Assessment needed

The NDP is rightly criticizing the Cons and Libs for voting down an NDP motion on free trade with Colombia. But the most important part of the story may not be the corporate parties' unsurprising determination to push ahead with more free trade deals, but rather the complete unwillingness of either the Cons or Libs to even see human rights issues assessed as part of Canada's analysis of trading partners:

An NDP motion from International Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) has been defeated by the combined decisions of the Liberal and Conservative parties in the Standing Committee on International Trade.

“It’s unfortunate that the Liberals and Conservatives failed to recognize and support Canada’s leadership in affirming the supremacy of human rights over any other consideration. The people of Colombia were hoping that Canada would use its influence to help them in their struggle for human rights,” said Julian.

The motion recommended that bilateral trade negotiations between Canada and Colombia be halted in light of the continuous abuse of human rights by the government of Colombia, and stressed the importance of developing a framework for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) for future bilateral trade negotiations with Colombia and other nations.

Remember that the main justification for pushing ahead with Colombia free trade - which Harper himself has parroted - is a claim that doing so will ultimately improve human rights in the longer term. If that were the case, though, one would expect the Cons to be glad to see a thorough appraisal of those expected positive effects in order to bolster the deal.

Instead, the vote to avoid any meaningful assessment of human rights makes sense only if an actual report would likely undercut the premise that free trade will do anything to help Colombia's human rights situation.

Unfortunately, the Cons and Libs have once again demonstrated their determination to ensure that human rights issues don't get in the way of the continued spread of free trade. And that should offer just one more reason to doubt their commitment to human rights either in Canada or abroad.

Room for growth

All too predictably, the CMA's narrow focus on wait times has received far more media attention. But Bruce Campbell and Greg Marchildon's call to improve the existing scope of public health care in Canada deserves mention as a reminder that there's plenty to work toward beyond merely preserving the system we have now:

Claims that Medicare is fiscally and economically unsustainable are unfounded, but they are used to persuade a reluctant public that there is no choice but to accept privatized health care. According to Canada's leading health care economist, Robert Evans, the wolf at the door of the Canadian Medicare system is not an economic wolf but rather "a political wolf dressed in phony economic clothing to deceive the sheep."

Thus, the challenge is to defend Medicare against the forces seeking to dismantle it. We can best do this by completing Tommy's original vision for Medicare. Building on the proven administrative efficiencies of the single-payer systems administered by the provinces, we can expand Medicare well beyond doctors and hospitals into pharmacare, home care and dental care; to re-orient public health care around primary health care and community care, and tackle head on the social determinants of health.

In some areas change is beginning to happen. There are many examples of successful innovations, which have dramatically reduced wait times, improved access to quality care and reduced costs. Dr. Michael Rachlis, a physician and health policy advisor, has performed an important service for all Canadians by cataloging the most promising innovations in our public system. But missing is the political leadership on the part of provincial and federal governments to ensure the systematic dissemination and application of these solutions throughout the system.

Whether Medicare moves forward, or becomes progressively eroded by encroaching privatization, will depend on which vision of health care prevails. Will it be one based on the premise that health care is a commodity and that ability to pay should determine who gets what care and how? Or will it be the one actually desired by most Canadians? That is a 21st century Medicare, but one still based on the principle that every Canadian should have access to health care on the same terms and conditions.

Of course, there are far too many indications recently that we are indeed moving backward - ranging from the missed opportunity for universal prescription drug coverage in Saskatchewan to the federal Cons' determination to limit the flow of information about best practices. But it's worth keeping in mind that there's plenty of room for improvement in the system we have now, and working to push the system in the right direction rather than merely trying to hold the existing ground.

On regulatory measures

The CP reports that Ontario and Quebec have reached an agreement to negotiate regulatory harmonization. And it'll be interesting to see whether the move by Canada's most populous provinces sounds a death knell for the spread of the TILMA, or instead signals that the Charest government is giving in on the fight to preserve provincial autonomy:

Quebec and Ontario signed an agreement Monday to start talks to remove interprovincial trade barriers in an effort to help businesses - especially the struggling manufacturing sector - but the federal government needs to do "its share," said Premier Jean Charest.

Charest and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty agreed to begin negotiating an accord to strengthen the economies of both provinces by eliminating red tape and unnecessary regulations, saying provinces need to work together to meet global challenges...

Under the new deal, negotiators will look at harmonizing regulations that govern everything from the weight of trucks to health-care professions to find ways of making it easier for companies to operate in both Quebec and Ontario in hopes of increasing the $70 billion a year in trade between the two provinces.

Now, two major caveats are in order with the announcement. First, the issue of "internal trade barriers" doesn't deserve even a small fraction of the attention it's received over the past year and a half. And second, the last agreement which was announced to involve negotiation as to harmonized standards turned out to have far more damaging effects.

Indeed, there's some dangerous language even in the article: the contemplated "accord" could well signal that the intention is to negotiation a TILMA-type agreement rather than the actual standards in question. And it remains to be seen whether the public announcement is as deceptive as the one regarding the TILMA was last year.

That said, there's some reason to think today's announcement could nonetheless offer reasonably good news.

After all, the concept of harmonizing regulations makes plenty of sense as long as it's carried out with the goal of ensuring mutually effective standards - not the goal of gutting regulation entirely as is implicit in the TILMA. And the willingness of Ontario and Quebec to at least alert the public to their plans makes for far more transparency than the TILMA signatories ever offered.

Moreover, the federal Cons have made clear that they're willing to impose drastic measures on the provinces to try to ensure that trade takes precedence over all else. And while giving in to Harper's wishes to any extent is seldom an effective strategy for long, it may be that the willingness of Quebec in particular to negotiate some regulatory standards later will help to avoid the Cons going nuclear while the Libs don't dare to oppose them.

Update: Erin has more.

On leadership

Shorter Stephen Harper:
If others fail to meet their commitment to a goal which they claim to share in common, it's your own fault for trying to reach it.

Bound to fail

Unfortunately, it looks like the Cons have managed to obstruct against any reference to binding greenhouse gas emission targets. But let's take a moment to quickly dispose of Harper's predictable spin:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper successfully pressed for the deletion of key wording in a climate change communique that would have specified that all members support a "binding commitment" on developed countries to reduce emissions by specific targets.

"Canada's view is we need binding targets on all nations," said Mr. Harper, who dismissed reports that other countries opposed Canada.

Now, it should be obvious that if Canada's goal was in fact to ensure that all countries are subject to binding targets, then the logical course of action would have been to actually ask for that. And the wording presumably wouldn't have been difficult to work out: simply remove "developed" from the phrase "developed countries", and you get to a declaration which would indeed call for binding targets for everybody.

But instead, the Cons held out for a resolution which instead eliminated any reference to "binding targets" - demanding a lower standard rather than a higher one. And combined with their inexplicable pride over an APEC declaration which is explicitly "aspirational", there's plenty of reason to think the lone change in the Cons' position on climate change is a poor effort to pretend to care.

To sum up...
What Harper claims Canada wants: Binding targets for all
What the Commonwealth resolution would have included if not for Harper's obstruction: Binding targets for some
What Harper actually fought for and won within the resolution: Binding targets for none

Needless to say, fighting against binding targets for anybody is no way to make progress against climate change. And Harper's latest step in that direction should offer ample reason to make sure he isn't in a position to embarrass Canada abroad any longer.

