Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 6

Ward 6 has looked like one of the most interesting races for quite some time, as challenger Brenda Mercer got an early start against two-term councillor Wade Murray and has put together a strong campaign in the time since. So what can voters expect from the race?

Brenda Mercer - video profile - website

Mercer boasts one of the more detailed platforms of any candidate for Council, with particular attention paid to better representation, affordable housing, safety and community. Of particular note among this year's crop of council candidates are Mercer's recognition under the "safety" issue that any attempt to deal with crime needs to deal with underlying social issues, as well as her commitment to effective services as a matter of community-building.

So how much profile has Mercer been able to build for that platform? Between a Facebook group featuring 118 supporters and a video profile that's received more views than any other Council candidate other than Chris Szarka and Heather McIntyre, there are plenty of positive signs that she's been able to get her name out into the public. But it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to overcome Murray's advantage as an incumbent (and indeed one who faced a contested defence of his seat in 2006).

Wade Murray - video profile

I've mentioned a few times that several incumbent councillors are running entirely on a platform of "more of the same". But while a few other candidates have tried to run based on the council as a whole rather than standing on their own records, Murray looks to be leading the charge in that direction.

Notably, Murray's video profile is almost devoid of any content other than a vague reference to entrepreneurship and a cookie-cutter "property values and crime" message. Meanwhile, his official candidate bio focuses mostly on implementing studies which have already been carried out and his "cohesive Council" position which I've addressed before.

Endorsement

Not surprisingly in light of the above, ward 6 is probably the first of these breakdowns where I see virtually no difficulty endorsing one candidate over the others. While Murray epitomizes both the insularity and the lack of policy vision of the current council, Mercer offers up clear commitments to improve both the issues being discussed and the type of representation citizens can expect in the process. So the endorsement for ward 6 goes to Brenda Mercer.

On false alibis

The Cons' main response for the past week when anybody points out the disproportionate share of stimulus money being put into government or swing ridings has been to refer to George Smitherman's comments blurring the lines between different infrastructure programs. So let's take a moment to ask one question which seems to have gone unaddressed so far: what reason might Smitherman have to take the Harper Cons' side?

For the answer, let's take a look at the overriding infrastructure agreements between the federal and provincial governments. Oddly enough, a separate stimulus agreement between Canada and Ontario which was supposed to have been signed this August doesn't seem to be readily available - but the federal government's own infrastructure site features the Infrastructure Framework Agreement signed in 2008, and it would be a shock if the newer agreement is radically different. So let's take a brief look at what the Cons required Ontario to agree to before providing funding to the province.

When it comes to actually reporting on spending, the Infrastructure Framework Agreement contains only an agreement to deal with the issue later. But needless to say, the Cons weren't about to leave publicity to chance as they did with accountability. And as a result, the agreement includes a detailed "Communications Protocol".

Under that protocol, the federal and provincial governments agree to "undertake joint communications activities and collaborate on products" when it comes to infrastructure spending. Each party's communications are required to meet jointly-developed "branding standards, protocols, graphic guidelines, and templates", and include an equal allocation of "words, logos, symbols and other types of identification".

From that starting point, one might rightly suggest that the protocol seems to be aimed solely at working together on project announcements or the like. But the protocol goes on to set far broader requirements, some of which apply solely to recipients rather than to the federal government:

3.3 Project Promotion

a. Recipients are responsible for the promotion of their project and its activities and objectives within their community or jurisdiction. The recipient will provide, as appropriate, project communications such as: a project web site, print, audiovisual and other communications about the project as it proceeds. The recipient will inform Canada and Ontario of any such promotional communication before it takes place. The recipient will also ensure appropriate mention of the partnership nature of the funds and the contribution of all parties in annual reports, speeches or other opportunities, as appropriate.
...
e. The recipient will provide, whenever possible, professional quality audio-visual material about the project to Canada and/or Ontario (where Ontario is not the recipient) to support wider communications about funding under the BCF or the Base Funding Agreement and ReNew Ontario and its successor plans.

...

4.4 News Releases

The Parties shall issue joint news releases after funding decisions are made, or upon project milestones. In all such news releases, the Parties shall receive equal prominence. The Parties shall mutually agree on the use of quotes from the designated representatives of Canada, Ontario or the recipient in the news releases.

4.5 News Conferences, Public Announcements, Official Events or Ceremonies

a. Canada and Ontario agree to hold news conferences at the request of either Party. The requestor shall provide at least 15 working days notice of such a news conference, which will take place at a mutually agreed date and location. The Ministers, or a designated representative of either Party, will be entitled (sic) participate in such news conferences.

So what can we take from the above provisions? Read generously enough, one could interpret 3.3.e as establishing a direct commitment on the part of the province to provide the federal government with positive press about the stimulus program. And the province's obligations surrounding "annual reports, speeches or other opportunities, as appropriate" would seem to be very easily interpreted to include some obligation to deliver a Con-friendly message even in less formal forums - such as, for example, in response to media questioning.

Of course, there's room for dispute about the scope of those words. But I'd have serious doubts that a province which is already running a glaring deficit would want to risk having its federal funding withheld by a government eager to take revenge for any unfriendly public commentary - particularly when it comes to programs where both levels of government have agree to "joint" responsibilities. Which means that there's ample reason for Ontario to deliver statements which they figure will keep money flowing, rather than potentially provoking a fight.

And as an added bonus, Ontario's signature on the Infrastructure Framework Agreement belongs to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. So to the extent Smitherman has his own political future in mind, there's similar reason for him not to want to make himself a target for the Cons as having breached the agreement.

All of which is to say that Smitherman's statement should be taken more as a signal that the Cons have ensured that the provinces are under their thumb than as an indication that the stimulus program is actually being run fairly. And if the best the Cons can point to in their defence is to say that one of their "recipients" doesn't dare to mention any concerns, then that should be taken as evidence of just how problematic the Cons' actions have been.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The obvious good news out of yesterday's victory over B.C. is that...well, against all odds the 'Riders managed to add one more game to the win column. But the game does look to me to have been easily the ugliest win the 'Riders have posted this season.

About the only clear positive in the game was the offence's drive for a touchdown once Barron Miles gave the Lions a 30-22 lead. With Miles leaving the game at that point, the offence suddenly took control of the game for the first time, posting five consecutive completions culminating in Johnny Quinn's touchdown, then once again cashing in on a two-point convert attempt.

But the rest of the game (both before and after) wasn't quite so friendly for the offence. In the first half, the 'Riders posted two touchdowns to take the lead, but still mostly seemed to be on their heels: the team accomplished little with great field position on the game's first few drives, and its biggest plays (Rob Bagg's 60-yard reception on the first touchdown drive and 32-yard TD on the second) were both the result of finding split-second windows in a B.C. defence which mostly controlled the line of scrimmage and blanketed the secondary. And the second half was once again almost a complete washout until the 'Riders desperately needed a score down the stretch.

In contrast, the Lions' offence was largely able to move the ball at will throughout the game - and was stopped more by its own unforced errors than by Saskatchewan's defensive scheme. The 'Riders put plenty of pressure on Casey Printers in his return to a starting role, but showed little ability to actually complete a play once Printers was being chased down - regularly allowing Printers enough time to find reads downfield in the first half, then making ill-advised lunges which allowed Printers to escape containment in the second. And the secondary had trouble covering the playmakers who should have been central to the 'Riders' game plan.

Fortunately, Printers made just enough mistakes to keep Saskatchewan in the game. But the 'Riders can't count on their opponents misfiring on short passes to stall drives or throwing inexplicable interceptions in overtime - and without both of those factors in yesterday's game, the 'Riders would have been done for.

Of course, it helped that Saskatchewan's special teams were once again a plus. Louie Sakoda showed plenty of leg strength on kickoffs, though he'll presumably need to work on his hang time (as his line drives gave B.C.'s returners all day to set up their blocks); Luca Congi was solid on punts, though his field-goal kicking left something to be desired; and Jason Armstead once again gave the 'Riders a short field on plenty of possessions.

But while the special teams made up for at least part of the Lions' ability to control the play on both sides of the ball, the 'Riders were ultimately extremely fortunate to escape yesterday's game with a win. And with B.C. looming as a likely opponent at some point in the playoffs, the 'Riders have their work cut out for them in figuring out how to take matters into their own hands.

Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 7

Ward 7 features a rematch between Sharron Bryce seeking a third term on council, and Danny Berehula taking a second shot at dislodging her from the seat. Bryce held the seat fairly handily three years ago - but a second-time challenger always figures to have a better chance based on the experience of the previous campaign. So let's take a look at what both candidates have on offer.

Danny Berehula - video profile

It's surprising that somebody with Berehula's resume (as the longtime executive director of the Better Business Bureau) would have had as much trouble winning votes as he did in 2006. But if the issue then was with his campaign, he looks to be doing everything possible to fix that, having been well in front of the pack in announcing and advertising his candidacy.

So what can we expect if Berehula's campaign works out better this time than last? Berehula's core message is based on twin concerns of safety and fair distribution of city services. And among the lengthy list of other issues raised in his video profile and candidate announcement, he notably ranks as one of the few candidates to point out condo conversions as an issue linked to the need for increased development of rental housing.

Sharron Bryce - video profile

On the bright side, Bryce's message as to the need for "orderly", well-planned growth reflects at least a bit more concern for issues other than development at all costs than one will find in some of Regina's incumbents. But otherwise, Bryce looks to be positioned purely as a small-c conservative, focusing on tax complaints and anti-crime pandering while utterly neglecting to mention social issues.

And if those policy concerns weren't enough, it's even less helpful to the hope for improved representation that Bryce is one of the many incumbents branding herself somewhat with the current set of councillors as a whole.

Endorsement

This looks to be another ward where neither of the candidates is without some drawbacks. But based on the prospect that his more progressive platform planks might receive the attention they deserve as well as the potential value of having a consumer advocate on council, the endorsement goes to Danny Berehula.

Thanks, I think

I'd be tempted to think that this means I'm not doing my job. But how seriously can one take a set of awards which misses the slam-dunk choice for "Best Blogger Who Doesn't Blog Enough"?

The reviews are in

Ralph Surette on what Nova Scotia is now enjoying under Darrell Dexter's new NDP government:

This week's byelection results are another signal of how deeply things have changed in Nova Scotia. Not only is the NDP still gaining, but this run — totally opposite to our political customs — would have been nearly unthinkable a short while ago. Let’s repeat the election night question: What’s going on?
...
Simply, that very rare commodity in these parts — public confidence in government — has gone up. Higher, I’d guess, than at any time in the last 40 years. And this, remarkably, even as the government settles in during troubled economic times and passes a budget with a huge deficit — the very thing that has been political poison for 20 years.

It’s early, of course. In my long experience, it takes a year and a half to two years to make any firm judgments about how a new government is doing, and there are plenty of obstacles ahead that could unhorse this one. But the twist here is that this is not just a new government, but a presumed complete overhaul of political tradition. The political cobwebs have been cleaned out, the place has a new paint job and the public, by all appearances, likes it.

So who's up for some change from the same old story on the federal level as well?

On rush jobs

Yessiree, this certainly inspires nothing but confidence as to how much thought has gone into the Wall government's efforts to slap together a research/isotope reactor in Saskatoon:

A recent access to information request from The StarPhoenix for the minutes of the meetings of the working group aiming to bring a research nuclear reactor to Saskatoon received this response: They don't exist.

"No minutes were recorded at the meetings of the Nuclear Centre Working Group, as a result of the significant time pressures to create and submit the proposal on medical isotope production," reads a letter sent from Crown Investments Corp.

On common interests

I've seen a few rhetorical questions asking where the Greens have been when it comes to the NDP's effort to get Bill C-311 and its real greenhouse gas emission targets passed in time for the Copenhagen summit. So let's leave no doubt about the matter: to their credit the Greens both called for the Libs to support the bill prior to this week's vote, and criticized them for failing to do so.

But it's worth taking a closer look at where the Greens figure to stand in relation to the other federal parties going into the next federal election campaign. And it looks to me like the vote on C-311 is just the beginning of a realignment of the Greens' messaging which may ultimately bear fruit for both them and the NDP.

In the last federal election campaign, the pact between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May had an obvious impact on the Greens' messaging. Rather than presenting the Libs as part of the problem in Canadian politics, May explicitly endorsed Dion for Prime Minister against the Cons, while echoing the Libs' criticisms of the NDP on climate change policy and other issues. And that made plenty of strategic sense for a leader trying to get elected in a riding where the Cons and NDP had previously ranked as the top two contenders (and where the Libs weren't bothering to oppose her).

But now, May's focus is a riding where the Cons and Libs ranked well ahead of the pack in 2008, and where a Lib opponent with fairly significant environmental credentials has been less than shy about attacking May personally. And that figures to make for radically different incentives.

Now, any hope of getting May elected depends on the Greens mustering an effective attack on both of the two largest national parties - presumably by linking the two together as holding up any action on climate change. Which means that the main message which May needs to convey - not just in her riding, but nationally to set out the foundation for her argument in Saanich-Gulf Islands - will be a familiar "same old story" theme which highlights how even Libs with some seeming personal interest in the environment vote against it for partisan purposes. (Needless to say, C-311 looks to serve as one of the main examples in favour of such an argument.)

And it won't just be the Greens with an obvious inclination to work with that line of messaging. After all, the Bloc has already put together an ad campaign painting the Cons and Libs as "two parties, one outlook". Which again makes perfect strategic sense, as each time Gilles Duceppe has taken aim at only one of the Cons or Libs as his main opponent during the course of an election campaign, the other has managed to increase its Quebec support by election day.

But while the Greens and the Bloc have obvious reasons to push a "same old story" message against the Cons and Libs out of self-interest, there can't be much doubt that it's the NDP that will benefit most to the extent that theme takes hold. In fact, a campaign where both the Greens and the Bloc reinforce the NDP's argument for change would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the NDP to raise its own share of popular support just in time for voters to head to the polls. And if the Greens and Bloc perceive that the NDP is in a position to make the jump ahead of one or both of its national rivals, that may provide all the more reason for them to keep working in tandem to deliver real change.

Musical interlude

Iris - Annie, Would I Lie To You

Sounds about right

Brian Topp:

Mr. Ignatieff has no particular issues or priorities he wants to address in this Parliament or, so it would seem, in politics. The idea therefore seems to be to flail away in all directions until Christmas, and to hope that time heals the red team base of support at some point in the new year. Perhaps assisted by a magic policy conference in January.

That makes two national parties dedicated to not toucheing the patente. They might as well be asleep. Another good reason to make Jack Layton prime minister -- at least he wants to get something done.

But the good news is that at least that fact is receiving due attention - even if the Libs are determined to stand in the way of actually getting anything accomplished.

On brownfields

It took a few days after the story first emerged, but a couple of Libs have finally noticed that their party voted with the Harper Cons against greenhouse gas emission targets. And particular credit goes to Eugene Forsey Liberal for actually questioning why the Libs voted down a bill which they'd passed in a previous incarnation and approved of when it was actually debated in Parliament.

Meanwhile, Jeff Jedras looks to be the first to actually try to defend the Libs' move. Except that he overlooks a glaringly obvious point in doing so.

After all, it's utterly nonsensical to start bringing up points about "due consideration" of a bill which has already been debated and passed with the support of the Libs. Which means that the calculation made by the Libs does appear to have been exactly what Janyce McGregor reported:

(A) minority of Liberals evidently wanted to look like they supported action on climate change, and voted against a further delay. But on the other hand, more of them were said to be reluctant to support a bill that would allow the NDP to claim any edge or victory as far as championing environmental causes in Parliament. The fact that enough of them voted in favour (so the extension would pass) ironically made it easier for a few of them to take their policy stand and vote against, without any serious consequences. Get it?

Now, it may well be that the fourteen MPs lionized by Eugene Forsey Liberal were in fact more concerned with whether they'd "look like they supported action" than with whether or not any actually got taken. But the fact that the vast majority of the Libs' MPs in attendance preferred to get nothing done for the sole purpose of avoiding some credit going to the NDP speaks volumes about where the Libs' priorities lie.

