public health crisis.

The end result is that Moe’s reckless joyride is endangering everybody in Saskatchewan. And as a province, we need to ask how many people have to get killed by our premier’s unsafe driving before we finally wrestle the keys away.

New column day

Here, on how Brad Wall's costly and counterproductive decision to trash the Saskatchewan Transportation Company mirrors his government's worst traits.

For further reading...
- Jason Warick reported here on the plan to shut down STC - as well as the absurd day-long shutdown of the service for nothing more than communications purposes. And the government's excuses are found here (PDF).
- Adam Hunter followed up by examining some of the effects of taking away STC service.
- Warick also reported on the first wave of protests against library cuts, while CBC took note of protests to save STC as well.
- Meanwhile, the CP highlights Don Morgan's bizarre claim that Saskatchewan has too many libraries.
- And finally, Doug Caldwell offers his take on the Saskatchewan Party's burn-the-furniture budget.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives rounds up some noteworthy responses to the federal budget. Barbara Sibbald and Laura Eggertson write that while a few social determinants of health made the cut, our actual health care system will see virtually nothing. Armine Yalnizyan highlights how it falls short both Liberal promises and glaring needs in a number of areas, while Andrew Jackson emphasizes the need for increased revenue to pay for even the half-measures included in the Trudeau Libs' first budget. And Michal Rozworski opines that the Libs are doing little but following the Cons' plans for austerity:

(F)ederal spending on programs, on our social safety net, is set to rise to just 14.6 per cent of GDP one year from now, marginally higher than today. This is, however, a mere blip in the long downward trajectory since the late 1970s, when program spending was around 20 per cent. The projections in this budget do not signal a turnaround: program spending is to remain flat and fall back down to 2015 levels by 2020. All the rhetoric about rebuilding the middle class doesn’t translate into rebuilding our common social supports. The question is what will be cut in the future to make up for the boost in spending today.

Finally, a significant chunk of the deficit spending is simply due to better accounting. The Conservatives played fast and loose with the numbers and Harper performed some fiscal magic tricks to create surpluses for his final budget. The Liberals are projecting to spend more than the Conservatives but they are also projecting far lower revenues, especially in the first few years. This explains part of the headline-grabbing deficits.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh discusses the problems for both sick workers and the people around them when paid leave isn't available.

- CBC News reports on the Prairie Spirit School Division's budget cuts caused by provincially-imposed austerity, while Austin Davis reports that Regina's public school system is scraping by with 665 unfunded students. So naturally, the response of the Saskatchewan Party (which of course took away the ability of school boards to raise needed funds) is to try to shout down anybody who dares to point out the underfunding.

- Finally, Charles Mandel points out a warning from climate scientists that we're plunging into catastrophic climate change faster than anticipated.

New column day

Here, on the Wall government's secret attack on overtime pay for retail workers - and how it reflects a preference for the rule of lobbyists over the rule of law.

For further reading...
- See my previous posts here, here and here for background on the story - including the Ministry's directives to staff at the second link.
- And I'll note that selective "flexibility" - defined as workers bending over backwards to serve their corporate overlords - is the Saskatchewan Party's main excuse for cutting workers' overtime pay. And Katie Mazer discusses how that same principle applies elsewhere as the Cons try to force workers from across Canada into marginal jobs in the oil patch.

On overtime losses

Those readers who follow my law blog will already be familiar with this week's news about the Saskatchewan Party government's attack on overtime pay for retail workers. But I'll take some time to assemble the full story here.

Historically, a "day" for the purpose of calculating overtime for Saskatchewan workers has been defined as any consecutive period of 24 hours. All Saskatchewan workers have been entitled to overtime if they are required to work more than 8 hours in any such period.

As part of its response to the Saskatchewan Party's employment law review process, the Retail Council of Canada wanted to change the definition of a "day" for the purposes of calculating overtime pay. (Unfortunately, the actual submission - along with everything else associated with the massive consultation process which resulted in a wholesale revision of Saskatchewan labour and employment law - has been wiped from the Ministry's website. But a summary of the RCC's position can be found in its followup submission here.)

