Pop quiz

Here's the NDP's readily-available public position on MP expense audits since last week:

Based on public feedback I feel confident the Board of Internal Economy (BOIE) will consider further discussion on this issue, reflecting public concerns, to seek a mutually agreeable solution to the auditing of MP expenses.

I am certainly not opposed to having the BOIE continue the dialogue with the Auditor General to improve public scrutiny of MP expenses.

Today's assignment: explain how the above passage results in the NDP being classified as "officially opposed to the Auditor-General's request" in comparison to two other parties also calling for "further discussion" between the A-G and the BOIE. And for bonus marks, explain how the NDP's agreement with the Libs' position constitutes evidence of some kind of backroom deal with the Cons.

Now, it might seem ridiculous to try to distort reality so painfully. But your future in Canada's corporate media may depend on it.

Under cover of cynicism

Following up on this morning's post, it wouldn't be at all surprising if at least part of the Cons' goal in announcing their new policy of full executive control over answers to Parliamentary committees is to make use of the aura of "they're all the same" surrounding the issue of MP expense audits to try to grab a bit more room for the government to operate outside the public eye. But that should only create an incentive for both the NDP and the Libs to push for accountability in both areas, while leaving Harper and his party as the lone group arguing for secrecy.

Just so we're clear...

The Cons' new policy is that all committee questions must be directed toward the lone group of people who can't be subpoenaed to testify. So all answers will be granted solely at the Cons' convenience.

And when cabinet ministers do deign to appear, they'll be free to answer that all decisions were made at lower levels, with the staffers responsible under strict orders not to provide any more information.

If there was any reason at all to think the opposition parties could keep a united front favouring even the most basic accountability, it should be about the easiest win possible to shut the Cons down by continuing to require that information be provided from the staffer level. But at this point, I'm not optimistic.

And now, a rebuttal from the Conscience-Free Party of Canada

Shorter Tim Powers:

Principles? Values? Conscience? It's an insult to suggest such trivialities could have a place in motivating political action. Truly, the only valid principle is that politics must include none at all - and I'm proud to have helped the Cons live up to that vision.

Either/or

Following up on this afternoon's post, let's note that while it's laughable for Stephen Harper to suggest that he doesn't have any say over his party's representatives on the Board of Internal Economy, it may be plausible that the broader issue of expenses is one where he actually does perceive some danger related to MPs thinking for themselves.

After all, Harper has exerted constant control over his MPs' actions in areas where they could possibly become a matter of public issue. But it wouldn't seem all that unlikely that MP expenses might have been classified as immune from public scrutiny precisely because of the lack of auditing in the past. And that might have led Harper to ease off on his usual strategy of micromanagement - leading to what he'd perceive as unacceptable risk of PR damage if those expenses become public.

But the question of whether Harper perceives the problem as being one of too much top-down control or not enough may be answered by his willingness to join in the tentative steps taken by the other party leaders toward increased disclosure.

Presumably the risks involved in what Harper doesn't know now could be reduced by actually requiring his MPs to turn over their books to the party before MPs agree on any audit. And I'd expect the Cons would be in the midst of assembling that information for themselves and preparing defences if they didn't already have full central control over MP expenses - which would presumably be followed by Harper changing his tune once a damage control plan is in place.

Conversely, if Harper's intransigence is the result of his party having top-down schemes in place to funnel MP funding to party supporters, then there isn't much Harper could possibly do other than stonewall as long as possible in hopes that the opposition will change the subject. And that possibility can only provide every incentive for the opposition parties to work together toward as much transparency as they can achieve.

On authority

Shorter Stephen Harper:

Sure, I control what bills Conservative MPs are allowed to present. And their future career path. And what statements they make inside and outside Parliament. And when they clip their toenails. But their position when it comes to MP expense audits is the one area where I consider them to be entirely beyond my authority.

Burning question

Stephen Harper considers the fact that one of his cabinet ministers is pro-choice to be a problem (on par with her being a poor communicator) when it comes to defending his party's principles on maternal health. So what does that say about what litmus tests Harper might plan to apply for cabinet assignments in the future?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Musical interlude

Enigma - Boum Boum (Chicane Club Version)

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre - NDP Nomination Dates Set

For those wondering when they'll get the chance to choose between Don Hansen and Brian Sklar as the NDP's nominated candidate to challenge (and hopefully unelect) Con MP Tom Lukiwski, there won't be much longer to wait. The NDP's Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre nomination meetings have been set for June 23 in Lumsden and June 24 in Regina.

