The reviews are in

Bruce Johnstone:

A nightmare is another way of describing the sickening feeling of seeing $1.9 billion in projected revenues plummet by two-thirds to $638 million in the first quarter, then plunge another 83 per cent to $109 million by mid-term.

A sickening slide also describes what happened to the finance ministry's projected potash production, which fell 62 per cent to 4.4 million tonnes, the lowest level in 37 years.

The ministry's miscalculation on potash shaved two percentage points off the province's projected economic growth of 2.1 per cent in the 2009-10 budget. Economic growth is now expected to come in at negative 2.9 per cent -- a full five-percentage-point drop from the budget projection.

For its part, the NDP Opposition called Gantefoer's gaffe "the biggest example of fiscal incompetence in the history of Saskatchewan." In absolute dollar terms, it may be.
...
At the time, then-NDP finance critic Harry Van Mulligen warned production cuts announced by potash companies could easily derail the budget's revenue and economic projections.

"Bottom line," Van Mulligen said, "shaky economic and revenue assumptions, plus runaway spending, equals a potential fiscal trainwreck."

As it turns out, Van Mulligen was remarkably prescient, unlike his counterpart in the government benches.

On non-stories

It's a plus that Murray Mandryk has realized that the Sask Party's facade is far different than what lurks below the surface. But it would be even better if he didn't feel the need to toss in several paragraphs of unfounded concern trolling about the NDP in doing so:

Lingenfelter announces Monday that he will be running in the Regina Douglas Park seat that is being vacated by 23-year MLA Harry Van Mulligen -- what should be a good-news announcement for the NDP. However, with Van Mulligen winning 52 per cent of the popular vote in that riding in 2007, any Saskatchewan Party candidate coming within 20 percentage points (its Douglas Park candidate received only 30.9 per cent in 2007) wins a moral victory.

Now, it's probably fairest to say that Van Mulligen's announcement was less a good-news announcement than an entirely expected one from the NDP's standpoint. But it's downright remarkable that Mandryk manages to both present a misleading analysis about what would be a "moral victory" for the Sask Party (since by-elections figure generally to result in a closer race with all parties able to focus all their attention on one or two ridings) - and then assume that outcome in advance in order to claim bad news for the NDP.

But wait, there's more:

Tuesday's news that NDP leadership runner-up Ryan Meili won't be seeking Lorne Calvert's Saskatoon Riversdale seat means that Meili and Lingenfelter won't be sitting together in a unified Opposition caucus, allowing the Sask. Party to hammer away at the perceived split in NDP ranks for a while yet.

Of course, it's almost certainly true that the Sask Party will look to "hammer away at (a) perceived split" regardless of what happens in reality. But there's no apparent reason why Meili's decision to work outside the Legislature would offer any actual evidence of a split. And indeed, Meili's decision not to run in Riversdale is best taken as evidence that he wants to keep the NDP's members working in the same direction for now rather than facing a potentially divisive decision in the riding.

(As a bonus, let's offer up a counterfactual: if Meili had declared his intention to run for the Riversdale nomination, how long would it have taken Mandryk and others to point out his competition with a strong female candidate as an indication of fissure within the NDP? Yeah, I thought so.)

Finally, there's this:

But perhaps more importantly, this signifies a strategic change for the NDP.

For most of the past four decades, the NDP's two safest seats (Riversdale and what's now Regina Elphinstone-Centre) were occupied by the NDP's leader or deputy leader. With all due respect to current Regina Elphinstone-Centre MLA Warren McCall and political novice Danielle Chartier (who likely will be the NDP candidate in Riversdale), we are no longer seeing NDP heavyweights in these rock-solid seats. In fact, many of the party's safer Regina and Saskatoon seats are occupied by MLAs who aren't exactly heavy contributors.

Now, it's worth noting that Mandryk's premise looks to be faulty in the first place. McCall can already claim the contribution of a major report as well as significant cabinet experience well before the age of 40, and given Chartier's strong bio and organization to date there's every reason to think she'll join any list of "heavyweights" in a hurry.

But even taking the premise to be true, is it really such a plus for Wall if Meili runs in a riding which the Sask Party might otherwise have some hope of winning - or better yet, uses his developing public profile to flip a riding currently held by the Sask Party?

If anything, one essential element of any 2011 victory for the NDP would seem to be attracting the strongest possible candidates in the closer ridings which will determine which party holds power. And while Meili may yet find a safe riding in which to run, I'd have to think any Sask Party MLAs or candidates who might have to face off against him in a riding with more potential impact on an election outcome would have to be less comfortable than if Meili and his enthusiastic base of support were safely ensconced in Riversdale.

Of course, it may be that a few speculative or ill-advised shots at the NDP are a minimum requirement for any CanWest column which dares to point out internal problems in the Sask Party ranging from "explosive frustration" to potential retirements or defections. But if the non-issues raised by Mandryk are the worst dangers the NDP faces, then Wall may really have reason to worry in 2011.