The RCC wanted a "day" redefined to mean only a calendar day (or any other single 24-hour period set by an employer). That means that a worker could be required to work up to 16 hours out of 24 - say, a 4 PM-12 AM shift one day and an 8 AM-4 PM shift the next - without receiving a nickel of overtime pay.

The government declined to act on that submission in actually drafting the new Saskatchewan Employment Act (SEA).

Like the previous Labour Standards Act, the SEA explicitly states that for the purposes of the calculation and payment of overtime, a "day" means "any period of 24 consecutive hours". And nothing in the new Employment Standards Regulations - which were released without debate and with minimal consultation, but would at least have provided some public notice of planned changes - alters that definition or its application in any way.

In other words, the Ministry didn't offer any warning whatsoever that it planned to slash overtime pay for retail employees. And as late as October 2014, the Ministry published its new employment standards guide for employers (PDF) - which confirmed at page 19 that the existing rules governing "short-shifting" (as the RCC calls multiple shifts in a 24-hour period) hadn't changed.

But while the Wall government didn't make any change in the law or even offer any public notice that the Ministry might change its position, it directed the Ministry's staff to apply the RCC's interpretation to retail workers - rationalizing that the SEA was supposed to offer more "flexibility" to employers in cutting overtime pay even if if offered no authority whatsoever to change the law. And while that direction wasn't offered until December 12, staff were instructed to apply the RCC's interpretation to all hours worked after April 29, 2014 - the day the SEA was proclaimed in force.

In effect, the Saskatchewan Party secured passage of the SEA by assuring workers that it wasn't attacking employment standards. But it's since started telling employer groups, along with the public servants charged with enforcing the law, that the proclamation in force of the SEA means that all bets are off when it comes to employment standards.

As noted on my law blog, I'll be working on gathering more information both about this particular interpretation (which only became public because the RCC decided to brag about having won secretly what it couldn't win through a proper democratic process), as well as any other changes the Ministry has made in employment standards or other worker rights since the SEA came into force. But the clear takeaway for now is that Saskatchewan workers have reason to worry that the agency charged with enforcing their rights is receiving secret orders to attack them instead.

Update: I'll clarify a couple of points which I made on the law blog, but haven't yet noted above.

First, the change in interpretation didn't actually change the law: theoretically, employees should still have been able to claim the overtime provided for under the SEA. But they'd have had to fight the Ministry's interpretation through an adjudication and appeal process, representing a significant barrier for employees who don't have time or money to fight over the rights which are supposed to be protected by law.

And second, the Ministry did abandon its "pilot" interpretation last week, but only after it had been brought to light.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sum Of Us deserves plenty of credit for highlighting Enbridge's attempt to delete a thousand square kilometers of treacherous and sensitive islands in order to sugar-coat the dangers of shipping oil out of Kitimat. But it's also worth noting that the issue goes beyond the precise site chosen as the first and cheapest option: as Enbridge itself has claimed in its attempt to assuage people who stand to be affected by the pipeline inland, there's far more risk involved in shipping oil products by tanker than by pipeline wherever they choose to place the port. And that means the greater outrage is the Cons' utter negligence in doing everything they can to encourage tanker traffic.

- Meanwhile, John O'Connor points out the difference between the Cons' refusal to study or regulate  the genuine dangers of reckless oil production and use, and their determination to find fault with cleaner and safer wind power alternatives.

- Erin catches Don Morgan in a whopper of a lie about the state of Saskatchewan manufacturing since his government took power:

Saskatchewan newspapers report:

“Certainly in professional, scientific and technical areas and in the mining and the manufacturing sector (the job numbers) are very strong,” Don Morgan, minister of advanced education and labour relations, told reporters at news conference Friday.

On Friday, Statistics Canada reported that Saskatchewan manufacturing employment dropped by 900 last month and declined by 600 over the past year. Since Morgan’s Sask. Party government took office, our province has lost 5,100 manufacturing jobs. By what measure is manufacturing employment “very strong”?

...