Deep thought

Nothing helps to rebuild the credibility of a party whose poll numbers are stuck in unimaginable depths like some blatant lying.

Update: Though I suppose the NDP probably won't complain if the Libs manage to get voters to call Mulcair's and Layton's offices demanding that they vote "no" on C-391. After all, both can say that they have and will continue to do so - and will presumably appreciate the opportunity to point out the absurdity of how the Libs are directing their activism.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On limited opportunities

It's noteworthy enough that the Libs are apparently focusing on only three ridings in Quebec as remotely plausible gains. But it's even more significant that a list that short includes one riding already held by the NDP, and another where the NDP has inside position on the Libs.

In effect, the Libs are publicly admitting that they're helpless to change the balance of power in Quebec against either the Cons in a national battle, or the Bloc in a federalist/separatist contest. And if the Libs can't claim any plausible hope of contesting more new seats than the NDP, then there's every reason for habitual Lib voters across the province to consider whether there's a better chance to bring about the change they want by voting for a party that actually has some room for growth.

It's always good news for Brad Wall

Shorter Murray Mandryk:

The outcome of Saskatchewan's spring session in the Legislature was so lopsided in the NDP's favour that even I can't declare it a draw. But by sheer coincidence, I've just now decided that nobody likes a winner.

The bill comes due

The inevitable consequences of Conadscam (remember that?) are just now starting to materialize. And not surprisingly, the Cons are panicking at the realization of what they've wrought by making up their worst excuses yet. Shorter Cons now that several of their cabinet ministers are in danger of being prosecuted:

As a matter of free speech, we're entitled to make up whatever numbers we want in reporting our electoral expenses.

Still in issue

While the initial legislative debates about the HST in both Ontario and B.C. are done, the issue isn't dying down in either province. So let's note the most interesting developments on both fronts.

In Ontario, there doesn't seem to be much talk of stopping or reversing the move toward benefiting corporations at the expense of citizens. But it's worth highlighting the effort of one Lib constituency association to try to counter public disgust at having the HST applied to a wide swath of consumer purchases - by countering with a list of some of the areas that are mercifully unaffected. Which strikes me as functionally equivalent to BP declaring we should all be grateful for its Gulf of Mexico spill by naming areas of coastline elsewhere around the globe that won't end up covered in oil.

Meanwhile, in B.C. the conventional wisdom appears to have changed from "the Libs will ride it out" to "the Libs are doomed whatever they do" - and not without reason given the remarkable strength of the province's petition campaign. And it doesn't figure to be much of a leap from that stance to the view that Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen may have to back down from their stubborn insistence on imposing the tax.

Saskatchewan NDP Events Update

As Guest noted in comments here, there's another joint nomination meeting coming up for four of the Saskatchewan NDP's Saskatoon seats. With that in mind, let's note a few more of the significant events approaching in the next few weeks:

- May 26, 6:30 PM, Good Samaritan Parish Centre - Regina Coronation Park all-candidates forum.

- May 31, 7:00 PM, Royal Canadian Legion Hall (Saskatoon) - Saskatoon Riversdale, Saskatoon Fairview, Saskatoon Eastview and Saskatoon Centre joint nomination meeting.

- June 17, 7:00 PM, location not listed Sunset United Church - Regina South nomination meeting.

- June 19, 1:00 PM, Thom Collegiate - Regina Coronation Park nomination meeting. (This one isn't yet up on the party's events schedule, but will presumably be confirmed.)

Meanwhile, the policy review process looks to be taking a brief break after meetings the last two weekends. But I'll be sure to note when the next sessions are posted.

Update: Thanks to a reader for noting the location for the Regina South nomination meeting.

On value for money

We may not find out exactly what some MPs think they have to hide until public opinion actually forces the Board of Internal Economy to allow a full value-for-money audit. But while we've heard some odd excuses as to what's being covered up, I'll point out another possibility.