Off target

When asked to explain their withdrawal from Kyoto in all but the ability to show up at (and disrupt) ongoing negotiations for the next phase, the Cons have generally made excuses based on the need for reductions from the U.S. and China as part of a global effort to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Which, if the Cons were remotely willing to defend their position, would suggest that they should be first in line calling for a truly global treaty to the same effect.

Not surprisingly, though, the Cons are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they're blocking a Commonwealth resolution calling for just such a global agreement:

Canada is reportedly holding up a resolution at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda which calls for binding climate change targets, sources have confirmed.

Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claim Canada has problems with the resolution despite virtually all other countries in attendance, except Australia, supporting it, reports The Canadian Press.

The resolution calls for global emission targets and comes ahead of next month's UN-sponsored meeting in Bali, Indonesia where negotiations will be made to find a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

Not that this comes as much of a surprise based on the Cons' track record of opposing Kyoto from the beginning, and doing their utmost to avoid real reduction targets in Canada regardless of who's been in power.

But today's move should make it all the more clear that the Cons' problem with Kyoto lies not in the countries who haven't signed on to reduction targets, but in the fact that it demands emission reductions at all. And the Cons' usual combination of dishonesty and conflict with the values of Canadian voters will offer just one more reason to make sure Harper can't continue to stand in the way of progress either at home or in the world.

On potential support

Discussion about the latest Angus Reid poll on Canada's national opposition parties (warnings: PDF for those with slow connections; online poll for those who don't believe in such things) has focused mostly on the leadership numbers involved. But while Layton's lead over Dion is mostly a confirmation of old news, the poll does contain one intriguing new development, as the NDP's potential support is now in a dead heat with the Libs':

The poll also asked Canadians which opposition parties they would consider voting for in the next federal ballot. A third of respondents (33%) are willing to back the NDP candidate in their riding, including 95 per cent of those who voted for the New Democrats in the January 2006 election...

34 per cent of respondents say they would be willing to vote for the Liberal candidate in their riding...70 per cent of Quebecers - and 58 per cent of male respondents - would not vote for a Liberal candidate. The Grits are also only holding onto 78 per cent of those who voted for the Paul Martin-led Liberals in 2006.

For the record, the poll provided a "not sure" option where the NDP posted a 16% total and the Libs 14% - leaving the parties equal as well in the "definitely would not consider" category. Meanwhile, the Greens' "consider supporting" number is at 21%, well back of the other two parties.

So what do those numbers mean? Simply put, there's now empirical evidence to refute the Libs' usual claim that only they can stop the Cons. With the NDP now matching the Libs dollar for dollar, member for member and potential voter for potential voter, there's absolutely no reason for opposition voters to believe that the Libs' historical advantage actually translates into any greater prospect of defeating Harper. And that should free up opposition voters to choose the party which is most in line with their values.

Of course, the above analysis is based on the national numbers. And the story varies somewhat by region: the NDP has more potential support in British Columbia, Quebec (!) and Atlantic Canada, while the Libs show higher upside in Ontario and the Prairies.

Which in turn may help the NDP's prospects even more. It seems likely that Ontario's numbers (like ) are based at least in part on a lack of public attention to the change in the Libs' default position. But the more word gets out that the NDP is making major inroads into formerly-safe Lib territory in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, the more likely Ontario voters are to realize it can serve as a more effective voice for them as well.

Naturally, the Libs will be doing all they can both to slow down the NDP's momentum, and to reverse their own slide. But for now, the Libs' sole advantage seems to be historical - and it may not be long before it's left in the past for good.

On responsibility

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
Canada's urban residents have nobody but themselves to blame for the causes of today's crumbling infrastructure. Take, for example, their choice not to flee the country when it was run by a Prime Minister who couldn't even keep his own head above water without taking back-room cash payments.

Proportional benefits

It may be an unusual call for proportional representation from an unlikely source. But Murray Mandryk's column today may well help to keep up the NDP's campaign discussion about the need to take another look at how Saskatchewan votes.

Mandryk starts off with a passage which could serve as the introduction for a strong argument in favor of a full MMP system:

(A) mere 5,569 votes that went to the Saskatchewan Party instead of the NDP -- 33 in Moose Jaw North, 37 in Meadow Lake, 61 in Prince Albert Carlton, 182 in Regina-Qu'Appelle Valley, 253 in Regina South, 270 in Saskatoon Sutherland, 302 in Saskatoon Greystone, 1,041 in Saskatchewan Rivers, 1,568 in Rosthern-Shellbrook and 1,822 in Humboldt -- are the difference between the current 38-20 Saskatchewan Party-controlled legislature and a 30-28 NDP-controlled legislature identical to the last House.

Given that the latter would have meant the Saskatchewan Party would have still have had 49.4 per cent of the vote (compared with the 50.62 that the party actually got) while the NDP would have only garnered 38.2 per cent (compared with the 37.09 per cent it actually received), we would very likely be in a huge democratic crisis right now had the NDP won.

Needless to say, if our current system was indeed that close to a genuine "democratic crisis", that would seem to make for a strong argument for a full overhaul. But Mandryk doesn't go anywhere near that far.

Instead, Mandryk suggests a far more modest change:

Isn't it now time to consider setting aside part of the Saskatchewan legislature for proportional representation? Suppose that there were 10 seats in the 58-seat legislature based on popular vote rather than first-past-the-post. And suppose, based on the recent popular vote, the Saskatchewan Party government had five more seats, the NDP four and and the Liberals one. Wouldn't that result in both better cabinets and oppositions?

Maybe we need to consider such new ideas to get the depth we need in modern-day cabinets.

Mandryk doesn't deal with the question of how the occupants of those seats would be chosen. And based on his call for the seats to be used to improve the frontlines of government and opposition after the election results are in, it would seem that he's looking for the parties to have virtually free rein in allocating those proportional seats.

Of course, it's debatable whether this would be the best option. While Mandryk seems to see the PR seats as a way of immunizing top political talent from any need to run individually, I'd tend toward an approach which still gives some immediate say to the province's voters, filling any PR-based seats with a party's candidates who came closest to winning their ridings.

Whether or not one agrees fully with his proposal, though, it's still noteworthy that one of the main drivers of Saskatchewan's conventional political wisdom is calling into question whether the current FPTP system provides the best possible representation for Saskatchewan's citizens. And hopefully that will be an early step toward real change in the province's electoral system.

Below the radar

A couple of notes which you may have missed from yesterday's Hansard...

First, Con MP Denis Lebel counted himself as one of his party's ideal target voters by making a statement about his fondness for storytelling. Presumably Lebel is eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Question Period Storytime, featuring such classic tales of creative fiction as "Karlheinz' Letter Gets Lost" and "The Wonderful Magical Happyland of Afghanistan Where There Was No Evidence of Torture Until Two Weeks Ago".

Second, as part of their effort to use absolutely every means at their disposal to put party interests over government accountability, the Cons have made a habit of using their own questions in Question Period for sheer self-promotion rather than allowing back-benchers to actually express even the slightest concern with government actions. But it strikes me as curious that they were eager to use that platform yesterday to highlight their own lack of a meaningful response to U.S. interference with Canadian emergency vehicles seeking to cross the border.

Making strides

Barbara Yaffe writes about the promise of a federal NDP breakthrough. And while most of the information is relatively familiar, there's one surprising indicator of just how far the NDP has come over the past few years:

(W)hile few have been watching, the party's membership list has grown to the same length as that of the Liberals. And the NDP is set to spend the same as mainline parties in the next campaign.