As for the blog response (or lack thereof): just so there's no doubt, I don't think for a second that there's any "conspiracy" afoot. While the Libs' silence would in fact make far more sense if it could be traced to some Harper-style diktat decreeing that any Lib discussing the issue would be placed just behind Denis Coderre on the party's list of untouchables, I don't think anybody would pretend that's how the blogosphere works. And indeed, if there had been some order that the topic be left alone issued to the range of bloggers on two aggregators reflecting a broad spectrum of party loyalty and independence, that itself would figure to have been made public in a hurry (and spurred more discussion of the topic).

But it looks to me even more damning that the same attitude which caused three-quarters of the Libs' MPs who showed up for the vote to take a stand against the environment just to spite the NDP also seems to be prevalent among the Libs' online supporters. In effect, that would suggest to me that the grassroots are actually even more jaded and withered when it comes to interest in the environment than the Libs' caucus. And if that's the case, then the Libs presumably won't see any reason to do anything more than pay lip service to the environment as Lib and Con governments alike have done for the last 16 years.

(Edits: fixed wording, corrected EFL's name.)

The reviews are in

Murray Mandryk:

But what perhaps was most revealing in Wednesday's throne speech was the nine paragraphs (compared to six paragraphs on agriculture) dedicated to limiting the amount of needles being handed out to intravenous drug-users to stop the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C -- and Wall's personal commitment to this issue.

Saskatchewan Health already accepted a report this spring saying the needle exchange program, though publicly unpopular, is preventing the spread of these deadly diseases. Those now working in the field call the new policy a pending disaster.

Yet Wall, certainly a social conservative himself, seems eager to dispense with expert assessment in favour of pandering to those social conservatives and others who, for whatever reason, seem intent on stirring the admittedly legitimate concern of needles discarded in public places into near hysteria.

For good or bad, this is how the Saskatchewan government is working.

On reruns

June 6, 2008:

Shorter Bush/Baird tag team on the prospects for a common front on greenhouse gas emission cuts at next week's G8 summit:
Speaking as the parties who refuse to even consider any emission reduction targets, we have a crazy hunch that no unanimous agreement will be reached.

Which of course brings us to a shorter Jim Prentice today:
Speaking as the last developed-world holdout against any emission reduction targets with no intention of budging an inch, I would suggest that any agreement at Copenhagen is unlikely.

Worth a visit

If you're looking for more information about next week's Saskatchewan municipal elections, a couple of mainstream media sites which you may not have seen may be worth a look.

First, the CBC has introduced a interactive map featuring notes from dozens of municipalities. The content isn't as detailed as would be ideal, but the site nonetheless looks to be easily the best single source for at least an overview of news from across the province.

Meanwhile, Dave Hutton's City Hall Notebook is providing regular and in-depth coverage of developments in Saskatoon's races. Consider this one time where it would be a plus if CanWest papers actually were a bit more uniform in their priorities, as the Leader-Post is sorely lacking for anything of the sort (in fact you'll find more about Regina's races in Hutton's recent archives than on the Leader-Post's newsblog).

On self-promotion

Number of Canadian cities on Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour: 5
Number of Canadian cities whose mayor launched himself in front of every available camera to claim full credit for Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour: 1

Just a thought, but maybe Pat Fiacco might have time to participate in the occasional open public debate if he wasn't confusing the mayor's position with that of a concert promoter.

On toxic assessments

The blackout among partisan Libs on their party's choice to delay a climate-change bill continues unabated. But fortunately, others aren't being quite so shy about speaking out. Here's Stephen Hazell from Sierra Club Canada:

Ignatieff tossed the Green Shift aside when he became Liberal leader. This was perhaps politically necessary given the Liberals’ defeat in the October 2008 election. More baffling is that the Ignatieff Liberals appear to be treating environmental issues and climate especially, like toxic waste running away as fast as they can.

On numerous occasions, Ignatieff has voiced his strong support for further development of the tar sands, even though he says he wants Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and he knows that and that he knows that tar sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Increasing tar sands development means that Canada will be unable to begin to reduce our overall emissions for many years—even in the unlikely event that carbon capture and storage technology proves to be feasible and effective.

Just as baffling is Ignatieff’s failure to support Bill C-311, the proposed Climate Change Accountability Act. This NDP private member’s bill is identical to a bill passed by the House of Commons in June 2008 with Liberal support that died on the Senate order paper when the autumn 2008 election was called. Bill C-311 is important because it will establish in law Canada’s deep obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions (25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 80% by 2050) that scientists say are needed to avoid disastrous climate change. Neither Ignatieff nor his environment critic David McGuinty have indicated what amendments the Liberals require in order to support Bill C-311.

Failure by Parliament to pass Bill C-311 will mean that Canada will go to the crucial Copenhagen climate treaty negotiations in December without a climate plan that other nations can take seriously.

h/t to JimmyRiddle @ Babble.

(Edit: fixed formatting.)

Pod People II: Now In Disguise

To my knowledge, the Cons gave up on their plans to formally appoint shadow MPs after their last scheme was made public. But that doesn't mean they're otherwise being anything but shameless about trying to pretend their candidates are government decision-makers.

Take for example Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Ryan Hastman, whose apparent first-ever appearance at a "business round table" just happened to coincide with a photo op with Stephen Harper.

So let's ask a few questions which I'm sure the Cons would like to avoid. What exactly was the "business round table" meeting where Hastman appeared? Did he ever have any affiliation with the group prior to his appearance with Harper? Who asked him to appear and for what purpose? And how if at all did the Cons draw any distinction between Harper's meeting with the group in what we can only presume was a government role, and the partisan strategy of having a candidate show up for publicity with the PM?

Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 8

The site of probably the biggest upset of the 2006 Regina elections, Ward 8 presents substantially the opposite problem from Ward 10. After narrowly defeating Vic McDougall last time out, incumbent Mike O'Donnell easily ranks at the top of the list of current councillors who could make valuable contributions to a more progressive council in the future - but he faces an extremely strong challenger in Donna Standingready. So how to decide between two candidates who can each make a worthy claim to an endorsement?

Mike O'Donnell - video profile

O'Donnell's policy platform is about as strong as anybody's this year, featuring a laundry list of curbside recycling, improved transit, sports and culture, and small business development (particularly among First Nations). And O'Donnell can point to at least some efforts to examine those issues within today's council.

Unfortunately, though, the composition of the current group makes it difficult to turn any studies into action. And while it's natural for an incumbent to present a "stay the course" message, it's difficult to reconcile that with any serious effort to address the issues that have been neglected by the rest of the current council.

Donna Standingready - video profile

Perhaps recognizing the perception that the current council will require some significant changes to allow the city to move in any different direction, Standingready's campaign is focusing largely not just on her resume generally, but on her experience navigating through government bodies in particular. And there's plenty of appeal to the prospect of a councillor who can combine good ideas with enough public policy experience to get them implemented.

And Standingready looks to be at least on par with O'Donnell in her policy focus, covering most of the same ground as O'Donnell while promising to lead the charge against flat taxes or other measures which would impose a greater burden on citizens as compared to businesses.

Endorsement

With both candidates presenting a policy slate that would make a positive contribution to Council, my endorsement is ultimately based on two factors: the need for a "change" message rather than satisfaction with the status quo, and Standingready's history of work experience with the First Nations Family Support Centre in a ward where both candidates acknowledge that First Nations issues need to be heard. So with that in mind, my endorsement for ward 8 goes to Donna Standingready.

On denial

For those interested, here's a comprehensive list of blog posts on Liblogs and Liberals Online about their party's choice to vote with the Harper Cons against any binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in advance of the Copenhagen climate summit:

(crickets chirping)

Update: It's worth going into a bit more detail as to what the Lib supporters' non-response to their party's actions means. On the one hand, it's obvious that there's nobody among the Libs' grassroots supporters willing to speak up for the environment against the party's political calculations - signalling that the party's previous attempt at greenwashing has been thoroughly rejected in favour of Michael Ignatieff's cheerleading for the tar sands.

But even more significant is the lack of anybody willing to come to the Libs' defence on an issue where the party was in the headlines. I'm sure in some cases that's a matter of supporters concluding they'd simply rather ignore the issue - but among the more rabid partisans it figures to reflect a calculation that climate change not only isn't enough of a priority for the Libs to try to anything done, but isn't even important enough for the Libs to pretend to care by trying to justify their actions.