It’s easy to understand why Sask. Party politicians would like to claim strong manufacturing employment. They are trying to characterize “Dutch disease” as an eastern Canadian preoccupation. In reality, manufacturing job losses have afflicted all regions of Canada, including Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Bill Curry reports on the radical anti-worker advice that looks to form the basis for the Cons' next budget. But it's worth noting that even the Cons' corporate allies are using inequality language as both a goal and an excuse to attack labour just as brutally as their Republican counterparts:

Labour issues surface in several discussion categories, with the general view that Canadian workers are overpriced. “Need to address wage differentials in labor market among countries; we are losing jobs to other countries,” the memo reads. “Right to Work legislation should be pondered as it creates inequities in productivity; US example was provided.”

In the United States, about two dozen state governments have passed right-to-work legislation, which allows workers to opt out of paying union dues. Critics call the measures a form of union busting.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Doug Saunders discusses how corporate cash hoarding is limiting any economic recovery - and what we can do about it:

(T)his should be a great time for companies to invest: low prices, low interest rates, cheaper labour costs. A sensible company would build up cash during boom times – when investments are more expensive – and spend it during recessions, when consumer demand is weak and capital is cheap.
Yet this is the precise opposite of what actually happens. Companies look at the low consumer demand and become terrified, failing to recognize their own role in creating it.

This has become a public issue. There are some very important reasons why we need investment and spending now – and why chopping down the cash mountains should come before filling in the debt pits.

Unemployment is threatening to cripple an entire generation in many countries. The worldwide food crisis has returned, for no good reason; with more investment, the world could produce more than enough food. There are serious housing shortages in most Western countries. The drive to reduce carbon emissions has stalled, due to a shortage of investment in nuclear and alternative-energy power sources.

If the economy doesn’t start moving, there is something else we could do: start taxing those cash reserves – especially those held overseas. If we make hoarding expensive, companies will find it more desirable to use earnings to increase market share, improve products through research or expand into new markets.

- Sarah Schmidt reports on the Cons' choice to prioritize an unregulated junk food industry over the advice of health experts on trans-fat monitoring.

- Don Morgan helpfully responds to criticism of his government's attacks on a hundred years of labour progress by saying that his own consultation paper means nothing whatsoever. Meanwhile, Erin Weir points out that Saskatchewan residents are facing real cost-of-living increases which the Sask Party has gone out of its way to avoid ameliorating.

- The Guardian highlights that the NDP is making inroads in Prince Edward Island, both in terms of general organization and a provincial leadership race.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan suggests that the Cons' environmental and military debacles are doing the NDP's work as an official opposition for it:

The first was the huge hole blown in their single most significant economic initiative – unwavering support for Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. The second was the blow to their vaunted managerial efficiency that was to be demonstrated by a modernized Canadian military machine, central to the warrior culture the government wants to make a cherished Canadian value.

In each case, the week’s bad news happened to be the fourth in a series of bad stories that have begun to undermine these two major projects. Oil pipelines received the most coverage, all of it damning. Enbridge’s very public humiliation at the hands of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, for a serious pipeline rupture in Michigan in 2010, reminded Canadians that no fewer than three large oil spills had taken place in Alberta itself just the previous month. That in turn evoked unwelcome memories of last year’s massive spill near Peace River, Alta., which then led to reminders that besides the Michigan disaster, 2010 also saw an average of two pipeline failures every day in Alberta. No one, it seems, had remembered this distressing record – until now.

Suddenly, the existing political equation was turned on its head. Instead of the Harper-led attacks on opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline project as radicals, Canadian politicians and oil interests were now falling all over themselves to insist they put safety first. The villains had become, in the words of one American regulator, Enbridge’s “Keystone Kops.” And instead of Mr. Mulcair being characterized as the mindless arch-enemy of an ever-expanding energy sector, he seemed increasingly credible as a voice of elementary commonsense, as polls indicate.
...
So the competent Harper economic managers cannot properly supply the armed forces they’ve tried so hard to elevate as a symbol of conservative Canada. And their signature economic policy cannot advance without a guarantee that some time, somewhere, Canada will continue to pay massive environmental costs for it. It seems the Conservatives are graciously doing a good deal of Mr. Mulcair’s work for him.

But I will caution that the Cons have offered plenty of examples of their own incompetence before which weren't enough to cause voters to turf them from office. And the NDP's real work likely lies in making sure that these types of stories stay at the forefront of Canadian political discussion, rather than allowing the Cons to deflect attention elsewhere.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Libby Davies weighs in on what comes next for the NDP:

(Jack Layton) had a vision for Canada that was about inclusivity and fairness, and he was willing to work with others to make this happen.