(Said Jack Layton) "We're going to run an $18-million campaign and match the Liberals and Conservatives for the first time in history."

Based on an extremely quick look, I haven't been able to find total numbers from the last few years. As a result, it's not entirely clear just how much of the gap has been made up recently.

But from what I've been able to track down (see p. 21 here), Lib members outnumbered NDP members by a 6-to-1 margin as recently as 2003. And if the NDP has indeed managed to close that gap in just four years - despite the Libs getting the inevitable membership boost from a leadership race in the meantime - then there's plenty of reason to suspect there's a shift in progress which hasn't yet registered in the polls.

A purely private partnership

Berlynn catches an important story from the Council of Canadians which all too predictably went unreported in the media, as the North American Forum (linked to the Security and Prosperity Partnership) held another summit last month. But while the subject matter doesn't seem to have changed, the spin about the ever-more-secretive process is getting even less plausible as time goes by:

The North American Forum, a high-profile sister organization to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is co-chaired by George Schultz, Peter Lougheed and Pedro Aspe, who are quite proud of how discrete these meetings are. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day attended the 2006 summit in Banff and to date refuses to disclose the contents of his speech.

According to a CanWest article from March 23, 2007: "A 'media management plan' for the event in Banff last fall imposed a gag order on all participants, except the head of the Calgary-based media consulting firm, Corpen Group, John Larsen. Participants were directed 'to avoid direct media engagement where feasible,' say the notes... But Mr. Larsen said 'the conference wasn't secret. ... It was private, and that's an entirely different thing from being secret.'"...

"The Co-Chairs do not intend to make public pronouncements advocating specific policy approaches on the NAF's behalf," says the forum's website. "Rather the outputs of the NAF will be ideas and approaches that are individually pursued by participants at their own initiative and in their own name."

At least when the SPP met at Montebello, the participants were willing to admit to some influence over the jelly bean industry.

But apparently even that's seen as too much disclosure within the NAF - leaving citizens of all three countries unable to do more than guess as to what policies are being influenced by the privileged few invited to participate. And it seems like a safe bet that the summit wouldn't be so meticulously hidden from view if its results could bear public scrutiny.

Advancement opportunities

For the past decade, the Saskatchewan NDP's narrow hold on provincial power has limited the prospect of successful MLAs making a move to the federal scene. But with the next provincial vote four years away and a seat or two no longer holding the potential to swing the provincial balance of power, the Hill Times reports that the federal NDP is now looking to bring current and former MLAs on board:

The federal NDP may try to woo former Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert, whose government was recently swept out of power, along with two of his defeated Cabinet ministers to run federally in the province in the next general election.

"Jack Layton hasn't closed any doors and we've not entered into any formal discussions with any Saskatchewan New Democrats, but it's certainly a possibility," said Brad Lavigne, director of communications and research to NDP caucus in an interview last week.

Mr. Lavigne confirmed, however, that the party is "likely to reach out to" Mr. Calvert and to two defeated provincial NDP Cabinet ministers–Lon Borgerson, former minister of regional economic and co-operative development, and Graham Addley, former minister of healthy living services, minister responsible for seniors, Investment Saskatchewan Inc. and information services corporation of Saskatchewan and convince them to run federally in the next federal election.

The article notes that there haven't been any concrete steps taken just yet. And barring some surprises on the provincial side, it does seem fairly unlikely that Calvert would make the move.

But the combination of an experienced candidate like Borgerson or Addley with an electorate which is relearning the pitfalls of right-wing government at two levels would seem to offer a great opportunity both for the federal NDP, and for the individual candidates. And if the NDP can start building momentum now in its longtime prairie stronghold, then it should be well-positioned to make a strong push at Con incumbents across Western Canada when the next election rolls around.

A familiar refrain

Shorter Charles Gordon:
The likelihood that Canada's political scene will be dominated for months by talk about Conservative corruption is both proof of Stephen Harper's strategic brilliance, and excellent news for the Conservatives.

Poorly covered

Shorter Peter MacKay:
Of course the Con government knew things that it pretended not to, and suppressed information which would have proven it wrong until a court ordered otherwise. But it's completely unfair to describe that as a "cover up".

On disinformation

The Star reports that the Cons are set to axe a health information network which would otherwise be used literally millions of times per year by Canadian medical practitioners. And aside from including the network in part of a set of arbitrary spending cuts, the Cons' reasoning seems to be based largely on the fact that the network contains too much useful information:

Effective March 31, 2008, the Canadian Health Network will cease to exist.

For the past eight years, it has provided citizens and medical professionals with a reliable, non-commercial source of online information about how to stay healthy and prevent disease.

Although the website (www.canadian-health-network.ca) is managed by the Winnipeg-based Public Health Agency of Canada, it is a collaboration of 26 organizations – government departments, universities, hospitals, libraries and non-profit health providers – who draw on 1,600 specialists across the country...

(L)ately, (the CHN) website has been getting 380,000 hits a month, 40 per cent of them health-care professionals. In the last year alone, its usage has increased by 70 per cent. It has established a reputation as a trustworthy portal in a cyberworld of drug manufacturers, health-care conglomerates and self-promoting quacks...

Health Minister Tony Clement launched a new website, www.healthycanadians.gc.ca, in October, to provide users with information about all of the government's programs – its children's fitness tax credit, its revised Canada Food Guide, its toy safety tips, its latest product recalls and its healthy pregnancy guide – designed to promote an active, well-balanced lifestyle.

There's certainly nothing wrong with centralizing all of Ottawa's health information in one place.

What's missing from the new database is any reference to the links between health and the environment, disease and poverty, or violence and gun control. Nor does it touch sensitive topics such as abortion, genetically modified foods or sexual abuse. It completely overlooks mental illness.

In contrast, the Canadian Health Network is all-encompassing. It looks at controversial questions from all sides. It is constantly updated as new knowledge becomes available.

From the usage numbers, it looks to be virtually beyond dispute that the CHN website is seen as useful by Canadian health care providers. And even if one doesn't take as proven the article's suggestion that the network might actually operate with a surplus, it seems equally clear that any program which can offer valuable information to health care providers in the range of two million times every year is more than worth the cost of the Cons' ordered $16 million cut.

But the Cons are apparently of the view that the benefit of a cheap, effective way of improving health care for Canadians is more than outweighed by their desire to remove any uncomfortable material from web pages affiliated with the federal government, as well as to focus more attention on their partisan actions (rather than information which could actually be useful to health care providers).

The end result, though, can only be to make it more difficult for Canadian health care providers to find information relating to the issues which the Cons want to sweep under the rug. And with the Cons taking active steps to ensure worse service for the Canadians who most need a responsive health care system, there's ever more reason to doubt Canada can afford much more of the Cons' course of treatment.

Perception first

Number of Con MPs who were eager to be seen supporting a former Prime Minister who acknowledges having taken $300,000 in cash from a man since charged with fraud and bribery as long as that little bit of unpleasantness was out of the public eye: 17.

Number of Con MPs who bailed on that same former Prime Minister once it became inevitable that Canadians would be reminded that he took $300,000 in cash from a man since charged with fraud and bribery: 17.

Once again, the Cons have sent a strong message that as far as they're concerned, anything can be overlooked just as long as nobody's paying too much public attention to it. Which should offer just one more reminder of both the need to keep the Cons under the microscope, and the likely rewards awaiting any effort to dig into what's currently being kept hidden.

