Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jason Gale reports on new research showing how COVID-19 can cause impacts on the brain for a period of years (with no apparent end in sight). And Saima May Sidik discusses the long-lasting cardiovascular problems which may also follow from an infection. But Sean Boynton reports that the choice to "let 'er rip" is resulting in even the acute measures of hospitalizations and deaths being higher than in the previous two years of the pandemic - while Isaac Callan and Colin D'Mello expose how the Ford PCs (presumably not alone among their right-wing cousins) were more interested in slashing costs and services than ensuring people had the tools to deal with COVID.

- Meanwhile, Brady Bouchard warns that family physicians won't be able to paper over the destruction of other elements of the health care system for long. And Jeremy Simes reports on the plight of one Regina patient wrestling with the possibility of seeking an MRI at his own expense, while CKOM reports on the Moe government's explicit choice to start diverting surgical patients to Alberta based on their ability to pay for their own travel. 

- Don Pittis discusses how workers shouldn't see an eventual drop in inflation as much of a win if it means their real income has been eroded by a combination of corporate-driven price increases and artificially suppressed wages. And Greg Jericho highlights how wages are falling far short of keeping up with theoretical labour demand in Australia. 

- Owen Jones writes about a rare but welcome step in unionizing a London nightclub - offering an example for all kinds of workers in precarious service jobs.  

- Finally, Erika Shaker offers a primer on student debt in Canada - and the value of removing the limitations faced by young workers as they complete their education with massive debt burdens. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bruce Arthur is rightly frustrated by an attitude of utter denial and amnesia toward a pandemic still in progress. And Fenit Nirappil, Craig Pittman and Maureen O'Hagan report on the deterioration of the U.S.' response, including a dramatic increase over the case load this time last year. 

- Julia Levin asks why we're allowing the fossil fuel sector to determine Canada's climate policy. Adam Morton looks to Australia's example of how both the environment and the economy suffer when dirty energy producers are allowed to define their own responsibilities. Anna Cooban reports that even the UK Cons are applying a windfall profit tax to oil and gas companies - though their loophole for expanded production isn't one that we should be looking to emulate. And Emma McIntosh and Fatima Syed break down what Ontario's political parties have on offer for climate and environmental policy in this week's provincial election. 

- Jessica Spieker points out the dangers of unnecessarily large vehicles - and the glaring lack of action to make roads safer for everybody trying to use them. And Judith Enck and Jan Dell discuss the futility of relying on plastic recycling, rather than shifting away from substances increasingly known to be toxic and permanent. 

- Colleen MacPherson writes about the Saskatchewan Party's chronic underfunding of the province's education system. 

- Finally, Jessica McDiarmid reports on the continued deception of right-wing data miners posing as local "conversation" pages. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andre Picard offers a look at what the arrival of a third wave of the coronavirus will mean. Morgan Lowrie reports on the rise of deadlier and more contagious COVID variants across Canada, while Colleen Silverthorn and Heidi Atter highlight their spread in Saskatoon and Regina respectively. The COVID Tracking Project points out how even the U.S. may face a worse wave than the ones which have already cost over half a million lives. And Pam Belluck discusses how mild initial COVID symptoms may give way to severe long-term neurological effects.

- Which is to say that Saskatchewan's combination of the lightest public health rules and highest case rates (as reported by Mickey Djuric) represents an exceptional level of negligence even compared to Canada's other conservative-governed provinces. And Roberto Rocha's reporting on how stronger restrictions have a demonstrable effect on public behaviour confirms that it's Scott Moe's choice to allow for preventable sickness and death.

- Alex Pareene calls out the U.S.' insistence on privileging intellectual property interests (over vaccines developed largely with public funds) over the production and distribution of vaccines which would protect everybody.

- Meanwhile, Hassan Yussuff, Doug Roth and Linda Silas offer a reminder that far too many Canadians are struggling to pay for needed medications in the absence of a national pharmacare program.

- Peter Greene discusses how "non-profit" charter schools are in fact being turned into corporate cash cows. 

- Finally, Jason Warick reports on a push to stop the Saskatchewan Party's selloff of Crown lands. And David Giles reports on the efforts of Marc Spooner and others to use SGI rebate cheques to preserve grasslands where the provincial government can't be bothered to do so.