It's not much of a secret that to varying degrees, the federal parties have pooled resources that were initially to be the prerogative of individual MPs to be used instead based on centralized instructions. The most obvious example may be the ten-percenters which have since been restricted, but other areas such as the use of private members' bills and speaking time in Parliament have also largely been brought under effective party control.

Given that tendency elsewhere, would it come as much of a shock if the same is effectively happening with MPs' funding so as to ensure that money gets directed toward party-friendly actors as service providers?

That might not become apparent on an audit which looks solely at a single MP's expenses, as a single charge for a service with some confirmed work product might not seem out of place. But adding up the total for a number of MPs for effectively the same work might paint an entirely different picture of the "value" involved - leading to embarrassment for both the party and the provider.

Of course, this is purely a matter of speculation for now. But it looks to me like one of the more plausible reasons why the federal parties might want to guard their MP expenses - even if it also serves as an additional reason why the public should demand that the books be opened up.

On battle lines

Stephen Harper says that criticism of the regulators responsible for allowing off-shore drilling is "an attack on Canada".

The regulators responsible for off-shore drilling have allowed projects like Chevron's Lona O-55 to proceed even after being told that a major oil spill won't be cleaned up.

So if it comes to choosing sides in a battle, how many voters believe Canada should be on the side of uncontrolled oil spills against regulation that prohibits them?

(Edit: fixed wording, typo.)

The right answer

In comments to this post, DL offers up the best suggestion I've heard as to the NDP's response to the issue of MP expense audits:

I think the NDP should say it agrees to an audit of MPs and senators on condition that the Auditor-General also conduct a "value for money" audit of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Ministers Office - both massive wastes of taxpayers money!

Now, I'm not entirely sure off hand as to what elements of PCO and PMO spending are already subject to what types of audits. And the NDP's scope for bargaining would be limited to the House of Commons since it can't speak for a Senate which doesn't include any NDP members - though any move in one chamber would presumably be followed in the other.

Those quibbles aside, it would make all the sense in the world for the NDP to push for greater accountability for government expenses in addition to the proposed MP audit, rather than playing into the narrative that the lone issue worth addressing involves Parliament rather than government agencies. And while I wouldn't expect the Harper Cons to ultimately accept such a proposal, there's still plenty of value in suggesting it - particularly if a Con refusal to see greater government accountability can be contrasted against eventual all-party agreement on MP expenses.

Unavoidable

When I posted on what the federal leaders might be expected to do when it comes to the auditing of MPs' expense accounts, I have to admit that this didn't even occur to me as an option which would merit consideration. And I'll stick by that assessment, even as Michael Ignatieff has made it his public stance that Sheila Fraser should present a lesser request to Parliament than the one which has won such widespread public approval.

That said, I have to wonder whether Ignatieff's bizarre statement might only make it more likely that we get a full audit in the end.

After all, the lone road which seemed to lead away from that outcome involved the leaders themselves refusing to say anything, with some external events then distracting the outside actors driving the issue. But now that Ignatieff has made a public statement, I'm not sure how either of the other national leaders in Parliament can resist the temptation to create a contrast by coming out in favour of the principle of auditing public expenses. And once that debate gets started, there still doesn't seem to be any way for it to end other than agreement on a full audit.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Saskatchewan NDP Nomination Roundup

There's plenty of news to point out on the Saskatchewan NDP nomination front - so rather than splitting it up into several posts, let's bundle it together for your reading convenience.

- On the federal side, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre nomination candidate Brian Sklar has unveiled his website, featuring sharp criticism of Con incumbent Tom Lukiwski along with a policy section that mirrors Dwain Lingenfelter's provincial vision. Meanwhile, Donald Hansen's Facebook page has become an extremely lively and informative source of news and opinion.

- On the provincial side, the biggest news is the scheduling of a joint nomination meeting for all six of Regina's NDP incumbents on May 25. Of particular note, the list includes includes the Regina-Dewdney nomination, which no longer appears to be contested (as confirmed by the deletion of any "running for" from Kaitlin Stocks' Facebook page).