Out of the loop

Given how transparent the Cons' diversion tactics are at the moment, I'll try to avoid allowing them to distract from bigger issues like infrastructure. But it's worth pointing out one odd aspect of the Cons' official Crime Posturing Week, as Justice Minister Rob Nicholson seems to be utterly clueless about what's going on in his own party.

Here's Nicholson today:

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says he's on side with his provincial counterparts who want changes to the double credit criminals usually get for time served in remand.

Nicholson says he's happy the issue was discussed at a justice ministers meeting in Winnipeg this week and he plans to draft legislation making the jail credit system clearer.

But he wouldn't give a date for when he expects such a bill to be introduced in Parliament.

So what's wrong with that position? Here's the web page with information on Bill C-475, a private member's bill introduced earlier this week by Con MP Rick Dykstra - which deals with exactly the issue discussed by Nicholson. (That should also say anything one could need to know about which side likely brought up the subject within the federal/provincial talks.)

In keeping with the Cons' rule against independent thought, Dykstra's bill would have been vetted by the Cons prior to being introduced. But apparently nobody bothered to tell Nicholson - even as he's making public appearances dealing with the same issue in the same week that Dykstra put his bill before Parliament.

Not that it's much surprise that the Cons are once again failing to inform the responsible minister about decisions from on high. (See Chong, Michael.) But if the image-obsessed Cons aren't even competent enough to get their appearances right in trying to move public discussion back to less hostile turf, there's all the more reason to worry just how much more they're messing up on the substantial matters which rank lower on their priority list.

Unsettling

Today's story about the Cons' use of part of the Indian Residential School Settlement Trust fund for other programs may not seem particularly important on its face. But it's worth noting a few of the broader implications of what the Cons seem to have done.

Note that the discussion below assumes - as seems to be the case from the article - that the Cons have actually pulled money out of the settlement trust fund for use elsewhere, rather than simply failing to put money into the trust fund as originally planned. (Of course, there would certainly be some issues one way or the other.)

If the Cons have indeed taken funds out of the trust, that would seem to signal a complete lack of appreciation for the need to appropriately manage different pools of money. The opposition line so far has focused on the transaction as a "shell game" to shift money from one place to another, and that's undoubtedly an important consideration. But it's the particular pool of money chosen as a source which would seem especially problematic.

I'm not sure whether it's less plausible to think that the Cons could actually not know that a trust fund is supposed to be used solely for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries, or that they could manage not to care where funds come from if they can be diverted to benefit the party's public appearance. But it's hard to see how either could be anything but a clear indictment of the Cons' fitness to handle Canada's public funds.

Second, even if the Cons could paper over such a move at law by passing their supplementary estimates, any withdrawal would still look to be a glaring breach of the federal government's agreement with residential school survivors. The Trust Agreement which forms part of the residential school settlement includes this obligation on the federal government as trustee at 3.1:

The Trustee...agrees to hold...all amounts at any time forming part of the Trust Fund upon the trusts and subject to the terms contained in this Agreement and the Settlement Agreement.

On my reading, that phrase couldn't be much more clear in stating that the federal government promised to hold the trust fund - including all money which was part of it at any time - to be preserved and used for the purposes set out in the Trust Agreement.

Now, it may be that there's some provision tucked into one of the settlement documents which overrides that intention. But on a quick review of the Trust Agreement and the main settlement agreement, I didn't see anything to that effect. (And just so we're clear, the federal government's ability to retain legal ownership of the fund for the purpose of administering the trust wouldn't seem to take any priority over the use for which the money is intended.)

From what I can tell, then, the Cons would seem to have broken their own commitment to a group which already has far too much reason to distrust the federal government. And it's hard to imagine why the Cons would want to keep adding insult to the injury inflicted by residential schools.

In that respect, let's note one final point for now. Under the Trust Agreement, any surplus money in the trust fund would be used for additional Common Experience Payments for residential school survivors, as well as funding for the National Indian Brotherhood Trust Fund and the Inuvialuit Education Foundation. So if the Cons succeed in actually taking money out of the trust fund in the longer term, that's who stands to lose out.

We'll hopefully find out before too long exactly what the circumstances were behind the Cons' diversion of money. And from there we'll see if the story develops legs, whether the federal government will simply quietly repay any amounts withdrawn - or whether the story will get lost in the cacophony that is the federal political scene at the moment.

But this looks like it could be the most disturbing example of Con mismanagement yet. And nobody but the Cons can win out in the long run if it's allowed to pass without some serious scrutiny.

Setting the rules

The Globe and Mail reports that the Cons have attempted to rewrite the rulebook for Parliamentary committees to give themselves even more means of ducking any hearings which they'd prefer to avoid. But I'm curious as to why the opposition isn't looking to get some new rules in place as well to make sure the Cons can't continue their obstruction:

Conservative parliamentary secretaries arrived at the inaugural committee meetings of the new session this week with motions for changes that would include requiring 48 hours notice before the committee could debate any motion.

Motions that are not quickly debated would die, the number of questions that the New Democrats could ask would be reduced, and the presence of at least one government and one opposition member would be required for quorum.

The parliamentary secretaries also want to be added to the four-person steering committees - currently composed of a member from each party - that decide what business the committees will handle.

Opposition members outnumber Conservatives on every committee. So, while some of the rule changes have been accepted, others were flatly rejected...

The proposed rule changes mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper "is trying to run all parties the way he is trying to run his own," (NDP MP Yvan) Godin said. "It's his way or the highway."

I'll be interested to see the breakdown as to which changes were accepted and which ones rejected. While the extra notice for motions might not be the most controversial of issues, the steering committee and quorum proposals look to have absolutely no purpose other than to give the Cons the ability to shut down discussion of any inconvenient topic. (And naturally the attempt to silence the NDP looks like a serious problem.)

While the Cons' changes seem to have already been dealt with, though, I'm surprised that the opposition parties aren't apparently trying to get a few of the rules moved in the opposite direction.

Remember that under the current rules, the Cons' existing playbook has allowed them to cut off any discussion by having the committee chair adjourn a hearing abruptly with no opportunity for debate. Particularly with the Cons opening the door to rule changes, shouldn't the opposition take the opportunity to put forward some new adjournment rules to ensure that Con chairs can't unilaterally halt any hearing - and at least force the Cons to reconsider part of their current disruption strategy?

On selective listening

There have been some reports suggesting that Deceivin' Stephen's actions surrounding the latest in the Mulroney/Schreiber scandal somehow represent a willingness to break with Mulroney and his ilk. But let's take a closer look at who and what Harper has actually listened to in deciding to allow for a public inquiry.

We can safely rule out any personal principle about actually keeping government clean, since Harper's office kept the facts under wraps for over seven months.

Opposition questioning on its own didn't lead to anything more than posturing from the Cons, as they sought to reach a mutual coverup agreement with the Libs.

How about public pressure? That was enough to force Harper to want to be seen doing something. But it wasn't enough for him to even hint at anything more than a third-party report (which may itself have been for Harper's eyes only).

But when the Godfather himself asks for a public inquiry? Suddenly, Harper feels the need to claim that his plan was to have one all along.

So don't take any pity on Mulroney in being "shunned" by the Cons; he can stay secure in the knowledge that he's still far more likely to have his concerns acted on by Harper's regime than almost anybody else in the country.

On speaking out

Adam Radwanski wonders whether Stephane Dion will seek to appear before Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission. But it's worth wondering whether Dion is really the right politician for the job.