In re: glass houses

Con MP Greg Rickford serves up a distraction tactic:

A Conservative MP has filed a complaint with the House of Commons ethics commissioner against 18 Liberal MPs for fundraising through their websites.

In a statement, Conservative MP Greg Rickford accused the 18 MPs of "attempting to raise money using their online parliamentary offices."

"The Liberal party should not be using their online offices offering constituent services to further their private or partisan interests, or the interests of their party or riding association," he said.

So MP websites shouldn't be used to direct traffic toward party activities? Rickford may want to have a word with some of his Con colleagues who "further their...partisan interests" by driving traffic to the Cons' website before making such a declaration.

En famille

Shorter Liberal Party of Canada:

Liberal Women's Caucus: I told you when our event was planned for this morning! Is it really that hard to listen?
Old Boys' Network: No, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if you'd said anything.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

A culture of entitlement

The examples of insularity and patronization at City Hall seem to be piling up just in time for Regina's voters to decide as to who they want representing them on Council. Following up on the examples of Wade Murray and Jerry Flegel, we now have Pat Fiacco refusing to participate in any debate other than the $45 breakfast sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce - arguing in the process that he's too busy occupying the mayor's office to justify why he thinks he should be re-elected to the position.

And for an added bonus, Paul Dechene points out an anonymous councillor's suggestion that challengers should be glad to avoid public debates on the premise that they might not know "the details of how municipal government works or even the minutiae of what council's been up to lately". That claim of course runs counter to the reality that it's normally frontrunners with plenty of name recognition who seek to avoid debates so as to prevent anybody else from building a message about them (see Fiacco, Pat above). But more importantly, it also looks to reflect a stunning degree of arrogance and ignorance in the assumption that challengers won't have done their homework as to what's happening in the city before putting their names forward.

So multiple members of the current Council have now effectively suggested that Regina should simply assume they know best, rather than defending any of their actions on the merits. And that should only provide reason to worry that the same attitude of infallibility might be pushing those same councillors to be equally dismissive of the concerns of citizens in general.

SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE!!!!

Make no mistake, the Wall government is planning a "Mission Accomplished" banner as we speak (whose unveiling will of course bear no relation to any actual progress). But can even the Sask Party find an excuse to put its leader in a flightsuit?

I stand corrected

So much for my expectation that the Libs would at least want to be seen doing what they could to pass the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act - a bill they'd supported multiple times before - in time for the Copenhagen summit. Instead, they're now making excuses to join with the Cons in stalling the bill, and thus ensuring that Canada won't have an expression of the majority of Parliament to take to the world:

Federal Liberals say they won't support the NDP in its effort to push a private member's climate-change bill through the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The proposed legislation, called Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, sets strict targets for greenhouse gas emissions and is currently being considered by a House environment committee.

The committee has asked for an extension of 30 sitting days to review the bill, a request that will be considered Wednesday when the House sits.

But New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said the delay would undermine efforts to have the bill passed into law before the Copenhagen summit in December.
...
The bill has passed through two readings in the House of Commons since it was introduced by NDP member of Parliament Bruce Hyer, receiving support from the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty, however, said the committee needs more time to study the implications of the bill.

"We need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position" before considering the bill, McGuinty told CBC News.

Needless to say, that raises some serious questions for the Libs to answer. For example, why on earth did they pass the same bill before if there was any need for "more time to study (its) implications"? What do the Libs think we don't yet know about the positions of other parties at Copenhagen, and why haven't they been doing any work to find out? And even if it would be ideal to have more information before making efforts to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act, isn't it a worse trade-off to wait for that information in exchange for losing any ability to act on it through Parliament?

Mind you, matters only figure to get worse from there. Remember that the hold-up on previous incarnations of the bill has been the Senate's delay in passing legislation which had already received the approval of the House - with delay being the best the Cons could do at the time since they were in the minority in the Senate. But with Harper's patronage-fest on the verge of flipping control of the Senate, it won't be long before the Cons have the numbers to vote down any environmental bills entirely.

Which means that a vote to delay C-311 now may do more than just eliminate the prospect of the bill's passing before Copenhagen; instead, it may allow the Cons to bottle up any action on climate change until the Harper government is removed from power (and indeed beyond if Harper's senators stay loyal to him after the House changes hands). So now is indeed the time for a push to force the Libs to put up or shut up on climate change - and to permanently brand them as Harper's accomplices if they choose to make sure nothing gets done.

Update: Devin has the definitive commentary on what the Libs' vote means.

On new resources

For those looking for a central resource for information about Saskatchewan's municipal elections, take a look at SaskProgressive - a new site put together by a group including yours truly. There you can check out what's been going on so far in some of Saskatchewan's progressive campaigns - and even more importantly, you can help keep us and our readers updated on what's going on in the races (particularly in smaller municipalities) which may not have received the exposure they deserve.

Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 10

With the municipal elections looming in the near future, I'll take some time to count down the Regina council races. For a full list of candidate bios and other resources, see the City's Council page.

Ward 10 figures to hold the most public attention of all of the Regina contests, thanks largely to the fact that Chris Szarka's entry has won it more attention in local sports media than most of the races have seen anywhere. But what should voters be looking out for when they go to the polls? Here's my take on each of the candidates based on their publicly-available material, as well as my endorsement for the ward.

Michael Cassano - video profile

Cassano was the last contestant to enter the race, and figures to face an uphill battle against the incumbency advantage of Jerry Flegel and the star power of Szarka. But a strong resume would seem to offer him a chance to stay in the race if combined with an equally inspiring platform or policy vision.

Unfortunately, Cassano disappoints somewhat on that point. While he mentions a few priorities like housing, traffic and noise control, his video presentation focuses almost entirely on his past committee involvement under a "volunteerism" theme, and his and candidate announcement and bio make "pride" a central message. Of course those are important values in a public servant, but they don't say much about what Cassano would be expected to do on Council.

Jerry Flegel - video profile

I noted here how remarkable it was that Wade Murray's campaign message includes an attempt to preserve the entire council rather than to focus on his own personal merits. But Flegel doesn't only do the same in his candidate bio; he also goes a step further in his video profile, leaving as his lasting impression a poll about the public's views of the current Council rather than any summary of his positions or priorities.

But then, there might be reason for a choice to send a "stay the course" message without highlighting what that course actually is. Flegel's video profile pays lip service to concerns like green space and snow removal in a seeming effort to round out his platform. But it's telling both that this mention comes only after his primary focus on MEGAPROJECTS!!!, traffic and taxes - and even more importantly that his list of accomplishments is based on roads rather than parks.

In fairness, Flegel's recognition of a need to appeal to different types of constituencies combined with his time on Council so far might make him relatively open to working with a better set of councillors from elsewhere in the city. But if the best hope for a potential councillor is that he'll be influenced by others rather than following through on his past record, that's usually a sure sign that it's time for a change.

Chris Szarka - video profile

Szarka may well be the favourite to win the ward, as his name recognition and popularity from his time with the 'Riders may well outweigh Flegel's incumbency advantage. Unfortunately, though, Szarka's public platform is maddeningly vague, pairing a regular refrain about lowering property taxes with talk about unspecified services, along with a commitment to the "fundamentals for viable, thriving communities" which doesn't explain what those fundamentals might be.

I'd be particularly interested to hear exactly what Szarka means by that latter phrase, and it could be that it would resolve some of the concerns I'd have with Szarka's direction. But at this stage of the game, it's tough to escape the fact that Szarka hasn't yet defined himself as much more than a familiar face.

Endorsement

From the above, it shouldn't be tough to tell that none of the Ward 10 candidates looks to be a slam dunk in my books. But for a combination of new blood on council and some focus on housing and culture issues, the choice here is Michael Cassano.

The madness continues

Jeffrey Simpson is right to point out the inefficiency of carbon capture and storage projects as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - a particularly glaring problem when CCS is effectively the only idea dealing with climate change which the Cons are bothering to fund. But Simpson does manage to underestimate the Cons' uselessness on the issue by assuming they can't do worse when they've already done so:

Let's be generous and assume the two projects costing $1.6-billion do in fact bury 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, the most-prevalent gas contributing to global warming. Such a reduction would mean a per-tonne carbon-reduction cost of about $761 – staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Want a contrast? Alberta has a piddling carbon tax on emissions over a certain level that companies can avoid by paying $15 a tonne into an technology fund.