New column day

Here, on this week's Canada Pension Plan announcement - and the Wall government's surprising decision to merely delay rather than outright obstruct a national boost to retirement security.

For further reading...
- Kevin Milligan, Sheila Block, Adam Mayers and the Canadian Press each offer useful looks at what the CPP expansion means. And Milligan has also pointed out this chart from the OECD on the small amount of social security contributions currently made by Canadians:

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Paterson compares Canada's pension system to other countries in terms of the benefits currently offered. And anybody looking for source information can find it from Service Canada.
- In light of the distance Canada has to go in order to catch up to other developed countries, Jeremy Nuttall reports on Hassan Yussuff's push to further strengthen the CPP.
- Finally, CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Party's grudging acceptance of the deal - along with its spin that delaying implementation is somehow a worthwhile achievement. And David Giles highlights the view of the CFIB and other corporate spokesflacks that any income security for workers is too much.

New column day

Here, asking whether growth and stable employment are part of the deal when the Saskatchewan Party offers massive handouts to the resource sector - and if so, how to handle the fact that PCS is pocketing tax incentives while slashing jobs.

For further reading...
- The Wall government's own press release touting its potash giveaways is here. Needless to say, there's no mention as to why we'd want to keep giving royalties away if they're not linked to growth.
- Simon Enoch's list of Saskatchewan Party corporate subsidies is always worth a look.
- Murray Mandryk is duly skeptical of the Wall government's talking points.
- And finally, both the Saskatchewan and New Brunswick NDP weigh in on the effect of PCS' cuts.

Tuesday Morning Links

Tab-clearing time...

- Joe connects the dots between what the Wall government hasn't told Saskatchewan's citizens and what Northland Power is telling its investors - and the predictable result is that the province being kept in the dark is getting a raw deal:

According to Northland Power Income Fund’s annual information form, filed with securities regulators in March of this year, under the PPA’s the projects “will receive monthly payments that are designed to cover all fixed costs and investment returns.” The agreements also provide “protection against changes in the market price of natural gas, as fuel costs are passed through to SaskPower.” Furthermore, the contractual structure of the projects “is designed to ensure predictable, stable and sustainable cash flows over the entire” term of the PPA’s.

Or to put it another way, the one-sided deals guarantee a profit for Northland. What they ensure is a predictable, stable and sustainable cash flow from Saskatchewan to Ontario.

- Peter Wilby rightly points out that if the participants in the billionaires' "giving pledge" really want to make a positive difference in the world, the most important step would be to live up to their duties as citizens rather than looking to take credit for philanthropic largesse:

(W)e should welcome the Gates-Buffett initiative and applaud those who have joined it. Generous, public-spirited billionaires are preferable to mean ones. But remember that two-thirds of US corporations contrive to pay no federal income tax at all and that transfer pricing alone – a legal device, used, for instance, by Ellison's Oracle Corp, that converts sales in one country to profits in another where tax liabilities are low – deprives the US treasury of $60bn annually. Such sums, which pile more taxes on the poor and reduce funds for government projects that advance the public good, dwarf what the 40 billionaires propose to give away.

If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill. When they put their names to that, there will be occasion not just for applause but for street parties.

- While there's still plenty of need for answers and accountability about the Cons' G20 security fiasco (civil rights abuses and all), it's also worth looking forward to the next time we're likely to see similar strategies employed to selectively suppress public activism. And it doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the RCMP's otherwise laughable musings about a "coup d'etat" parallel the language that the Harper Cons have used to talk about democratic votes in the House of Commons - raising the spectre that any public dissent against the Con government could be a target for the RCMP.

- Finally, Barbara Yaffe gives undeserved attention to a number of Cons who bear direct responsibility for the dumbing-down and polarization of the federal political scene, but are now putting on a show of hand-wringing over what they've wrought. We'll have reason to take them remotely seriously just as soon as they actually do something which could possibly loosen the control of the autocrat in charge.

Saturday Afternoon Tab Dump

Once again, let's clear out a few links which I haven't yet turned into full posts but which deserve a look...