After all, Radwanski points out some serious potential downsides for Dion in appearing before the commission - most notably the danger that he'd put in a poor appearance, and the risk of burning bridges with Quebec's governing Libs. But the federal NDP could make an appearance with little risk of either of those downsides, as well as with far more to be gained. So is there any reason why the NDP - either through Jack Layton if he's able to speak before the commission, or through Thomas Mulcair if only Quebec residents are offered the opportunity to make a presentation - shouldn't be taking up a lead role in defending multiculturalism in Quebec?

Common issues

The CP reports that while the Cons may have put an end to one lawsuit with their settlement with Alan Riddell, they may soon face claims from Brent Barr and Mark Warner over their terminated candidacies.

Which leads to the inevitable question: how long before the set of Cons aggrieved by the party's undemocratic choices becomes large enough for a class action?

Concealed agreements

The Ottawa Citizen reports that the Cons have come full circle. Having pushed Alan Riddell out of the way to make room for whistleblower Allan Cutler as a symbol for accountability and transparency, they appear to have managed to pressure Riddell into keeping quiet and going along with the party line:

The Conservative party has reached an out-of-court settlement with Alan Riddell in the Ottawa lawyer's libel suit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the party's president, a party statement says.

The one-paragraph statement says nothing about the terms of the settlement and does not name Mr. Harper or party president Don Plett...

Mr. Riddell said yesterday he could not comment on the terms of the settlement...

Mr. Riddell added that now that the issue has been settled, he looks forward to supporting Mr. Harper and working on behalf of the party in future elections. The party had revoked Mr. Riddell's membership, but he was unable to disclose whether it is being reinstated.

Now, there's little indication as to why Riddell would be eager to once again start working for a party which pushed him out the door, and which indeed doesn't appear willing to publicly announce that it's letting him back in. Which leads me to wonder whether Riddell's positive-sounding statement (and subsequence silence) may have been the Cons' price for paying out what they owed.

But then, it still remains to be seen whether the Cons will later try to deny the terms of the settlement as they did with the agreement which induced Riddell to drop his candidacy in the first place.

Whatever the merits of settling from Riddell's perspective, the implications for the Cons are clear: the secrecy behind the settlement offers just one more example of the party's belief that accountability applies only to others. And while Riddell may no longer be fighting to bring this particular incident into the public eye, the fact that the Cons see something worth covering up even this late in the proceedings suggests that there's plenty more worth exposing - if anybody's willing to blow the whistle.

(Hat tip to Jeff.)

Unrealistic

The CP reports on yet another Con broken promise, as National Defence has been forced to admit that the Cons' new funding couldn't support their promised increase in the size of the Canadian military. But even the new set of reduced targets seems to be based largely on wishful thinking:

The Defence Department's latest performance report says the 2006 pledge to increase the number of regular reserve soldiers, sailors and aircrew has been revised because of costs and the high attrition rate of serving members...

The document also warns that if more members than expected choose to leave the military over the next five years, the situation will worsen. Recruiting would then have to be stepped up dramatically or some units may be under strength...

The military based its revised expansion figures on an average attrition rate of 6.1 per cent a year. But that figure represents all occupations, and in certain fields - such as combat arms - attrition is running between 12 and 13 per cent.

Leslie said attrition in the army is running at a (sic) average of eight per cent.

The report shows the Canadian Forces are exceeding recruitment targets but trained members are going out the door just as fast.

And the picture only figures to get worse over the next few years. From Auditor General Sheila Fraser's 2006 report:

National Defence data show that there is a large concentration of members in their later years of service who are approaching the time when they will be eligible for retirement. Approximately 50 percent of Regular Force personnel have 15 years of service or more; thus they are either already eligible to leave or will soon be. Because of the potential for a large number of military personnel to leave over the next five to ten years, National Defence is predicting that attrition will rise. As the exhibit shows, there are few members behind those leaving to fill in the gap.

National Defence data show that attrition rates are also higher than average in the early years when members are getting initial training and adjusting to military life. Currently, about 31 percent of Regular Force personnel have less than six years of service. Since so many members are in their early years, the average rate of attrition is expected to increase in coming years.

The combined factors of higher rates of attrition and larger numbers of people in the early and later periods of their service are expected to lead to a higher overall attrition in coming years. While attrition in the Regular Force has averaged six percent since 2000, National Defence expects an increase over the next 10 years.

Of course, the rise to 8% itself may make for some of that increase which Fraser identified as a likely result. But if military personnel are indeed more likely to depart early in their service, then the focus on an influx of new recruits should make for reason to expect even more attrition.

Instead, the Cons are choosing to assume an unrealistically low rate of attrition in order to try to preserve a target slightly closer to their even more implausible initial promise, rather than setting an achievable goal based on what's actually likely to happen. And the more the Cons choose to plan their policies around best-case scenarios rather than likely outcomes, the worse off Canada figures to be when reality intervenes.

Surplus calculations

Remember the good old days last month when the National Post's editorial board chirped about the "ease with which the government will be able to finance (the Cons' tax cuts) out of the country's massive budget surplus"?

Apparently the Financial Post and its sources for this weekend's article on infrastructure don't. Which is why they claim that a massive wave of privately-owned infrastructure (subsidized by public money through long-term agreements which will tie government hands for decades to come) is "inevitable" due to a lack of public resources to fund needed improvements.

But don't worry too much about the federal government's fiscal position. After all, the National Post is bound to declare that it's back to being in great shape - just as soon as more tax cuts are on the table.

On selective ignorance

Just so we're clear about Stephen Harper's idea of integrity in the prime minister's office...

As far as Harper's PMO is concerned, an accusation of prime ministerial impropriety in office which hasn't yet been made public is to be swept under the rug.

But once that accusation is made public and can't be avoided, then and only then is it it time to start feigning concern about the need to "protect the office of the prime minister".

Once again, the real message is that Harper won't stand for an iota more accountability than he can avoid - either for himself or for his mentor. And that pervasive attitude among Harper and his minions poses a far greater danger to the integrity of the PMO than anything Mulroney is alleged to have done.

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.

An uncovered agenda

Shorter CanWest chain on the Saskatchewan election outcome:
Of course the NDP shouldn't have been believed when it talked about Sask Party privatization. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to delay the selloff now that the election's done with.

In motion

Jack Layton's push to abolish the Senate has certainly managed to dominate Canada's political scene over the course of this week. But it's noteworthy that while false impressions about Layton's motion seems to have spread like wildfire, the real strategic context has been largely ignored.

Let's start by correcting the false claim that anti-NDP forces seem to have shouted in unision: there's nothing anti-constitutional or impossible about Layton's proposal. Instead, it's clear under the Referendum Act that a referendum may be held for the purpose of gathering the "opinion" of Canadian citizens (rather than to impose the proposed policy without further action):

3. (1) Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.

As I'd noted from the beginning, the effect of a referendum on abolition wouldn't be to actually abolish the Senate immediately. The effect would instead be to put pressure on the provinces to agree to abolition as a stand-alone issue without getting into the usual wrangling that accompanies constitutional changes.

Another point of confusion seems to surround the nature of Layton's motion. From the above portion of the Referendum Act, it should be obvious that the capacity to call a referendum lies solely with the Governor in Council (i.e. the federal government). If Harper wants a referendum, he can call it without any House motion; if he doesn't, then it would take a legislative amendment passed by all three opposition parties (not to mention the Senate) to impose one against Harper's will.