Now, one can fairly say that measures that expensive and inefficient should be utterly inconceivable. But the Cons have managed to waste public dollars on far worse ideas.

Compare the CCS cost to such earlier Con excuses for emission reduction programs as their now-defunct transit pass tax credit - whose final price tag came in at a neat $10,000 per tonne. Or their car purchase tax credit, whose cost was calculated at over $5,000 per tonne.

In other words, the Cons had long since set the standard for the world's least effective environmental programs. Which means that while CCS may indeed be "mind-blowingly" inefficient compared to any reasonable standard, it's pretty much par for the course from the Cons.

But then, one can easily make the argument that none of the Cons' schemes was actually "designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions". (Indeed, they later tried to defend their transit program by claiming that we shouldn't worry about whether it actually accomplished what it set out to do.) But the fact that the Cons have cynically used billions of dollars worth of public money which was supposed to benefit the environment on a combination of vote-buying and corporate pandering should remind us that the pork-barrelling and waste in this year's stimulus funding is nothing new from the Harper government.

Someday, this could all be ours

The Guardian:

Government officials have drawn up secret plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's first new nuclear reactors for more than 20 years, the Guardian has learned.

The planned levy on household bills would add £44 to an annual electricity bill of £500 and contradicts repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies.
...
Ministers have become concerned that power companies such as E.ON and EDF Energy are reluctant to commit themselves to building nuclear stations because energy prices have fallen and they fear they will not be able to recoup the multi-billion pound cost of building new nuclear stations.

The government believes that only by artificially increasing the cost of electricity generated by coal and gas stations through an additional carbon levy on household bills can nuclear become more competitive and encourage new reactors to be built.

One European utility executive told the Guardian: "New nuclear will not happen without sorting out the carbon price." The Guardian understands that the Office of Nuclear Development (OND), set up by Lord Mandelson's business department, has promised nuclear companies that the price of carbon under the EU emissions trading scheme – now about €13 per tonne – will not be allowed to fall below €30 per tonne, and ideally €40. According to the energy consultancy firm EIC, the new carbon levy would add £44 to the £500 annual electricity bill paid by an average household.
...
The executive director of Greenpeace UK, John Sauven, said: "Nuclear power has always been a byword for monumental taxpayer handouts. Now the likes of EDF Energy are getting cold feet over the cost of new nuclear stations, it looks like the government is trying to sweeten the deal with public money. This is despite saying categorically that any new reactors will have to survive without subsidy. Without huge financial support, nuclear power doesn't make economic sense. Even the big utilities now admit this."

On last chances

It's undoubtedly for the best that the NDP is highlighting the need to get its Climate Change Accountability Act passed to set out the position of Canada's democratically-elected MPs before the Copenhagen summit.

But I do have to wonder if an apparent focus on a Con vote to delay the bill figures to be a particular good use of the NDP's efforts. Is there a lot of risk that the Libs - who have voted for the same bill and its predecessors before - are suddenly going to line up on the opposite side of the issue? And if not, shouldn't the NDP be doing most of its work on getting the bill through the Senate (which is where it's stalled before) and having it respected by the Con government, rather than on votes which should be relatively easy ones?

Monday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Most of the talk about the 'Riders' tie with Calgary has focused on the penalties which kept drives alive for both teams in overtime. But while those undoubtedly contributed to the game's outcome, it's worth pointing out that the 'Riders themselves passed on what looked to be an ideal chance to take the game into their own hands.

For background, keep in mind that Darian Durant has proven to be extremely effective on two-point conversions recently. Twice in the last three games, the team has trailed by eight points in the game's dying minutes - and both times Durant managed to get the ball into the end zone, then put up a two-point conversion to tie the game. And the game before that, he likewise managed to complete a two-point convert to push Saskatchewan's lead from one point to three.

Which makes it odd to me that the 'Riders didn't go for two after their first overtime touchdown when it would have ended the game.

Even leaving aside the fact that a one-point convert is something less than automatic, the decision to play it safe looked like one with nothing but downside. The first overtime series would be the only one where the 'Riders could count on the benefit of scrimmaging last, and thus being able to use an extra down to get to the end zone if needed. In contrast, a second series would potentially give Calgary that advantage instead. So why not press the advantage while the 'Riders held it?

And the choice looks even more obvious after Saskatchewan's first convert attempt - where the Stamps managed to highlight the uncertainty of a convert by blocking the kick, but in the process took a penalty which would have made it easier to find the end zone on a two-point convert.

Mind you, there would be an obvious case for merely trying to extend the game to one more series if there was reason for concern about the team's chances on a two-point convert. But again, that's actually turned into somewhat of a specialty for Durant, whose combination of timing, touch passing and scrambling ability is ideally suited to finding some way to get the ball into the end zone from up close.

In sum, then, the 'Riders' first overtime possession got them exactly what a team normally hopes for at the end of a game: the chance to have the game decided by its own execution on offence, with the ball in the hands of a quarterback who's building a track record of making big plays when it counts the most. And having chosen not to take advantage of that opportunity, the 'Riders couldn't have expected much more than to come away with a single point in the standings.

On false reports

Shorter Jim Prentice:

It's completely false to say that G77 countries walked out on a UN climate meeting to protest Canada's position that Kyoto should be effectively torn up. What really happened is that they (checks thesaurus) departed the (checks thesaurus) gathering to (checks thesaurus) disapprove of Canada's (checks thesaurus) stance. And we're positively outraged that anybody would fail to see the difference.

Predictable and predicted

Of course it's outrageous that the Harper Cons spent over $100,000 of public money for their June propaganda exercise - including $50,000 just to print glossy copies of their "report card". But let's not forget which party it was that ignored the Cons' already-atrocious reporting record and decided that the report cards should serve as their sole price to keep the Cons in power.

The reviews are in

Stephen Maher:

Last month in Oakville, when asked about the allegation — made by a Tory candidate — that one project was killed because the riding was Liberal, the prime minister said don’t worry: "We can give you a list of announcements made across the country."

Three weeks later, after repeated requests for that list, his office told me this week to stop bothering them. Turns out the prime minister was joking, or lying. They are not going to cough up a list. Instead, they directed me to the useless actionplan.gc.ca site, and suggested I click on 6,000 individual links and draw up my own list.

FAIL.

These people are either cynically withholding information that would allow voters to see where their tax dollars are beings spent, or they are idiots, or maybe both.

They think they are smart to hide this information — perhaps because it could be politically damaging if they are shown to be shovelling pork into Tory ridings nationwide — but they are not smart.

Canadians want their government to be accountable, and the Tories ought to know that.

Musical interlude

Billie Ray Martin - Honey (Chicane Club Mix)

Breaking the silence

The Leader-Post reports on how quiet the Regina municipal elections have been to date. And it's all too true that there's been somewhat less talk about the election than one would hope for so far.

But for those looking for some of the discussion which hasn't yet been processed for media consumption, the City has posted video statements from a large number of candidates - and some are going beyond that in bringing their ideas to voters.

Burning questions

Does anybody honestly think that hundreds of millions of dollars in prison construction costs - along with increased expenses involved in actually running the new prison space which don't seem to have been costed out yet - will actually produce benefits anywhere near the expenses involved? And if not, then shouldn't there be room for one or more opposition parties to mount a strong criticism of the Cons' pandering on crime simply as a matter of cost and government waste?

On closed-door decisions

It's definitely worth pointing out that Rob Nicholson has rejected the consensus (among the opposition parties as well as past Information Commissioners) that the Access to Information Act should serve to actually enable the flow of information rather than providing cover for the Cons' habitual secrecy. But while the latest reporting has focused on the latest round of sparring over a set of committee recommendations, it's worth keeping in mind that the Cons themselves promised exactly what they're now trying to avoid:

The Conservative pledge to implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations to reform the Access to Information Act -- which included a duty for public servants to document their decisions and a public interest injury test on information considered exempt -- was dropped quietly when the government eventually tabled its Federal Accountability Act.