- Blogging Horse sets the record straight as to which party has credibility fighting against the HST. (Hint: it's not the one paying provinces $6 billion to raise taxes on their citizens.)

- The Star Phoenix notes a couple of new blogs which have emerged to cover Saskatoon's municipal races.

- What Greg said.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk notes that Brad Wall has eagerly followed his federal commanding officer in using public resources to distribute "irritatingly intolerable political propaganda".

Nine. Freaking. Days. (With no public input.)

Today's news about the Sask Party's plan to allow for virtually no discussion about Saskatchewan's energy future doesn't come as much surprise. But it's worth comparing the Wall government's rush to push toward nuclear power with the amount of time it's taken for virtually everything else it's done - and especially the time frames involved for the Sask Party's preferred option.

This spring, the Sask Party claimed to need at least the summer to figure out how to word a bill on the proceeds of recollections of crime - even though the law could have been cut and pasted from one already passed in Manitoba.

But when it comes to evaluating the full range of energy options which will drive Saskatchewan's economy for the next 60 years, they claim the province should settle for Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.

Last fall, the Sask Party gave its Uranium Development Partnership five months to produce a creative writing assignment on Why Saskatchewan's Taxpayers Should Make Me Rich. And in its report, the UDP assumed away the bulk of Saskatchewan's best energy options - yet still had no choice but to admit that even under the most optimistic of cost projections, some power sources would still be more cost-effective than nuclear.

Now, the Wall government wants to gloss over everything the UDP missed, ignored and omitted in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.

The time frame for the construction of a nuclear reactor is approximately 10 years - though of course one wouldn't want to bank on its being completed on time. The time frame for the operation of a nuclear plant is approximately 50 years - a number which too tends to be extended as provinces accept increased risk once a facility is actually built in order to wring a few more years out of its life span. And the time frame for the waste produced by a nuclear plant is in the hundreds of thousands of years.

And the Wall government wants to evaluate and summarily rule out all other options in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.

Even the NDP's proposal for a consultation process lasting through next spring itself seems to fall short of completely making up for the head start which the Sask Party has given to the nuclear industry: for actual fairness, one would want to see other sources of power given the same type of funding which the Sask Party funnelled to the nuclear industry to make its case. That said, the NDP's timeline would at least seem to be a reasonable compromise to make sure that proponents of other types of power have some meaningful chance to make their case to Saskatchewan's public.

But Wall is apparently scared to death that any real conversation on power sources will lead to the conclusion that nuclear isn't the way to go. Which would seem to be the only plausible explanation for his decision to cut off discussion at Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.

Blowing in the wind

The fact that the Wall government's refusal to develop wind power within the province is now costing Saskatchewan workers their jobs certainly deserves plenty more attention:

News of 150 layoff and work-share notices being issued for this October at the wind tower department of Hitachi Canadian Industries in Saskatoon shows that the Wall government’s inaction on wind power expansion is costing our province both economically and environmentally, NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter said today.

“Hitachi’s layoff notices were sparked by a lack of orders this fall for towers used in wind power projects. In other parts of Canada, the problem is arranging financing for wind power projects in an economic downturn. In Saskatchewan, the problem is a lack of political will and leadership on the part of the Wall government,” Lingenfelter said.

After almost two years in government, the Sask Party has yet to produce a single megawatt of new wind power in Saskatchewan. Between 2002 and 2006, the former NDP government built 172 Megawatts of wind power capacity — enough electricity to power more than 73,000 homes.

Of course, Wall himself has spent much of the last year talking about a supposed economic "booster shot" to avoid exactly the kind of job losses currently being suffered at Hitachi. And given the province's obvious need both to preserve jobs in the current downturn and create them in expanding industries for the longer term, there surely can't be any excuse for his government's choice not to invest a reasonable price in an industry which serves both purposes, while wasting time trying to shove nuclear power down the province's throat.

But apparently Wall's government is so committed to making nuclear the only choice for power generation that it's willing to throw away jobs rather than investing in an obvious opportunity to develop wind power. And the province as a whole stands to lose out in the long run.