Likewise, the view of the current Senate is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether a referendum can take place. Layton's motion wouldn't be put before the Senate unless an individual senator chooses to introduce it separately - and even then the Senate's vote would similarly be of no immediate effect.

So what's the point of Layton's motion? From this angle, it seems to be directed far more at putting immediate pressure on the Cons than on the Libs. If Harper and his government vote against the motion, they'll be offering effective support for a body which is despised by a significant portion of their base in its current form; if they vote for it, then they'll have to answer for a serious reversal if they don't follow through and put the question to Canada's citizens.

Which means that absent some other factor, all roads lead either to the Cons losing face, or to a referendum on a longstanding NDP priority.

So far, so good. But then we get to Harper's decision to try to change the issue in order to toss the ball into the court of the Libs' senators. And that's where there's some real risk in Layton's motion.

Harper's strategy has obviously been to use the possibility of a referendum as leverage against the Libs' Senate majority. Indeed, his seemingly positive response to Layton was offered only with the proviso that the Libs can avoid a referendum by acceding to his party's demands. And the danger is that if the Libs decide to give in to Harper yet again, Harper will get his gridlock-friendly triple-E version of the Senate before 2009 without any meaningful public input, while the Canadian public will never get to vote on abolition (or even reform).

So does that mean that the NDP should back off? Not for a second.

Harper may be able to try to deflect from the real issue in the media by testing what the Libs' senators will put up with in order to avoid an abolition vote. But he and his party can only spin its own vote on an NDP-worded motion so far. Which means that by pushing forward, Layton can put the pressure squarely back on the Cons for the motion vote now - and hopefully again when it comes time to put the abolition question to the Canadian public in two years.

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?

On opportunities

Based on recent history, an election campaign seems to be inevitably dominated primarily by discussion of negatives. And unfortunately, much of the promise held by Saskatchewan's current campaign seems to have been lost in the shuffle. But with the election close at hand, let's take a few minutes to remember the positive choices at stake.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to place Saskatchewan at the forefront of the evolution of Canada's public health care system through a universal prescription drug plan. Instead of limiting coverage for the fastest-growing component of health care costs to a quarter of the population, our province could lead the way in declaring that all residents have access to a vital aspect of health care at a manageable price - while also making needed investments in new surgical facilities to strengthen an already-improving health care system.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to endorse a citizen's assembly which could modernize the way Saskatchewan chooses its leaders - and the outcome of that assembly could be felt for many elections to come. Instead of a third party feeling the need to pretend the election has been decided early in the campaign in a desperate bid for relevance, it could enjoy the opportunity to receive seats in proportion to its popular support; instead of being largely ignored, smaller parties could have the opportunity to hold real power.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to put their vote behind a continued leadership role in the development of wind, solar and other green energy opportunities - both through SaskPower's own investments, and through independent developments which receive credit under a reverse metering system.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to support investments in infrastructure, research and development which will help to ensure that Saskatchewan's prosperity lasts far past the current resource boom.

And tomorrow, voters have the choice to make sure that the benefits of Saskatchewan's boom are spread to the province's population as a whole - through reduced tuition which benefits all students, tax rebates which benefit all residents, an increased minimum wage to ensure that all workers receive a boost from the province's economic expansion, and the continued provision of the lowest utility costs in the country.

In sum, the election is indeed about opportunities as well as risks, hopes as well as fears. And one of the greatest risks of all lies in the fact that by this time tomorrow, the most significant set of progressive policy proposals offered to Saskatchewan voters in decades may have passed us by.

Fortunately, there's still time for voters to decide to vote for the possibilities in front of them - along with the reassurance that the province will remain in capable hands for another term. And the more voters who take that opportunity, the better off the province will be.

Parallel offences

Shorter Conservative Party president Don Plett:
Of course there's some difference between a Conservative candidate who's charged for smuggling drugs and one whose main offence is that of exercising independent thought. After all, you can be pardoned for smuggling.

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.

On voting opportunities

I'd wondered how long it would take the federal NDP to take advantage of the opportunity presented by Hugh Segal's scheme to use a Senate referendum as a means of imposing a Reform-style structure. Now, the CP reports that the wait is over, as Jack Layton is publicly calling for a referendum on Senate abolition:

NDP Leader Jack Layton is calling for a referendum on the abolition of the Senate, an institution he describes as "outdated and obsolete."

"It's a 19th-century institution that has no place in a modern democracy in the 21st century," Layton told party organizers Sunday in Winnipeg...

Layton has long called for the upper chamber to be done away with. The idea for a nationwide vote on the issue was floated two weeks ago by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who favours maintaining the upper house. He said a referendum could lead to important reforms if a majority of Canadians voted to keep the upper chamber.

Layton, albeit with different motives, is trying to put Segal's idea on the floor of the Commons. He said the NDP will introduce a motion calling for a referendum in the coming weeks, and is hoping Prime Minister Stephen Harper will allow Tory members to vote freely on the issue.

The article notes correctly that a referendum vote to abolish the Senate wouldn't necessarily put an end to the issue due to the need for provincial consent to any change. But it's likely that a strong vote for abolition would put serious pressure on any provice which tried to hold out.

At worst, Layton's stance should help the NDP to make some further inroads into the Western populist vote: having let its longstanding concerns about the Senate fade into the background in recent elections, the NDP now seems to be in a strong position to win back support from voters who are rightly disillusioned with the Cons. But the upside for Canada as a whole is far greater, as the NDP's push may help to make this the best chance Canada has had to finally put the Senate out of its misery.

An all-consuming Enterprise

The Saskatchewan News Network reports that while there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's long-term population goal for the province, there's a significant dispute about how to get there. And the difference suggests just how much power the Sask Party would plan to hand to Enterprise Saskatchewan if it gets the chance:

The three major political parties agree that Saskatchewan should try to hit a population of 1.5 million by 2030, but disagree on how to hit the target, says the president of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce...

"All three leaders congratulated the chamber on initiating the discussion of long-term growth in Saskatchewan," said chamber president Dave Dutchak. "While we have received clear commitment, they were not of the same mind as to the process."

Dutchak said the chamber is firm on establishing a task force to lead the process.

NDP Leader Lorne Calvert believes sustained economic and social growth in the province must be a collaborative effort, but noted the role of government is to set parameters for a task force and also to invite participation.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall voiced concern that the task force would be a duplication of his economic development authority, Enterprise Saskatchewan, but was eager to work with the chamber to determine the correct process for the strategy.

It's noteworthy enough that the Chamber of Commerce's position better matches the NDP's view than the Sask Party's. But the more important lesson is what Wall's response says about the planned scope of Enterprise Saskatchewan.

After all, a goal based on population growth is one which obviously has multiple implications for the province. While economic considerations are obviously a part of what's at stake, any effort to grow Saskatchewan's population surely needs to take into account both other factors in achieving that growth to begin with, and other effects on the province from an influx of people. Which should mean inviting a different and wider set of parties to the table than might be necessary to deal solely with economic development.

From Wall's response, however, the Sask Party sees things differently. It could be that the party has a myopic enough view not to see how population growth could raise any additional issues. Or instead, the Sask Party could plan to have all additional issues also dealt with by a body whose composition is itself geared toward the Sask Party's corporatist vision over all other considerations. Either way, though, it seems virtually certain that all issues other than how to get the most money into private hands as quickly as possible would receive short shrift.