As one government insider said: "The bureaucrats pushed back hard on that stuff and appealed to the Prime Minister's secrecy tendency."

Which means that the goes far beyond merely a disagreement between the parties today. Instead, the Cons' complete rejection of any attempt to shine some light into the darker corners of the federal government also reflects a broken promise that makes a mockery of the Cons' now-laughable claim to value openness and accountability. And as always, that kind of obstructionism offers nothing but reason for suspicion about what they're keeping hidden.

On big projects

I'll have plenty more to say about the Regina municipal races over the next little while. But for now, I'll take a moment to mention my stake in one of the campaigns, as I'll be contributing some content to the web presence for Heather McIntyre's campaign in Ward 2.

But of course I'll also continue to put together content which is purely mine rather than having anything to do with the campaign - such as this first response to the "The ONLY" theme which McIntyre's opponent Jocelyn Hutchinson is pushing:


Needless to say, suggestions working off the theme are more than welcome.

On practical suggestions

Of course, in addition to managing images to turn the Cons' misuse of government resources for partisan gain into a criticism that sticks, it also can't hurt for the opposition parties to bring up some policy suggestions to ensure that similar problems don't pop up in the future. And fortunately, the NDP is on the case.

On image management

There have been plenty of strong argument raised against the Cons' attempt to attach party logos and MP names/faces to federal spending. But I have to wonder whether the debate so far - consisting largely of opposition supporters pointing toward the Cons' cheque photo-ops attached to critical statements - is playing largely into the Cons' hands.

After all, there's a reason why the Cons were perfectly happy to make sure that Gerald Keddy, Peter Van Loan, Scott Reid and others were photographed in ways that mixed up partisan and government messaging: the image of an MP delivering a cheque to a riding is generally seen as a plus, meaning that the normal result would be to build a positive association for the Cons' partisan symbols. And while there's certainly reason to try to reverse the usual associations by tying the Cons' images to scandal and waste, I have to wonder whether the current path will prove to be an example of the theory (attributed to Ronald Reagan's image handlers) that "the eye always predominates over the ear when there is a fundamental clash between the two" - in other words, that viewers will ultimately pick up more from Con-friendly visuals than they will from the scandal being discussed in the background.

So I'll suggest that a change in tactic is in order. Rather than spending a lot of time discussing and pointing to the Cons' photo ops themselves, better to play up the fact that there's a need to counterbalance the Cons' use of public money to build up their partisan symbols - and use the wonders of Photoshop to attach those same symbols to rather less flattering images associated with the Cons' actual or potential negatives (closed factories, environmental devastation, etc.) And if the Cons want to complain that their symbols shouldn't be used that way, it'll be awfully difficult to dispute that it's their own MPs themselves who first extended their use beyond legitimate activities of the Conservative Party.

Back to the source

The Cons' misuse of public money for their own ends has managed to become far more widely recognized over the past few days thanks to Gerald Keddy and others.

But the more important damage to the public interest almost certainly involves money spent with far less attention. Which means that the newly-installed procurement ombudsman's report that there's serious reason for concern about billions of sole-sourced contracts would look to be the type of development which can tie the party logo issue into wider mismanagement and partisan favouritism:

Too many federal contracts are being snapped up by favoured suppliers without real competition, says Canada's procurement watchdog.

Departments hand out plum contracts to lone suppliers at prices that might be lower if other companies were given a proper chance to bid, Shahid Minto suggests in his first report to Parliament.

The report draws on a review of some of the $1.7 billion worth of sole-source contracts the federal government signed between 2005 and 2007.
...
Minto's report, which focused on Health Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, National Defence and Fisheries and Oceans, found it was too easy to skew the procurement process in favour of suppliers that officials preferred. For example, there was scant evidence in the files that bureaucrats did any homework about other potential suppliers.

While there are plenty of possible follow-up questions, the most important one for now would seem to be whether any Con-connected suppliers who weren't getting federal business in 2005 suddenly found themselves as "preferred" suppliers sharing in federal largesse once Harper took power. And if there is evidence of that combination of mismanagement and partisan preference in spending going back to Harper's first days in power, then it'll be all the tougher for the Cons to pretend they've done anything but rebrand the worst of the Libs' patronage politics with a blue colour scheme.

On distorted inputs

Shorter Star Phoenix editorial board:

Enough of this pesky pretense of "democracy". We demand that the province officially turn the task of governing Saskatchewan over to some unspecified set of corporations for once and for all.

On misplaced growth

The Ottawa Citizen is criticizing the growth of the federal civil service over the past few years. But isn't it even more noteworthy that while the civil service as a whole has expanded, the department responsible for managing Canada's infrastructre spending has been in a state of perpetual neglect - which the Cons are just getting around to noticing now that Infrastructure Canada's most important work is largely in the past?

On exclusivity

Far too much political commentary seems to be based on the idea of drawing distinctions between the interests of the unwashed masses and their ruling betters. But it isn't often that a candidate goes so far as to campaign on the idea of keeping out any new blood lest it interfere with the club currently in charge.

Which brings us to Wade Murray:

Ward 6 -- In this northeast and central Regina ward, incumbent Coun. Wade Murray is seeking a third term based on his hard work for the community through participation at the ground level and track record at council. He plans to work to implement the many studies undertaken by the city. He noted his goal is to "keep council a cohesive group"...

Needless to say, it seems unlikely that there are more than about 11 people in the city who are more concerned with preserving the chumminess within the departing council than with making sure that the next council listens to their concerns. And if the best argument Murray can muster to try to defend his seat is that he thinks City Hall should be protected from anybody who might have new ideas to offer, then he'd seem to be ripe for replacement.

Deliberately misleading (Giant Novelty Cheque Edition)

Even by the standards of Gerald Keddy's tenuous connection to reality, the apparent explanation for today's blatant misuse of public funds for Con propaganda is a doozy:

The CBC reported getting an email from Keddy’s office late Tuesday that said the Conservative logo was “inadvertently” put on the cheque.

Let's leave aside for now the use of the passive voice to avoid saying who it was that actually put the logo on the cheque. (Though the "who" of the matter would figure to be one of the next areas deserving of investigation - and presumably some lower-level staffer will take a temporary fall as a result.)

More fundamentally, how on earth could one claim that it's possible to "inadvertently" place a Con logo on a large piece of printed material? Will Keddy's office clarify that it just happened to have a logo stamp the size of Keddy's hand which accidentally got waved around in the general direction of the cheque? Or that a logo graphic which by sheer coincidence fits perfectly into the cheque in terms of colour and size was cut-and-pasted by a staffer who just happened to be ending a shift working for the Cons and starting one working for Keddy's publicly-funded office?

Not that it's at all surprising that Keddy's office is trying to minimize the fallout in classic Con fashion by saying that the blatant misuse of the Cons' logo on a cheque representing public funds wasn't intentional, with anything even remotely resembling truth be damned. But how on earth can one pretend that Keddy's cheque design was anything but a conscious choice?

On disengagement

Michael Ignatieff plays to his B.C. audience by mentioning the disastrous drop in wild salmon stocks:

We’ve just seen an entire Fraser River sockeye run evaporate. Millions of salmon just didn’t show up.

Ask upstream communities about the consequences. Ask Aboriginal communities. Ask fishers. Experts are already talking about a connection with climate change.

We need an urgent, independent public inquiry, using the best ocean and climate scientists to figure out what happened, and how we can to keep it from happening again.

Of course, it's certainly worth mentioning the vast array of potential impacts of climate change. But Ignatieff seems to have rather glaringly omitted a far more important explanation:

Morton's new research has begun to reveal that the lice and disease problem is huge in B.C. Her research indicates that sockeye smolts migrating up Johnstone Strait from the Fraser River have been infected with lethal numbers of infected lice as they swim through the Campbell River area. Little wonder this year's run of Fraser sockeye was one of the poorest on record -- and the problem will continue unless we do something.
...
Morton has now found lethal levels of fish farm sea lice in chinook smolts from the Megin River that flows into Clayoquot Sound, meaning all the United Nations World Heritage 650,000-acre Site salt-waters are a gauntlet of sea-lice death for all species of salmon migrating through the narrow fjords near Tofino.