Fair and balanced

Shorter Les MacPherson:

In my completely neutral, unbiased opinion, the greatest premier EVAR!!! Brad Wall who's absolutely wonderful (and dreamy!!! and will probably be Prime Minister, and then global overlord, and then I forget what ranks above that) will likely win the next provincial election against big meanie Dwain Lingenfelter and the NDP, who I hate.

A modest proposal

For unexplained reasons, one of the main talking points from the pro-nuclear side in Saskatchewan has involved the amount of nuclear waste generated by nuclear reactors - with the claim being that the amount of waste generated to date "can be stored in an area the size of football field one metre deep".

But then, football fields have appeared elsewhere in recent Regina news - with the current assumption being that someone needs to foot a significant part of the bill for a new stadium based on the amounts the city, province and 'Riders are each willing to put in.

Which would seem to make for an ideal fit with where the Wall government is headed on the nuclear file. After all, according to the Sask Party's Uranium Development Partnership, the province should be eager to encourage any community willing to take on the risk of nuclear waste disposal in order to pick up an anticipated cash investment from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. And given how gung-ho Fiacco is about a stadium, Regina looks to be as likely a candidate as any to take up the offer.

So let's see if we can't tie the stories together with a creative suggestion: why not store nuclear waste underneath a brand-new NukeDome as part of Regina's downtown revitalization effort?

Sure, the nay-sayers will probably say "nay" - due to such trifles as Regina not falling into the geographic formations best suited for waste storage, or the sheer lunacy of endangering a major population centre with a type of storage which hasn't been done before in Canada.

But as long as we're being asked to take for granted that nuclear development is risk-free, those types of considerations should be easily outweighed by a shiny new bauble. And if the stadium can promote the 'Riders' colours with an eerie green glow, then so much the better.

Compare and contrast

The delegate count from this year's Saskatchewan NDP convention, which was far too broadly spun as one reflecting declining party membership and enthusiasm:

Party finances, organization, leadership and reconnecting with rural Saskatchewan are on the agenda for the approximately 700 delegates who are expected as the convention continues during the weekend in Regina.

The delegate count from this weekend's Sask Party convention, spun as representing the glorious ascendancy of King Brad I:

At the largest convention in the Sask. Party's 11-year history with more than 500 delegates...

Now, it's probably true that the NDP needs to rely on more in-province support since (unlike the Sask Party) it can't count on being bankrolled from Alberta.

That said, it's striking that even at its apparent peak, the Sask Party still can't muster enough support within the province to match the NDP's delegate count. And if even the most favourable set of circumstances imaginable on taking power hasn't been enough to enable Wall to build much of a party within the province, then a resurgence in 2011 would seem to be well within reach for the NDP.

On priorities

Hot on the heels of his Canadian Idol diatribe last weekend, Brad Wall apparently had nothing better to do yesterday than to take a poor stab at football commentary. Which leads to the inevitable question: is it really too much to ask for a premier who's at least slightly interested in governing, rather than seeing the position as a soapbox for issues completely unrelated to the office?

On choosing one's battles

Not surprisingly, Brad Wall's "new relationship" with the Harper government apparently means that Wall won't say a word about equalization without Harper's approval. Which means that at best, Saskatchewan can look forward to a smaller amount of federal funding than promised, and with the federal Cons' pro-privatization strings attached.

But for those worried that Wall was refusing to make any decisions for himself, he does seem entirely prepared to take a stand on the vital political issue that is Canadian Idol. That is, at least until Harper instructs him otherwise.

Harmonic convergence

When I posted earlier this week about the likelihood that the federal Cons' infiltration of provincial governments will extent far beyond merely "eyes and ears" in Newfoundland, I'd figured it wouldn't take long for the Saskatchewan Party to offer up a prime example. But I'm mildly surprised that even before capitulating on equalization, the Wall government is already allowing Harper to dictate other priorities:

Under pressure from Ottawa, the province's new government will again look at the contentious issue of harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax, Saskatchewan Party Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer said Monday...

"It seems to be a fairly major initiative on the federal government's plate anyway. There doesn't seem to be a lot of takers ... however, I think that virtually all of the provinces are probably going to have to look at it," Gantefoer said in a telephone interview from his legislature office.

Gantefoer said the federal government wants provinces to indicate by the time of the spring federal budget whether they are interested in harmonization.