Moreover, while Wall's answer was aimed toward population growth in particular, it's worth wondering how far the same principle would apply. After all, virtually any issue facing the provincial government has at least some economic component to it. And if Enterprise Saskatchewan were charged with the mandate of dealing with any matter which could affect or be affected by economic development, then Wall's appointed body would usurp virtually the entire role of the provincial government before long.

We'll see if Wall is willing to offer any answers about just how much power he'd devolve to Enterprise Saskatchewan, and what groups would get left out as a result. But it seems far more likely that this is just one more area where Saskatchewan voters are being asked to put their blind faith in the Sask Party. And as those areas keep piling up, there's ever less reason to give the Sask Party the benefit of any doubt.

No surprises

At long last, the Cons' contempt for party democracy is getting some of the widespread media attention it deserves. The Chronicle Herald is leading the way with a particularly scathing editorial, while the Citizen and the Star have joined in with prominent ex-Cons in condemning the determination of Harper and company to suppress their party's own grassroots.

What's particularly unfortunate, though, is that anybody seems to be surprised.

It may be new for the Cons to actually dismiss two candidates who had already been nominated. But it was clear as early as last summer that the Cons were going to great pains to prevent riding associations from having any choice of candidates at all. And it surely can't be seen as a particularly large step from denying a riding association any choice to begin with, to simply cancelling the results of such choices based on the whims of the party's central command.

Hopefully the latest examples won't be soon forgotten - and maybe more attention will be paid to the Cons' past actions now that the issue is getting a more widespread airing. But Canadians should know that the recent incidents are part of a general contempt for democracy rather than isolated occurrences...and that the Cons only figure to get worse as long as Harper perceives the party crackdown as helping his political cause.

On partial fixes

The Cons have unveiled a bill to re-enfranchise some of the voters who would have been unable to vote under their last Canada Elections Act amendment. But as I'd suspected, the Cons' fix is limited to the rural voters who are more likely to back Harper, while the continued disenfranchisement of transient voters is apparently seen by the Cons as a feature rather than a bug:

The Conservative government introduced a bill on Friday aimed at fixing a glitch in the Elections Act that could have prevented up to a million rural residents from voting.

In June, Parliament passed amendments to the Canada Elections Act that required each voter produce proof of identity and a residential address before being allowed to cast a ballot.

However, more than one million Canadians living in rural areas don't have an address that includes a street name and number. Many use post office boxes instead.

The problem also extends to native reserves, where a resident's address is sometimes simply the name of the reserve...

The bill introduced Friday clarifies that addresses do not need to contain a street name and number.

What also appears to be "clarified" is that proof of a current permanent address would still be required. Which means that Canadian citizens who can't provide that will continue to be deprived of their right to vote if the Cons' bill passes.

Of course, there's no guarantee that any of the opposition parties will be as compliant now as the Libs and Bloc both were when C-31 was up for consideration in the last session of Parliament. And while the track record may not be positive for either party, it's not yet too late for the Libs and Bloc to decide that this time, they'll defend the right of Canadians to vote rather than going along with the Cons' voter suppression strategy.

An open question

On further reflection, I have to wonder whether Brad Wall's attempt to change the subject by introducing new promises at the end of the campaign could turn out to be an outright disaster for the Sask Party.

After all, it seems clear from Wall's announcement that the Sask Party's platform doesn't fully set out what the party already has planned if it forms government. Which means that there's a serious need to ask what else Wall has promised that was left out of his party's public platform. And if Wall can't offer a thorough explanation as to why this would be the only surprise he has in mind, then voters have every reason to doubt that he or his platform can be taken at face value.

More non-opposition

Your Liberal Party of Canada in a nutshell: Stephen Harper's supporters are welcomed with open arms, while Harper's opponents risk being pushed out the door.

On diversions

I suppose the Saskatchewan election campaign was bound to have some late surprise. But I for one wouldn't have expected the Sask Party to take one of the least successful pages out of Paul Martin's playbook, making up new promises at the end of the campaign in an apparent attempt to shift public discussion away from topics which it doesn't want to have to discuss.

Of course, any reporting on Wall's latest diversion has been far more friendly than the media treatment of Martin's Charter pump fake. (Bob Hughes in particular is predictably salivating at being able to recycle his usual daylight savings time tirade in the lead-up to a referendum - though if the Sask Party felt a need to pander to him personally, there may be reason to think its vote in the cities is far softer than we know so far.)

Fortunately, though, it's entirely likely that Saskatchewan's voters are less gullible than the Sask Party seems to think. And if Wall's weak attempt to use a referendum on a small issue in four years to deflect attention from his own refusal to answer questions about who he would appoint to run the province's economy next week receives the attention it deserves, then the swing vote seems all the more likely to end up in the NDP's column.

Endgame

A few notes on the Insightrix poll released today.

For the NDP and the Sask Party, there's both significant opportunity and significant risk in the numbers.

From the NDP's standpoint, the downside obviously comes in the surprising regional breakdowns which show the Sask Party with a narrow lead in the NDP's city strongholds. While it would be shocking if those results were replicated on election day, it looks like a few more of the NDP's urban seats will be in play than would have been expected earlier in the campaign.

The good news, though, is that the high number of undecided voters across the province suggests that Wall is far from having earned the trust of enough voters to be assured of forming government. Which means that if the NDP controls the message for the last week of the campaign(as seems likely so far), there's easily enough of a swing left to push the final result into the NDP's column.

Of course, the Sask Party will have the converse reaction to the results. And it'll be interesting to see if Wall is forced to come out of hiding to try to win over some of the large number of undecided voters, or whether he'll gamble that enough leaners will break his way without his doing anything to overcome the NDP's push.

As for the Libs...well, this may be my last mention of them for the campaign, as it's now looking like their 10% result from the previous SWNA poll (which I charitably figured to be an outlier) was in fact accurate, if not generous.

To put the Libs' 9% standing among decided voters in context, take a look at the historic Saskatchewan polling data from Environics. The only time in the past decade when the Libs' support had ever dropped into the single-digit range was in October 1999 - immediately after a significant chunk of its party had left to form the Sask Party, and the rest of its remaining caucus had joined a coalition with the NDP.

Yet two polls in a row have now put the Libs in that territory. And this is before both Karwacki's bizarre debate performance, and what figures to be another strong late-campaign push from the NDP to stop the Sask Party.

In sum, the campaign's endgame is (not surprisingly) down to an NDP vs. Sask Party contest for Saskatchewan's undecided voters. And it'll be interesting to see whether Calvert can replicate his closing ability from 2003 in order to keep Saskatchewan on a progressive path.

On storylines

A couple of new developments have surfaced in this morning's reporting on the Saskatchewan election. And from all indications, both the NDP's policy vision and its campaign message look to be getting some long-overdue attention just as the campaign enters its home stretch.

First, the Saskatchewan News Network reports on expert opinions about the NDP's universal prescription drug plan. And not surprisingly, the reviews from those who have studied the impact of making prescription drugs more affordable are almost entirely positive:

Health-care academics and experts from across Canada are praising the NDP's big ticket campaign promise of a universal drug plan...

Ken Fyke, whose 2001 study on the future of Saskatchewan's health-care system stopped short of recommending universal drug coverage, now believes it's the right thing to do.

"I have no problem with it being universal if the expansion is tied to other quality measures. I believe in pharmacare," Fyke said in an interview from his British Columbia home.