However, talking mergers (as they do in the corporate world) is not a way to realize this vision -- and is not something I'm in favour of. What I believe can bring this vision to fruition is doing the hard work of reaching out and engaging Canadians in a more participatory democratic political process. Let's stand down the elites and move up the grassroots. Let's acknowledge that we do live in a classed, racialized, and gendered society, and that our political work should open up and embrace bold change that transforms power towards a society that is more equalized, sharing, and compassionate.

This means understanding the structural changes that are required -- such as electoral reform and fairer taxation. It also means emboldening our principles and actions: to defend public services, to stand for a principled position against war and oppression, and uphold basic human dignity and social and environmental justice. It means realizing that those at the top don't have a monopoly on deciding what needs to be done. Let's look to real life experience, the energy of youth, and the collective wisdom manifested in strong local communities, where many amazing changes are taking place that must be supported and sustained.

- The first rule of reporting on Stephen Harper is that you do not report on Stephen Harper.

- Your entirely credible Saskatchewan Party government at work trying to explain its efforts to deny the vote to First Nations citizens:

Justice Minister Don Morgan said the government had not adopted the attestation of residence for First Nations because there had been situations in the recent federal election where a band officer or chief had issued forms for all First Nation members en masse without knowing whether the individuals actually lived on the reserve.

Diane Benson, a spokesperson for Elections Canada, said Friday the organization had found no problems with attestation of residence in the spring election nor were any complaints raised about its use as an identification.

- And finally, Don Gunderson nicely pegs the Sask Party's excuse for economic management:

A "fair share" for our resources is the highest price the market will bear, in the same way that a "fair share" for a person's home is the highest price they can sell it for. It's based on the principle that the people of the province own the resources, not the developers or the government. It's based on a cost/benefit analysis using market realities, not ideology or political self-interest.

What evidence is there that we are receiving a fair share? Lots of investment? That's like a shyster realtor putting your $500,000 house up for sale for $100,000 and then bragging "what a good realtor I am. Look at all the buyer interest I generated."

On conflicts of interest

The big story in Saskatchewan politics over the past week was the revelation that Justice Minister Don Morgan owned hotels for which he was responsible as minister for the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority, followed by his resignation from the SLGA post. But while the talk this week has mostly revolved around the unique situation of a minister directly regulating his own private activities (which is apparently a step further than even the Wall government would defend in light of a statutory prohibition), it's worth keeping in mind that the general principle of having obviously-interested parties develop provincial plans and rules for their own industries is one that fits far too well with the Sask Party's style of government.

From paying the nuclear industry millions of dollars to produce a policy wish-list to paying a corporate-friendly group to make key decisions about the potash sector, from creating an overarching agency charged with allowing the private sector to write the province's laws to putting industry groups in charge of enforcement, the Wall government has consistently shown that it sees absolutely no problem putting public functions in the hands of big business. Which in turn has the effect of favouring not only the well-being of the corporate sector over that of the public, but also private actors on the Sask Party's list of donors and connections over anybody who doesn't get hand-picked to write their own rules.

Based on that general philosophy, it's not surprising that Morgan being placed in charge of administering his own corporation's liquor and gaming licenses wouldn't raise any red flags within the Sask Party's circles. But Morgan's resignation still leaves far too much of Saskatchewan's decision-making in the hands of parties who have every interest in directing our public resources toward their own financial benefit - and there's no prospect of that changing as long as the Wall government remains in power.

The reviews are in

The Leader-Post editorial board pulls no punches over the Sask Party's attempt to politicize the hiring of Saskatchewan's Chief Electoral Officer:

Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan was absolutely right the other day when he said "obstructionist" and "grossly unfair" tactics were to blame for the stalemate over hiring a new chief electoral officer for the province.

The problem is that Morgan is directing his wrath at the NDP Opposition, instead of where it really belongs -- his own Saskatchewan Party colleagues.