So as part of the province's own budget process, finance officials have been tasked to look at the ramifications for Saskatchewan of merging the five per cent PST with the federal tax, he said.

When the provincial budget is delivered, which is usually at the end of March, the Sask. Party government expects to be able to either say no or indicate it's open to further discussions with the federal government on harmonization.

"By the fact that the federal government has more of an initiative to push on it, it certainly forces the question and forces the timeline," said Gantefoer.

It's particularly noteworthy that Gantefoer doesn't even show enough interest in the matter to make any real comment on the substance of the issue. Instead of bothering to consider whether it should make harmonization a priority, the Wall regime is apparently taking the position that if Stephen Harper has ideas about how Saskatchewan should be run, who's a mere provincial government to argue?

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Gantefoer will end up acceding to the Cons' desire to push forward with harmonization. But from today's story, there's little reason to think that the Sask Party has any intention of resisting federal pressure - and every reason for concern that the result could be even worse decisions than the Sask Party would make on its own.

On non-intervention

A couple of bloggers have pointed out Brad Wall's hints at dropping Saskatchewan's legal challenge to the federal Cons' equalization betrayal. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention to Wall's other decision to facilitate Harper's agenda which has already been confirmed:

The battle over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board has taken another turn with the election of a new government in Saskatchewan.

Premier-designate Brad Wall says his government won't pursue intervener status in the legal wrangling between Ottawa, the board and the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

At issue is the federal government's plan to eliminate the board's western barley marketing monopoly.

The previous NDP government had supported the court action, arguing that the federal government does not have the legal authority to make the change.

But Wall says he'll opt out because the Saskatchewan Party supports choice.

Note in particular the contrast between Wall's take on the Wheat Board and that on equalization. After all, Wall's stated plan on equalization is to at least read the province's existing legal opinions before deciding whether or not to drop the proceeding - however unlikely it is that Wall will actually follow through.

When it comes to the Wheat Board, though, Wall didn't bother waiting for any advice about the merits of the case - and apparently couldn't be less interested in considering the possibility that the province should speak up on behalf of the plurality of its barley producers.

Instead, Wall apparently doesn't mind making a statement that he won't even listen to either the law or the province's desires when they conflict with the ideology which he shares with Harper. And the obvious overlap on other ideological matters can only suggest that the Wheat Board may be only the first of many areas where the Sask Party puts Harper's goals ahead of those of the province.

Post-election notes

A few notes on tonight's election results...

- Obviously the outcome is disappointing for the NDP, if far from the wipeout some were predicting from a party standpoint. But while it's always tough to lose power (and in this case the progressive leadership that came with it), the NDP should have an extremely solid platform from which to put an inexperienced government under the microscope. In particular, with the swing vote apparently having taken Brad Wall at his bare word that he'd avoid doing serious damage to Saskatchewan's public sector and refuse to sign onto the TILMA, the NDP will hopefully be able to hold the Sask Party's feet to the fire to prevent any retreat from those positions.

- As for the NDP's future strategy, my initial reaction is that despite the discussion in some quarters about choosing a new leader, there's no reason at all for Lorne Calvert to step down (or for the party to push him from the helm). If Wall stumbles in office - which wouldn't be the least bit surprising - then the NDP may be best served being able to draw a contrast between an out-of-its-element Sask Party and the effective government that preceded it. And if the NDP decides it needs to renew at the top as well as within the ranks of its caucus, then there's plenty of time to make that call in a year or two to give a new leader time to settle in before 2011.

- The Sask Party seems to have forgotten to tell Wall that the campaign is over with, such that he can take at least a brief break from rapid-fire slogans. Will "Wall. Beats. Hackneyed. Phrases. To. Death." be the overriding theme of the next four years of Saskatchewan politics?

- Finally, a suggested first step for the Sask Party to appear concerned about the environment. At this point, it's long past time to put Saskatchewan Liberals on the endangered species list.

Hypothetically speaking

A quick hypothetical for today's election.

Suppose you've lived in a home for over a decade. It's been a comfortable, secure place to live. You've done some renovations, and have plans to do more - but you're also wondering whether it might be time for a change, and what other houses might be available. So when another house a few blocks away comes on the market with an asking price within your range, you decide to have a look.