On introductions

CanWest's report on last night's Wascana NDP forum for Saskatchewan's provincial leadership candidates covers the main themes of what Deb Higgins, Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili had to say. But I'll add in a few details and thoughts from the event.

The most important story of the night wasn't so much the performance of any candidate as the overall turnout. A crowd of over 100 people - responding to invitations focused mostly on members of the Regina federal riding which contributes the least NDP votes, along with a few other scattered Regina supporters - packed into the 4 Seasons on a weeknight before the leadership race gets into anything approaching full swing to get their first chance to compare the candidates. Which would tend to signal that the contest may be set to attract significantly more interest than some might be expecting.

So what did those in attendance get to see? The first two speakers were Deb Higgins and Harry Van Mulligen (on behalf of Dwain Lingenfelter), and both stuck largely to a historical perspective in discussing the Allan Blakeney quote which provided the evening's topic. Interestingly enough, while both regularly dropped the names of Douglas, Blakeney and Romanow as examples of Saskatchewan influencing events despite its relatively small population, I don't recall hearing a single mention of Lorne Calvert - which strikes me as a reflecting a particularly surprising course for Higgins, who would seem to be the candidate with the most to gain by talking up Calvert's time in office and presenting herself as able to build on that foundation.

Van Mulligen's comments were most noteworthy in discussing the opportunity for the Saskatchewan NDP to transform health care nationally on the basis that other provinces see the party as the leader in the field. That could certainly create some promise to the extent it's tied to progressive suggestions - but it might lead Lingenfelter's eventual positioning on health care to come under even more careful scrutiny than it would otherwise have received.

Pedersen was the next speaker, and surprisingly the first to approach the concept of cycles of wealth and penury with ideas intended to alleviate the downside of Saskatchewan's dependence on commodity prices. While a few elements of his speaking style weren't ideal (in particular a distracting tendency to transition from one topic to another with a question-and-answer format), Pedersen nonetheless held up well in a strong field.

Like Pedersen's presentation, Meili's included a solid supply of jokes and applause lines to keep the crowd involved - another element that was surprisingly lacking in the remarks from the two more experienced politicians. Meili too turned the topic into a discussion of how to shift the economy toward long-term development rather than remaining stuck in boom and bust cycles, and was well received in doing so.

All in all, the event didn't do all that much to change the existing status of the campaign. And indeed, it was other developments yesterday (particularly Meili's endorsements from former cabinet ministers Peter Prebble and Lon Borgerson) that may ultimately do more to shape the narrative going forward.

But the forum nonetheless looks to have been an unqualified success in terms of both the candidates' performance, and the level of interest it generated. And both of those factors can only be a plus for the party regardless of how the rest of the leadership race plays out.

Closed-door federalism

Saskatchewan Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen testified before the Senate finance committee today, discussing of the problems in federal/provincial relations since Harper took power federally. And beneath all the slogans getting fired back and forth, Van Mulligen makes clear that there are serious substantive problems with the Cons' refusal to deal with many provinces on any level other than a photo op.

Let's start with the prime example of the Cons' unwillingness to do more than try to take credit for others' work:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's refusal to meet with Canada's premiers has forced them to resort to megaphone diplomacy, Saskatchewan's government relations minister said Tuesday.

Harper has been prime minister for more than a year. Despite his vow to practice "open federalism," Harry Van Mulligen noted that he has yet to hold a first ministers' meeting with all premiers and territorial leaders.

Harper had intended to meet with all premiers last fall to discuss resolution of the so-called fiscal imbalance. But those plans were abandoned after the provinces failed to achieve consensus on the issue.

In sum, Harper was entirely willing to let the provinces do all the work in brokering a mutually agreeable deal, then convene a formal meeting to take centre stage as praise was meted out. But when the predictable disagreements among the provinces ensured that the Cons would have to contribute some effort (and that success wouldn't be guaranteed), the Cons apparently lost all interest in bringing the country's first ministers together.

And the unsurprising end result is that with most provinces having little opportunity to deal with the Cons directly, they've had to take their cases public instead to have any chance of being heard:

"As there are no multilateral engagements, (provincial) governments are forced to negotiate in public or through ad campaigns and web sites," Van Mulligen told the Senate finance committee.

"This is unhelpful, unproductive and does not serve the interests of the citizens of Canada."

The article goes on to discuss how the Cons' unilaterally-imposed policies ended up hurting Saskatchewan compared to both the Cons' election promises, and a system which would take into consideration obvious differences in the provinces' respective need and capacity to provide services. And it's worth noting that the result of the Cons' choices is to pour large amounts of social funding into both Alberta and Ontario...which should make for no less glaring an attempt to buy votes than Harper's interference in Quebec's provincial election.

But for all the valid concerns put forward by Saskatchewan and other provinces about their particular funding needs, the bigger problem is the Cons' highly selective willingness to interact with their provincial counterparts. And as dangerous as the Cons' bubble has been in their policy-making process so far, it only figures to be all the more so if Harper heeds Mario Dumont's call to attempt changes to Canada's constitution.