He'll get no sympathy from us that he and his caucus feel stuck with an acting chief electoral officer they don't want. Our sympathies lie with Dave Wilkie, who has been treated disgracefully in a supposedly non-political process.
...
Wilkie has said little, other than stating he has no idea why the Sask. Party caucus rejected him. Morgan won't say either, though the NDP suggests it's Wilkie's supposed past investigation of a potential violation of election law by a Sask. Party MLA. Whatever the reason, the Sask. Party has cast a shadow over the reputation of a senior public servant and painted itself into a corner.

It's time for Premier Brad Wall to show some leadership by overruling his caucus. The head of Elections Saskatchewan is an independent officer of the legislature -- there's absolutely no room for politics in the selection process.

On partisan choices

Shorter Don Morgan:

Because it is essential that the province's Chief Electoral Officer have the full support of all MLAs, we plan to pick one unilaterally over the objections of the 20 who aren't in our caucus.

Pointless

James Wood reminds us that Elections Saskatchewan remains in a state of flux due to the Sask Party's stubborn insistence that anonymous caucus members should be able to veto the Chief Electoral Officer approved of by every party in the province without giving any reason for doing so. But perhaps the most interesting news involves the likely result for the 2011 election:

(W)ith the relative closeness of the next election, (Justice Minister Don) Morgan said it is difficult to gauge whether someone brought in from outside Elections Saskatchewan as chief electoral officer would be able to oversee a provincial election, even if that person was hired immediately.

"I don't know that. That would depend on the person. If it was somebody who was familiar with Saskatchewan, they might be. But if it was someone who came from outside they may well not be," he said.

Of course, there's no indication that anybody within Elections Saskatchewan has ever been under consideration for the CEO position other than...David Wilkie, the candidate vetoed by the Sask Party. But if it's already too late to bring in somebody from outside the province to oversee the run-up to the 2011 election, then presumably that job will fall to...David Wilkie, in his role as acting Chief Electoral Officer.

So for all the other criticisms that have been leveled at the Sask Party's obstinacy, let's add one more. The Wall government's stand against all-party agreement and cooperative appointment looks to be entirely useless, as it has no apparent chance of changing the identity of the individual in charge of the 2011 election.

Instead, the only impact the Sask Party's stand can have is to make sure that the temporary nature of Wilkie's appointment prevents Elections Saskatchewan from carrying out any long-term planning. And that deserves a new round of questions as to why Wall and company consider themselves entitled to stand in the way of a permanent appointment.

On due diligence

Shorter Don Morgan:

Hiring independent officers of the legislature is haaaaaaaaaaard. Can't we just agree to pick names out of a hat?

On openness

With talk about transparency for MP expenses dominating the federal scene for the past few weeks, it was inevitable that similar questions would start to get asked at the provincial level. And it's a huge plus to see the Saskatchewan NDP take a stand in favour of improved disclosure from the start, particularly with the Sask Party going down the route of its federal cousins by making a fool of itself trying to defend the status quo.

Here's the Sask Party's response to a question about disclosure of caucus expenses:

Morgan, the (Sask Party) government's justice minister, struggled to explain why (caucus funding) has remained hidden over the years even while transparency has increased on other aspects of provincial spending.

He suggested details of caucus spending would provide information to political opponents and raise questions about "motives."

"I think by its nature, caucus is . . . very reluctant to release information that they feel could effect their ability to deal with issues in the house when they want to bring things up," said Morgan.

Sask Party. Hiding. Questionable motives. Can't deal openly with issues. Check.

In contrast, the NDP has nothing to hide, and is willing to disclose its caucus spending accordingly:

But (NDP MLA Kevin) Yates said he could not think of any aspect of caucus spending that would be problematic to release publicly.

He said it was probably time for the board of internal economy to review all rules around expenditure and disclosure.

Needless to say, that looks to be a difficult position for the Sask Party to argue against. So thanks to the Saskatchewan NDP, we should be well on our way toward improved disclosure on the provincial level without the waiting game being played federally - at least, unless the Sask Party thinks it'll do itself more damage by letting the truth get out than by arguing alone for keeping the public in the dark.

On decision makers

Following up on this morning's post, let's go into a bit more detail about exactly what it is that's being proposed in the Sask Party's move to eliminate Saskatchewan's Human Rights Tribunal - and just how far out of place that is compared to virtually every other public function imaginable.