- Meanwhile, a couple of the candidates working toward nomination dates next month have activities on the go which deserve pointing out. Jaime Garcia has become the latest NDPer to look to a money bomb to finance his campaign in Regina Coronation Park, while Heather McIntyre will be holding a BBQ tonight in support of her Regina South campaign.

- Finally, the Regina Northeast race looks like it's about to get even more interesting in the wake of the two initial entries. At least two more entrants are apparently set to announce their intentions, including one of the NDP's long-anticipated new candidates. Stay tuned...

Memo to Conservative donors

Your hard-earned money is being used to pay for Stephen Harper's psychic friend and personal primping. Govern yourselves accordingly next time the party comes calling for cash.

Your money, their Amicus

I haven't yet blogged about the Saskatchewan NDP's strong questioning of the Wall government about the sweetheart deal given to the builder of a Saskatoon care home. But it looks like the story will be a big one in the months to come, and Murray Mandryk nicely summarizes why it figures to be important:

(S)tories of how Grant Devine's Progressive Conservative administration first got into trouble are legendary in NDP ranks -- stories of water purifier contracts that went to PC party friends, the manufacturers whose plastic shopping carts didn't quite fit in supermarket aisles or investments in computerized French translation services that didn't exactly translate anything.
...
(V)eteran Saskatchewan New Democrats know that it was a lot of these smaller stories -- the rewarding of business supporters, family members and sometimes even themselves with favourable taxpayer-financed contracts or loans through the old Sedco and other avenues of government finances -- that first started to turn the political tide against the PCs.

Well, a story emerging out of the legislature, raised by veteran MLA Pat Atkinson, about an untendered contract to build a Saskatoon nursing home let to a construction firm owned by a large Saskatchewan Party donor appears to have many of the elements of these old stories that first got the Devine government in trouble.
...
Atkinson last week spoke of an "odour" wafting around the plan to build a 100-bed, private long-term health-care unit that will allow Level One and Two residents occupancy with more critical Level Three and Four spouses. The agreement, announced by the Saskatoon Health Region, sees Amicus Health Care Inc., a subsidiary of the Catholic Health Ministry of Saskatchewan, paying the upfront capital costs, supported by what Atkinson described as a government loan guarantee. She also questioned the government's decision to charge a larger-than normal daily bed fee.
...
On Monday, Atkinson raised the spectre of the Saskatoon Health Region (read: provincial taxpayers) having to pay the outstanding balance should Amicus or the health region decide to terminate the contract. As Atkinson noted, this does seem to fit the definition of a loan guarantee, causing the Saskatoon MLA to ask: "Why is the Sask. Party government using taxpayers' money to reward its friends?"

For a Sask. Party government that has both vowed not to pick winners and has desperately tried to distance itself from the Devine Tories, such allegations are not good a sign.

Regina Coronation Park - Roger Bucsis Enters NDP Nomination Race

Jason mentions the news only as an aside, but it's worth noting that there's another apparent entrant in the already-crowded field pursuing the NDP's nomination in Regina Coronation Park.

Unfortunately there isn't much to be said about Roger Bucsis based on what's publicly available to this point - and he'll figure to need to change that in a hurry in order to make up ground on his competitors. But it's still a plus to see even more interest in the race, and it'll be interesting to see how much of a challenge Bucsis can mount following his late start.

Alone in the world

Shorter Harper cabinet ministers fanning across the globe at public expense:

To our neighbours in an increasingly interconnected world, we say: Canada is an island with no reason to bother planning for the next crash. So keep your developing international consensus on financial stability the hell out of our summit.

On blissful ignorance

Shorter David Bercuson:

War inevitably leads to difficult moral and legal grey areas. And the only reasonable response is to pretend against all evidence that nothing could possibly have been done wrong as a matter of clear-cut, black-and-white division.

One of these things is not like the other

How often did the Wall government make it a priority to consult with, say, SCN before deciding to eliminate it? The answer is not once in two and a half years:

But as someone who has also served in numerous capacities in the Saskatchewan film and video industry, from CTV's program advisory board to the head of the film board, what Gamracy finds offensive is that the government would arbitrarily eliminate SCN without seeking consultation and without attempting to understand how SCN fits as an intricate part of Saskatchewan's film industry puzzle.