Morton and others have discovered viral outbreaks from now antibiotic resistant infected lice from the Johnstone Strait all the way up to Bella Bella on the mid-coast.
...
From 2001 to 2003, 12,000,000 farmed Atlantic salmon died in B.C. from the infectious haematopoietic necrosis epidemic. The first problem was more than 15 years ago in B.C. Even Canada's highly regarded -- and DFO's own scientist -- Dick Beamish, has published research showing that when Atlantic salmon are removed wild salmon smolts thrive.

See also Rafe Mair, passim - but particularly his advice that Ignatieff take on the harmful effects of fish farming directly.

So why is it that Ignatieff doesn't apparently see fit to mention sea lice and other issues related to fish farming as factors in the loss of salmon? There are two obvious explanations, but it's hard to see either reflecting well on Ignatieff or his party.

On the one hand, it could be that Ignatieff is planning to label anything even remotely environmental as a matter of climate change in order to justify building a campaign on the Libs' "green energy" theme. But it's no more honest for Ignatieff to try to ram every environmental issue into a climate change-shaped hole than it is for the Cons to deliberately confuse other types of pollution with reducing greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, it could be that the decision not to even mention one of the more glaring recent examples of corporate intrusion on the Canadian environment is based on a desire to avoid stepping on any toes in the fish-farming industry. But again, it's hard to see how the Libs can expect to be trusted if they're trying to patronize British Columbia by paying lip service to the decline in salmon stocks while ultimately planning to put corporate interests first.

Either way, though, Ignatieff's wilful omission looks to speak volumes as to whether he can be trusted to take environmental issues seriously. And neither the cause of combatting climate change nor the broader environmental movement figures to be better off if the Libs continue to distort the facts to support their policy plans rather than actually recognizing the problems which need to be solved.

So much to learn

I noted earlier how the Libs' leadership foibles figure to have made it difficult for them to develop consistent messages. But apparently they're in worse shape than I'd thought when it comes to even the basic rules of communication, as even a couple of their supposedly-brighter MPs don't seem to recognize that it's a bad idea to launch into a public speech when nobody is listening.

(Though in fairness, I'd fully expect the "scrum without reporters" idea to be taken up by the Cons at some point as a means of further insulating themselves from journalistic scrutiny.)

On power plays

I'll follow up on the subject in more detail later. But for now, let's note that Erin has pointed out a possibility for new power generation in Saskatchewan which has been left out of the public discussion of the province's energy future to date - a particularly glaring omission considering that the only argument that ever seems to be mustered against hydro is "it would be nice, but we're already using as much as we can":

Despite hydroelectricity’s huge advantages, it garners little attention in political debates about future energy sources because most North American utilities have fully exploited available hydroelectric sites. Saskatchewan is exceptional because it only built a few small dams, but balked at larger projects.

In the 1970s, SaskPower proposed the Wintego Dam on the Churchill River. A public inquiry rejected the plan in order to preserve the natural area and traditional ways of life there.

These same issues would again confront large-scale hydroelectric development today. However, the historic decision to not dam the Churchill was made in a context of it being perfectly acceptable to just burn more fossil fuel instead. Today, I suspect that climate change and carbon pricing would far outweigh the original objections to the Wintego Dam.

Such a project would generate hundreds of megawatts. It would also enable a much larger expansion of wind power. Large-scale hydro provides the perfect balance for intermittent wind.

When the wind is blowing, SaskPower could close the hydro turbines and allow water to build up behind the dam. When the wind is not blowing, it could open the turbines to replace the lost electricity.

On distorted pictures

In other ridiculous Con stories originating in Nova Scotia, Stephen Maher and the Chronicle Herald have assembled a conclusive set of proof that federal stimulus spending has been strongly biased toward Con-held ridings within the province. But it's their response even more than their pork-barrel politics that most thoroughly demonstrates the problems with the Harper government.

Here's the list of sources assembled by Maher in putting together his article:

The Chronicle Herald compiled a database of federal stimulus projects using several lists on the federal government’s Building Canada website. The longest list — Nova Scotia Infrastructure Initiatives — is missing the dollar amount for many of the projects, so the newspaper acquired them from the provincial and municipal governments.

The paper also included all projects that aren’t on the lists but have been the subject of news releases under the federal government’s Economic Action Plan — for example, $10.3 million in federal funding for the Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre, a new recreation centre planned for Bridgewater, in Conservative MP Gerald Keddy’s riding of South Shore-St. Margarets.

And Maher went to that trouble because...

The main federal website tracking the spending — actionplan.gc.ca — has a map of the country with icons showing projects but no details about the amount of spending or the schedule.

In other words, then, the Cons are doing an absolutely atrocious job of actually informing the public as to what money has gone where. But the Chronicle Herald has assembled all of the information publicly available to determine that the three Con-held ridings in Nova Scotia are receiving more money than the other eight put together.

So what can the Cons possibly say in the face of such damning evidence?

(A spokesflack for Peter MacKay) pointed out that the final numbers may paint a different picture than this database does.

"When you look at figures out of context, you paint a picture that isn’t complete," he said.

Naturally, the first obvious problem with that claim is that there's exactly one entity with the theoretical ability to provide a "complete" picture. And it's because the Con government has chosen to hide its spending numbers that any accountability has had to come from third parties sorting through a mishmash of information which could easily be made accessible to all if the Cons were the least bit interested in facilitating an honest evaluation of their spending practices.

But given that it's the Cons themselves who have spent millions on self-promotion while keeping the facts hidden, it's particularly stunning that they're now suggesting that Canadians should hope that some combination of hidden and/or uncommitted spending could counterbalance a glaring partisan slant in the first 90% of their stimulus budget. Leaving aside the question of whether it's even mathematically possible for the money left to be committed to level out an imbalance as glaring as the Chronicle Herald and others have found, it defies belief to suggest that the Cons are somehow being more even-handed in the spending that they're keeping hidden than in what they've made public, or that they'll suddenly reach an epiphany about governing in the interests of the country rather than their political ambitions before doling out what's left.

In sum, there's no apparent reason to give the benefit of the doubt to a governemnt which is vehemently if implausibly denying that the current slanted numbers reflect any problem, and whose penchant for selective information suggests that what's being buried is far more likely to reflect even more waste and pork-barrelling rather than an out-of-character outburst of fairness. And the more the Cons ask the public to simply hope that their government will be reasonable in the face of ever-mounting evidence to the contrary, the more reason Canadians will have to be wary of everything that comes from the Harper government.

Deliberately misleading

Blogging Horse has partially demolished Con MP Gerald Keddy's sad attempt to attack the NDP's position on EI. But there are a couple more points in Keddy's letter which are equally obviously false or worse...so let's set the record straight.

Keddy:

If (the NDP) actually cared about improving the EI system, why did they join the Liberals in refusing to even sit on the panel?

Now, it's worth pointing out that this goes beyond mere falsehood to the realm of absurdity. After all, the "EI panel" which Keddy is referring to was based on a deal cut between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper - who both had obvious reasons not to offer the NDP any chance to participate, and by all accounts designed the panel to exclude the NDP and the Bloc precisely to remove them from the table.

Of course, if Keddy wants to provide even a shred of evidence that the NDP was offered the chance to join the Libs in lunching with Pierre Poilievre but declined the opportunity, he's welcome to do so. But as best I can tell, this passage makes about as much sense as pointing fingers at the NDP for the progress of a bill through the Senate, or the Bloc for failing to represent their constituents outside Quebec.

In sum, Keddy looks to have taken a step past the Tom Flanagan standard for credibility. Never mind even trying to be plausible; better instead to make an utterly nonsensical accusation and let one's opponents try to spend explain why it's firmly grounded in the Cons' Kool-Aid rather than anything even remotely resembling reality.

Worse yet, the only suggestion the NDP have made to reform EI is to give a full year of benefits to anyone who works a mere 45 days!

This time, the statement can actually be classified as true or false based on some grounding in reality. But even if one ignores the fact that the criticism of the 360-hour eligibility standard as giving rise to a "full year of benefits" is itself false, the statement that the NDP hasn't offered any other proposals ranges somewhere between more false, even more false and so false it may have originated with Deficit Jim Flaherty himself.