The owner greets you at the door and gives you a brief tour of the house. You can tell that there are some elements you like - a somewhat larger garage, a more elaborate security system. There are also some elements that you don't like - the appliances are older, it's less energy-efficient, and the location isn't quite as good. But you decide that those are issues you can deal with, and that if the new house is all it appears to be, you'll want to buy it.

However, you also notice a couple of cracks in the walls, and the basement seems a bit damp for your liking. So you ask the owner if it'll be a problem to bring an inspector in to check the house out thoroughly.

And the owner responds, "I'm selling the house as is, where is. No inspectors, and we have to close now.

"But I don't see why that would be a problem. You want to choose a home based on hope rather than fear, right?"

Now, is that the kind of line that would inspire confidence? Would you react by saying, "The owner has a point, let's close the deal now"? Or by walking away and deciding that you'll revisit the possibility of moving later on?

And which of those above choices seems more likely to lead to a better end result?

A slipping mask

So far in the Saskatchewan election campaign, it's been clear that the Sask Party has taken up the federal Cons' strategy of muzzling its candidates to avoid any unwanted honesty. But even with that already-problematic plan in place, the Sask Party's candidates still haven't been able to avoid some hints at reopening an issue which Wall and company have desperately tried to defuse.

Remember that this summer, Wall surprisingly took a public stand against the TILMA. While he claimed (without any apparent basis in reality) that a less toxic agreement could have been reached if Saskatchewan had been a part of the negotiations, he said in no uncertain terms that he "would not sign on" to the deal as it stands.

During the campaign, however, a couple of Wall's candidates have been suggesting a rather different view.

The most obvious public statement was that of Moose Jaw North candidate Warren Michelson, who said that he doesn't think his party would "say absolutely no to TILMA". But perhaps more significant based on his relative stature is the shift in position from Weyburn-Big Muddy MLA Dustin Duncan, who seems to have edited out any problems with TILMA itself in order to focus solely on the view that Saskatchewan should have joined Klein and Campbell behind closed doors:

In regard to the labour shortage, (Duncan) noted the shortage is being felt all across western Canada, and not too long ago the B.C. and Alberta governments met to discuss ways of dealing with the labour shortage, but Saskatchewan's government wasn't there.

Naturally, Duncan seems to have avoided referring to the TILMA by name. But it seems equally clear that he perceives the TILMA as a "way of dealing with the labour shortage", and figures that the NDP's choice not to participate in the original closed-door negotiations was a mistake which his party would change.

Now, it isn't certain whether Michelson and Duncan fully represent their party's view when it comes to the TILMA. And unfortunately, by suppressing the issue this long, Wall has likely succeeded in preventing a full public debate about the TILMA (and his party's actual stance on it) during the campaign.

But at the very least, it's obvious that there's some strong appetite within the party to reverse one of the party's efforts to become more palatable to Saskatchewan voters. And the more clear it becomes that the image the Sask Party has tried to portray during the campaign isn't what voters can expect once the election is over, the more likely voters are to have second thoughts about taking the Sask Party at its word.

Poll position

SaskVotes reports that the turnout at Saskatchewan's advance polls has been up substantially from that in 2003. And it'll be interesting to see what that spike in early voting means when all is said and done:

If the advance polls are any sign of things to come, election day could break records in Saskatchewan.

Dave Wilkie, the assistant chif electoral officer, says the first four days of advance polls were swamped. Saskatoon Silver - Springs saw over 1100 people turn out, compared to 700 last election during the same time.

Wilkie attributes good weather as one of the possible reasons for a good turnout.

While the good weather may be one factor, there are other possible reasons for a strong advance turnout as well. For one, it could be that more voters are simply finding it convenient to avoid the post-work rush at their regular polling stations.

But then, the advance polls may also reflect a strong turnout among party volunteers who want to get voting out of the way in order to accomplish as much as they can closer to election day. If that's the case, then as quiet as the campaign has been so far, the numbers could signal that there's little danger of any party's supporters taking anything for granted. And if Saskatchewan's election machines are indeed fully revved up, it should make for an interesting race to the finish line.