To start with, it might be well and good to note that there are sometimes issues with how files are dealt with when they're taken in at the Human Rights Commission level, as well as that Human Rights Tribunal proceedings can often end up taking time to be completed. But the obvious response to that is to look at how to make the existing systems more efficient, not use the situation as an excuse to trash them. I don't agree with every result that comes out of our court system either - but that doesn't mean we'd be better off to eliminate any ability to decide disputes.

And it should be fairly clear that one won't speed up the process of dealing with a given number of complaints by eliminating the tribunal with specific expertise to deal with them.

Instead, as BCL notes, the obvious goal of requiring human rights enforcement to take place in court is to make it more difficult for complainants to actually take action. And it's worth noting just how far removed that is from the conventional wisdom when it comes to...well, virtually every other type of adjudication under the sun.

Have an issue with privacy or information? There are independent decision-making offices for that at both the provincial and the federal level. Want to see an environmental law enforced? The province is moving toward a ticketing model rather than requiring court hearings for all violations. Public-sector procurement concern? Labour issues? Automobile insurance claims? Workers' compensation claims? Complaints about regulated professionals? Dealt with by arbitral tribunals, every one.

And there's good reason for the shift toward separate tribunals with specific expertise in an area. Simply put, tribunal systems (backstopped by judicial review in exceptional cases) are the simplest, fastest, cheapest way for an individual's concerns about a specific matter to be dealt with by a neutral decision-making body.

Of course, there are other benefits as well. Tribunals allow for far more flexibility in managing proceedings, as the body responsible can shepherd claims through without a need for constant applications to court to keep things moving. And as an added bonus, tribunal members are able to develop deeper knowledge of the issues to be dealt with than a judge who might never have dealt with an issue before a motion finds its way into a courtroom.

Now, no system is perfect, and it may be that there's a need for better procedures to ensure that HRT hearings proceed at a faster pace. But the answer to that for anybody who actually wants concerns to be addressed would seem to be to seek to have dedicated, better-trained tribunal members to handle the task - not to eliminate any collection of institutional knowledge.

Instead, a move toward eliminating the faster, more convenient means of resolving disputes in favour of the formality of a courtroom - at a time when absolutely no other type of proceeding is moving in that direction - can't be seen as anything but a deliberate effort to reduce the ability of complainants to have their concerns addressed.

For prospective defendants, the tradeoff of less claims in exchange for more cost to dealing with them might well be a slight positive at the end of the day - though of course with greater rewards for those who violate rights more frequently. But the disincentive to individuals pursuing their human rights as complainants should be obvious.

Naturally, there are some excuses or dodges to pretend those disincentives shouldn't be a problem. But a case-by-case assessment of access to public legal funding is bound to leave plenty of complainants out in the cold (not to mention being ripe for cuts from the same government which is trying to hold out the application process as somehow representing a useful compromise). And the diversion of public money from actually facilitating complaints to setting up a system to evaluate whether complainants should be approved for a smaller pool of funds can't be seen as anything but the height of inefficiency.

In sum, then, the onus has to be on anybody seeking to eliminate Saskatchewan's human right tribunal system to explain why human rights should be seen as the lone area of public interest where the normally accepted standard for a superior dispute resolution model should be thrown out the window in favour of the more expensive and cumbersome court system. And while there's a ridiculously large body of rhetorical outrage backing up the anti-human rights position, any factual case for it looks to be sorely lacking.

Well said

The Star-Phoenix editorial board tears into the Wall government for its attempt to give Sask Party MLAs a political veto over the appointment of Saskatchewan's independent elections commissioner:

(W)hen the government has a system in place to ensure a non-partisan selection process for a job as important is that of the chief electoral officer, the premier has the duty either to accept the results of that process or make it absolutely clear why he would allow his caucus to throw it out.

And if Justice Minister Don Morgan believes that it's acceptable to change the process after his party get caught fiddling with the results of what has been the accepted manner to choose other non-partisan officers of the legislature, he is as far out of touch with reality as he is with the seriousness of this matter. Top of the list of duties of the chief electoral officer is to remain non-partisan. This must be so only in action but also in perception. The appointment of the electoral officer was depoliticized in 1998, and it's best that it remain that way.