"I think it's a good idea. I believe in a strong public role for health care," said Paul Grootendorst, associate professor in the Leslie Dan faculty of pharmacy at the University of Toronto...

Professor Jeremiah Hurley of the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis at McMaster University said pharmacare is one of the most pressing issues for the health system.

He said universal drug coverage is generally a "good thing," particularly because of the bulk purchasing power emphasized by Grootendorst and others, such as Steve Morgan of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia.

"In principal (sic), this idea is one of the best ways to spend health-care dollars. In the long run, it could be a cost savings," Morgan said.

Morgan and others cite the example of New Zealand, which introduced universal drug coverage. Drug costs had been spiralling there, but under the universal plan annual increases have been curbed to just two per cent.

While the article notes a couple of dissenting views, it's obvious that there's plenty of support among the experts who have studied the issue most closely. And the prospect that a universal program could in fact save money is one which makes the plan look all the more desirable - particularly when the Sask Party's platform uses basically the same nominal amount of money for a purpose as frivolous as favouring a small number of used-car purchases.

Second, hidden within Murray Mandryk's column today is this tidbit about what Brad Wall can expect the rest of the campaign:

Wall, also claiming momentum, addressed a small but enthusiastic group of supporters at his party's Regina-Qu'Appelle Valley campaign office. The Sask. Party leader was pressured by reporters to reveal more on how Enterprise Saskatchewan would function, how many jobs in the Industry and Resources Department it would displace and whether he would reveal the makeup of the Sask. Party's transition team.

Needless to say, those questions are ones that desperately need to be answered. And it looks like the media has recognized Wall's poor dodges from the debate, and will keep pushing for a meaningful response.

No wonder Wall is apparently limiting his number of public appearances - as it presumably beats either having to give non-answers even more often, or actually saying something and risking an unwanted dose of honesty. But even that strategy is far from a sure one.

After all, it's been noted many times that the media will tend to look for the most interesting narrative possible in reporting on a campaign. And since neither "Wall: ..." nor "Karwacki: 120% of Edmontonians Die in Fiery Wrecks Every Year! We Need Paralegals In Our Motels!" figures to sustain much of a storyline, that leaves the NDP's progressive policy vision and legitimate questions about the Sask Party's plans as the stories which figure to dominate the last week of the campaign.

On non-opposition

Blogging Horse points out one piece of news from today's mini-budget vote that deserves far more attention than it's received, as Stephane Dion apparently threatened Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Bélanger with expulsion from the Lib caucus if he dared to oppose Harper's government:

Meanwhile, CBC News has learned that Ottawa-Vanier Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger wanted to stand up and vote against the economic statement.

But Bélanger was informed that he would be expelled from the Liberal caucus if he voted against the motion instead of abstaining, sources told CBC News.

Although Bélanger was in the House for question period, he was not present for the vote.

What's particularly interesting is to note the contrast between and the Libs' initial strategy on the throne speech. After all, one of Dion's closest confidants within the party publicly floated the trial balloon of having only the Libs' front benches vote against the speech for show, while back-benchers would abstain to avoid actually bringing down the Cons' government:

Wilfert's proposed tactic to avoid defeating the government would have Dion and other front-bench Liberals vote against the throne speech while the majority of the 96-member Liberal caucus remain in their seats, abstaining from a vote.

There's no apparent reason why the Libs couldn't have looked for a way to make a similar strategy work on the fiscal update. While the Libs' sole excuse for failing to oppose the Cons in full is rooted in a desire to avoid an election, that doesn't offer any justification for Dion's threat to Bélanger. After all, Bélanger - and potentially dozens of other MPs who wanted to be on the record standing up to Harper (assuming any others can be found in the Libs' caucus) - could easily have voted their conscience while avoiding an election using the partial abstention strategy which Dion's braintrust had already contemplated.

But when it came down to the question of whether MPs could vote against the Cons based on an honest belief that Harper is steering the country in the wrong direction, Dion not only wasn't willing to listen to Bélanger in the least, but apparently saw a direct threat as the best means of dealing with the situation.

Of course, Dion's action can only make it all the more clear to Bélanger and any other Libs who genuinely want to oppose Harper that their principles have no place within the party. And it doesn't figure to be long before Canadian voters start asking themselves the point in having an official opposition where actually opposing the government is seen as a dismissal-worthy offence.

On medical waste

With the federal political scene this week featuring a scathing auditor-general's report, a scathing environmental commissioner's report and a transparent attempt to deflect attention from both, it's not surprising that it's been difficult for other issues to make their way onto the scene. But lost in shuffle has been yet another addition to Tony Clement's list of asinine statements on the health care file.

Keep in mind Clement's track record for making handouts to Big Pharma his top priority in dealing with prescription drugs. Then take a look at this exchange from Tuesday's question period on the need for a national pharmacare program:

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we have reasonable recommendations from the Competition Bureau and from the pharmacists of the country, yet when it comes to helping families pay less for their drugs, the government is going in the wrong direction. There are some very reasonable things it could do.

It could start with catastrophic drug coverage for all families, move on a national pharmaceutical strategy, help the provinces and territories coordinate bulk buying, and stop extended patents on brand name drugs. Why is the government ignoring these reasonable ways to help Canadians save money on the drugs they need but cannot afford?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
As the hon. member well knows, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost these are issues that are of the provincial and territorial governments, but I would say to the hon. member that the federal government can be part of the solution. Typically for the NDP, its only solution is to tax Canadians more, spend more of their hard-earned money and not work on the innovative solutions that are there, in place, and can be done.

We are for innovation. We are for better health care. We are not for wasting the taxpayers' money.

As best I can tell, that makes Clement's position roughly the following:

Inflating prescription drug costs by gratuitously extending patents isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

Refusing to coordinate drug purchases to drive down bulk prices isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

Encouraging provinces to push the use of more expensive brand-name drugs to punish the generic drug industry isn't "wasting the taxpayers' money".

But actually making prescription drugs more affordable to Canadians? Now there's the kind of waste Canada can't afford.

Trainwrecki

A quick post-mortem on the Saskatchewan leaders' debate.

For Calvert and Wall, the debate seems to have gone pretty much exactly as planned. Calvert was on the attack for most of the debate, and succeeded in pointing a few of the tough questions that need to be asked about the Sask Party while emphasizing a commitment to sharing Saskatchewan's wealth - though a few of his good points seem to have been lost in the open-time shouting match. Meanwhile, Wall showed signs of being a star pupil at the Stephen Harper School of Content-Free Politics, scrupulously avoiding any meaningful answers when challenged by Calvert while generally sticking to the Sask Party's script.

Which isn't to say that one of the leaders didn't manage to make an impact. But it's probably not the one that the Libs' leader was aiming for.

After starting off by managing to avoid answering a softball first question, Karwacki mostly made his presence felt as an obstacle to any meaningful discussion - remarkably managing to outdistance the other two by far in his unwillingness to allow the others to speak in what was undoubtedly a poorly-designed format. And along the way, he also managed strategic errors such as giving the NDP the opportunity to speak up for its efforts in saving jobs in Prince Albert and Meadow Lake, and taking an inexplicable stance against rural highway improvement.

At this rate, if Karwacki's still around by the next election, the Saskatchewan Libs will be begging to be excluded from the leaders' debate.

For now, though, his main impact in the campaign seems to have been to add momentum to his party's slide in the polls. Which means that if an NDP/Lib swing really is the decisive factor in Saskatchewan politics at the moment, then the Sask Party figures to be celebrating far too soon.