Actually, Gamracy would have even been happy with the simple courtesy of either of the Sask. Party government's culture ministers meeting with her or the SCN board in two and half years of government.

Gamracy, who has served as SCN board chair since 2007, says she has not met with a government minister since the last NDP minister responsible for the film industry. "I can say unequivocally I've never been treated so disrespectfully," she said, adding that she certainly called and e-mailed to arrange meetings with Sask. Party government ministers and their officials.

How about consulting the entire province when it came to TILMA II?

NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter also accused the Saskatchewan government of not living up to a commitment to consult with the public.

"Now that the premier's signature is on the document we still don't know what's in it because none of us have really had time to digest the details," Lingenfelter said. "What we're really urging people to do is to get the document, read it and study it and not simply listen to the premier's spin."

Wall said the people of Saskatchewan had a say during public hearings on TILMA in 2007, which took place under the previous NDP government.

And it's no different for the province's privacy watchdog when it comes to the use of patients' personal health information for fund-raising:

But McMorris said that when he spoke of formal consultations, he was referring to the ones that took place between the health ministry and Information and Privacy Commissioner Gary Dickson between 2004 to 2007 under the previous NDP government.

McMorris said there was no need to seek Dickson's formal opinion again this year when the Saskatchewan Party government decided to proceed with the change to health privacy rules, because his opposition to the idea had already been made clear.

But have no fear: at least one group enjoys a perpetual open door to the Wall government:

Hon. Mr. Cheveldayoff: — Mr. Speaker, Enterprise Saskatchewan consults with industry around the clock, around the calendar. They make sure that those consultations take place, Mr. Speaker, whether they're in the summertime, whether in the fall, whether in budget cycle or without budget cycle.

So the moral of the story: if you want a 24-hour hotline to the Wall government, all you have to do is become one of its private-sector benefactors. But if you're not in that group, then you can expect to be ignored for years at a time and told you had your chance to speak when the NDP was in office.

On equal opportunities

Sure, some naysayers might think this is reason to criticize the Harper government's ridiculous degree of thought control:

Two youths who participated in a public forum with Prime Minister Stephen Harper today say their questions were edited by the Prime Minister's Office.

The youths say hot-button words like "abortion" were cut from the questions in an event designed to focus on the G8 and G20 summits scheduled for next month in Ontario.

About 100 youths were gathered in front of TV cameras on Parliament Hill in an event moderated by Conservative Senator Mike Duffy and sponsored by Vision Internationale.

Most of the eight questions posed were on the economy and none addressed any subjects that could potentially embarrass the government.

But look on the bright side: Harper is apparently no less willing to listen to blunt and unfavourable questions from unspecified youths than from, say, his own cabinet ministers. And that has to count for something.

Regina Northeast - Dwayne Yasinowski Enters Nomination Race

As Kent has noted, there's another strong contender for the NDP's nomination in Regina Northeast, as Dwayne Yasinowski has become the second NDP candidate seeking to succeed Ron Harper. With the race officially on in Regina Northeast, the NDP can boast a fourth contested nomination in Regina - though it's interesting to note the rush of candidates in NDP-incumbent ridings when a couple of seats which the NDP held until 2007 (Regina Qu'Appelle Valley and Regina Wascana Plains) haven't yet seen any candidates step forward publicly.

In any event, kudos to Dwayne for entering what's shaping up to be another hotly contested nomination battle. And with two or more candidates putting their efforts into building the NDP in Regina Northeast, the party's chances of overcoming the Sask Party's strategy based on billboards and public announcements look better by the day.

(Edit: fixed label.)

On coalition building

It's enough of a plus that the coalition deal in the UK has led to the idea being discussed in Canada with less of the Con-fueled hysteria surrounding the last move to build a coalition in Parliament. But what's perhaps more interesting is the standard that's being set up by the party whose support for a coalition (in the absence of direct participation) might well be the deciding factor in who governs Canada after the next federal election:

Mr. Layton noted Canada can learn lessons from the U.K.