Deliberately misleading and disingenuous come to mind.

Here at least Keddy deserves some credit for honesty: "deliberately misleading" and "disingenuous" are certainly words which deserve to be linked to him, both in the rest of this particular letter and in his general dealings with the public. Which leaves only the question of whether he can deceive enough voters into clinging to a seat which otherwise figures to go orange.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

A position of weakness

Thomas Walkom's column on the dangers of racing into another set of free-trade negotiations is worth a read in general. But it's particularly worth highlighting that even those who think there's some need to keep tying government hands on both sides of the border have reason to worry about how the Cons have undermined Canada's bargaining position:

(A)ll trade deals come at a price. The original Canada-U.S. free trade deal bound this country to a permanent energy-sharing arrangement with America. Its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement, limited the ability of Canadian governments to set up social programs that might interfere with private business, such as public auto insurance schemes.

The new deal under consideration will almost certainly curtail Ontario's efforts to refocus manufacturing around so-called green industries. Ultimately, the price could be higher...

For state and congressional politicians, forcing Canadian and other foreign suppliers to manufacture in the U.S. makes more electoral sense than allowing them to supply the American market from abroad.

Unless, of course, the Canadian side is willing to give away the store.

Which brings us to the second problem. What is Canada preparing to give up?

In any negotiation, the desperate are easy meat. In these talks – regardless of the fact that Canada has so far weathered the recession better than the U.S. – it is Ottawa that sounds desperate.

As Obama noted recently, "Prime Minister Harper ... has brought this up with me every single time we've met."

If I understand Trade Minister Stockwell Day's strategy correctly, he would have Canada's provinces unilaterally agree to end discrimination against U.S. firms as a gesture of good faith, in the hope that Washington might agree to a Buy America exemption immediately before beginning negotiations on a more detailed pact.

But aside from the logistical problems this scenario entails there is the more important question of what Washington will demand in return?

Walkom raises a few possibilities as to what the U.S. might demand, such as an Afghanistan extension or even more privileged energy access. But while it's difficult to guess at exactly what the U.S. would pursue first, it's not at all hard to anticipate that they'll smell blood in the water based on the Cons' desperation to push to bind all levels of government under NAFTA. And considering what happened last time the Cons decided they had to get a deal done with the U.S., there's plenty of reason to worry about what they'll be willing to give away this time.

On message cultivation

The NDP has re-launched its Unite4Change site for this fall's set of by-elections, and in the process looks to be even further ahead of the other parties than it was last year. (From what I can tell, the closest any of the Cons, Libs or Greens come to mentioning the by-elections on their respective sites is the inclusion of one event on Michael Ignatieff's events schedule.) But while it's worth noting the NDP's apparent head start in preparing for the November by-election dates, it's particularly worth pointing out one of the more subtle advantages it may hold compared to some of its competitors.

After years of planning out messages and strategies under a leader with a long-term vision for the party, the NDP has had a chance to develop plenty of messages which can be accessed and reinforced on a moment's notice while being left dormant when they don't apply. Which means that for virtually any major development in Canadian politics (based on issues or events), the NDP will have a ready response supported by past communication work.

Are there by-elections happening? Time to bring out "Unite4Change" both as a familiar message to those who have followed NDP by-election activity for awhile, and as a building block for a national message.

Are the Cons looking for excuses to once again extend Canada's military role in Afghanistan? There's a ready response to that. Climate change? Check. Tax fairness? Check. And so on.

Mind you, in every case there's some need for adaptation to the current issues at play: the tax message is only reinforced in the case of the HST where needless corporate cuts are paired with hikes on individuals, while action on climate change is now aimed toward establishing new global targets at Copenhagen rather than meeting the ones set at Kyoto. But in general, the NDP has been able to build up a consistent set of messages which it can tap into at any point while never pushing any of them to the point of fatigue at any time.

Not surprisingly, that makes for a huge contrast against the circumstances of the Libs. They've of course had four different leaders in the past four years - with all but interim chief Bill Graham spending much of their time trying to distance themselves from their predecessors, and most key party staff changing as well during that time. And to top it all off the Libs have actually changed substantive positions on plenty of issues (a prime example being their Afghanistan swings from starting a combat mission while in government, treating it as a free vote when they first went to opposition, then demanding an end to combat before agreeing to an extension), making for an even more complicated communications problem.

Based on that combination of regularly changing personnel and messages, the Libs are bound to have a far more limited number of themes even remotely developed for public consumption - meaning that they largely have to start from scratch in developing a message in any particular area. And even before that process starts, there's presumably some workload involved in documenting and cataloguing what the last few incarnations of the party have had to say on the details of each issue so as to limit the number of contradictions that can be avoided.

All of which suggests that whatever advantage the Libs may have had in fund-raising early this year, it may be serving to do little more than try to catch up to the NDP's head start in planning and message development. And to the extent that much of the goal of political messaging is to plant seeds which will come to fruition at the right time, it's questionable whether the Libs have enough time to develop any meaningful harvest by the next general election.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

There was plenty of good news for the 'Riders in last night's win over Toronto. But while an underwhelming victory over a weak team counts for just as much in the standings as any other win, there were a couple of obvious problems which the 'Riders will have to fix in order to keep adding wins against their tougher opponents to come.

The best news for the game was almost certainly the offence's performance in the first half. After a couple of games where the offence had struggled early, the 'Riders managed to turn their first five possessions into four touchdowns and a drive into what would normally be field-goal range, racking up what would prove to be enough points to take the game by making use of nearly every weapon at the team's disposal.

And it's a good thing the offence managed to give the team that cushion to work with, as it was once again nowhere near as effective after halftime. The 'Riders' running game took some time off the clock with a few first downs in the third quarter, but the passing attack was thoroughly ineffective until the latter half of the fourth quarter. And while that late-game resurgence was enough to put the game away by adding another 3 points on the scoreboard while running most of the remaining time off the clock, it has to be worrisome that the team once again showed little inclination to put its opponent away earlier.

Meanwhile, the defence had a generally effective game, if not one to write home about. Ideally one would prefer to see the 'Riders control the run a bit better, as both Jamal Robertson and Jeff Johnson managed to put up some significant yardage. But those two never figured to be able to win the game on their own; instead, the real danger was Kerry Joseph, and the 'Riders managed to bottle him up on the ground throughout the game and anticipate much of his passing game beginning in the second quarter. There was still some room for improvement, as the Argos missed obvious opportunities due to both dropped passes and inaccurate throws - but in the end the 'Riders didn't give up more than they could afford, which has to be the ultimate goal.

And then there are the special teams, where the 'Riders have swapped out one major weakness for another. On the bright side, while Ian Hamilton describes Jason Armstead as "returning to form", I'd take a step beyond that. While Armstead has long been a dangerous all-or-nothing threat, I can't ever remember him being as consistently effective as he has this season. Which means that while it would be a bonus for him to indeed break a return or two to the end zone, the most important message the team can send is to make sure he keeps doing what he's doing to give the 'Riders better field position throughout the game rather than hinting that he should take more chances in order to score points himself.

Unfortunately, the 'Riders also faced one major problem in the battle for field position, as the punting took far more of a hit in Jamie Boreham's absence than I'd expected. That's particularly disappointing since Luca Congi managed to blast the ball when he had the chance to punt in the pre-season - but returning to the role now, he struggled with both distance and direction. And that may force the 'Riders into another strategic change if Boreham is out for long (and Congi stays in the role), as I'd have to figure it'll be worth trying a few more third-down gambles from the opponents' side of half if we can't expect to gain much yardage from a punt anyway. Or alternatively they may need to look at bringing in another punter, though the likelihood of finding a major upgrade may be low at this point in the season.

Needless to say, the 'Riders' next challenge in Calgary looks to be a far more difficult one than the Argos were able to pose last night. But the game plan shouldn't be all that different: like last night the main goals will be to keep an athletic quarterback from getting into positions where he can make plays on his own, while using a variety of weapons to find the weak points in an aggressive defence. And if the 'Riders can piece together a more effective punting game and stay more consistent on offence, it shouldn't be out of the question for the same strategy to help propel the team to the top of the West standings.