To have the Saskatchewan Party caucus throw out the results of a bi-partisan selection committee without explanation or excuse absolutely violates the perception that the electoral officer's position will remain a non-partisan appointment. Not only does it harm the office of this most critical public servant, it also throws into question Saskatchewan's democratic process.
...
Given what Mr. Morgan has written about Mr. Wilkie's qualifications, and absent an adequate explanation, the unmistakable impression is created that the only reason the Saskatchewan Party would refuse his appointment would be an effort to gerrymander the electoral boundaries or to subvert the electoral process by stacking the office.

The rewrite continues

Another day, another couple of stories which conspicuously rewrite history to pretend that pro-coalition grassroots efforts in 2008 didn't happen. And in both cases, there are points worth some serious followup.

First, there's Susan Delacourt's latest:

(I)t can be argued that last year's protest was more effective -- so far, anyway -- because it had an influence on the Governor-General. It was partly out of deference to widespread anger that she decided to grant the prorogation last year to Harper, we've heard. Right now, it's not clear what this Facebook group can accomplish -- the Jan. 23 rallies will be an important measure, but where will that influence have an effect?

Now, I'd take the above passage with a mine's worth of salt. Assuming that the Governor-General herself has kept the confidences of the PM, the only possible source for information about the basis for Jean's decision is the Harper PMO - which obviously has a massive stake in both ignoring the pro-coalition side in 2008, and talking down the possible impact of the prorogation protest now.

That said, if Jean's decision was in fact based in the slightest on favouring one of two competing sides in an active public opinion battle rather than the constitutional convention of accepting the advice of the PM, then that might well be the most disastrous precedent of all coming out of Harper's prorogation tactics. And any Cons who think they have reason to be smug about the outcome might want to consider what it would mean if opposition parties see both a need and a benefit in packing Canada's streets with protestors in order to influence the GG's decisions.

Secondly, there's James Wood's excuse for Brad Wall's refusal to comment on the prorogation crisis despite the fact that he's nominally the minister responsible for intergovernmental relations:

When reporters asked for the intergovernmental minister this week to comment on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, it was clear the Saskatchewan Party government wasn't too anxious to have Wall wade into that nest of thorns (especially with rumours flying that the PM was to attend the world junior hockey championship in Saskatoon on Tuesday -- and have a handshake meeting with the premier at the game. In the end, Canada's hockey-fan-in-chief didn't make it.)

The Sask. Party government has had its ups and downs with the federal Conservative government, but has generally been among its closest provincial allies. The prorogation issue, however, has fired passions on both sides and there appeared to be little interest in having Wall stoke them further.

Again, it's downright bizarre that Wood would consider the current prorogation as having "fired passions on both sides" when hardly anybody has bothered to take Harper's side - and the few voices trying to carry the Cons' water have tried to make the case that "it's not a big deal" rather than offering passionate support for Harper.

But the line is particularly out of place when Wall chose to wade directly into the 2008 confrontation when there actually were large movements on both sides. And particularly with Con member Don Morgan providing a tepid defence of Harper rather than even recognizing for a second that Saskatchewan's voters might not be happy to have Parliament shut down, this looks to be another example of the Sask Party placing its allegiance to Harper above the interests of the province.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board:

While half a world away gay citizens of India celebrated a historic high court ruling that denoted a vast advancement in their human rights, the Saskatchewan Party government was asking for a court's guidance on how to allow a group of public officials to discriminate against homosexuals.

Attorney General Don Morgan, himself a lawyer who owes the justice system more respect than to attempt to use it as a political cats-paw, announced Friday he's asking the Court of Appeal for an opinion on legislation that would allow marriage commissioners not to perform same-sex marriages if it's contrary to their religious beliefs.
...
It's difficult to imagine any other grounds for discrimination that the province's Justice Minister would seem worthy enough to seek a court reference.

Would the minister go to bat for a social conservative who objects, justified on grounds of "traditional values" or religion, to wed a mixed-race couple? How about a Hindu doctor who refuses to treat a person he believes to be of a lower caste?

The point is, in a secular society that goes to great lengths to separate people's personal religious beliefs from their performance of job duties in the public sphere, what Mr. Morgan is asking the court to do is reprehensible.