"One is that the people of the United Kingdom seemed to encourage the notion that parties should work together in the interests of everybody. That's something the New Democrats have believed for a long time."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que.) said that while the Bloc "was not part of the [2008] coalition, we were ready to support them." He pointed out that coalition government has become the norm across Europe, and that willing major partners are a primary ingredient of governing coalitions.

"I think [the British] are often people who act in a responsible manner, which has not been the case either for Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff, and those are the only two who claim the post of Prime Minister," Mr. Duceppe said. "They need to be responsible and to have leadership."

Now, it's problematic if one sees Duceppe's comment as framing Canada's future choices in terms of only the Libs or Cons heading up a coalition government. But the statement does make for a fair assessment of where Canada has actually been, given that the NDP willingly took on the role of junior partner in order to bring the 2008 coalition together.

That said, Duceppe's comment also raises the possibility that an improvement in the prospects of a coalition might come about due to a change in which parties are seen as "major".

After all, the gap between the Libs and the NDP has been closing for a few election cycles now, and has reached the a point where it's entirely plausible that the next campaign could see more NDP seats than Liberal ones. And some scenarios have already been kicked around by political observers which would result in the NDP topping the Libs' seat total in a minority Parliament.

It's hard to see how that outcome would result in anything but a change as to which party would be considered "major" in working out a possible coalition - as well as who'd be responsible to show the leadership required of a Prime Minister. And the Libs presumably wouldn't be in much position to refuse a coalition. So if Duceppe's comment actually represents the Bloc's view of any possible alternative government, there's a straightforward way to get there, requiring only a fairly modest general shift toward the NDP as the national party most interested in cooperating in the public interest.

Lying in wait

For years now, it's been an open question as to what Brad Wall's promises not to make changes on issues such as Crown corporations and the HST actually meant. But Wall's interview with the Globe and Mail's report on business makes the answer entirely clear:

Why not a harmonized sales tax?

I’m not a member of the church of harmonization orthodoxy, at least as long as this jurisdiction has other tax modification priorities. Our corporate rate is too high; our small business thresholds are too high. We want to make progress on both of those. We have three tiers of [personal] income tax and we’ve said that a flatter system is important as we want to attract more entrepreneurial folks. We started with reforms in last year’s budget to reduce the property-tax share of education funding. This is a capital tax, and frankly a capital tax is far more insidious for an economy than the lack of harmonization.

How do you respond to business leaders who say you are too timid in easing the weight of government, such as the province’s Crown corporations?

We have a growth agenda for the province. We need to continue to get re-elected to continue to make these changes, maybe not as fast as people would like. But improving the economy’s competitiveness is a process, not an event.

Of course, there's another alternative which Wall has already latched onto in pushing ahead with policies he's promised not to implement. (Who's up for some tax WEPAnization?)

But the difference between Wall's strategy with the TILMA/WEPA and the other areas of controversy seems to be based solely on the time frame for his planned reversal. Wall leaves no doubt that tax harmonization is part of his long-term vision - just as soon as he's made other parts of the tax system more regressive first. And that likewise, he sees privatizing the Crowns as part of "these changes" that he ultimately intends to carry out - but he's biding his time for now until he's softened up the anticipated public backlash.

In other words, Wall has outright admitted that his promises not to private Crowns or harmonize taxes don't actually mean anything when it comes to his intentions in government; instead, they're merely political ploys to strengthen his grip on power, the better to enable him to do later what he's promised not to do now. But fortunately, there's an obvious way for Saskatchewan voters to stop Wall before he gets the chance to declare that all previous promises are null and void.

Lest it be missed

I'm not sure how this mostly escaped notice in Kady's liveblog of Ryan Sparrow's appearance before the Ethics Committee. But it certainly seems like the punchline of the week at a meeting whose focus was Allegations of Interference in Access to Information Requests:

Sparrow has no compunction about acknowledging that he is "regularly" in touch with PMO -- coordinated governmental message, remember -- and with that, Valeriote's time runs out, which means it's over to Carole Freeman, who wants to know more about the 51 "alterations" - which works out to just over 20 percent - and whether it would be possible to table those particular media requests with the committee "so we can study them." Sparrow helpfully points out that they're available under Access to Information, but the chair, even more helpfully, reminds Sparrow that actually, the committee can order that he produce any documents...

Sunday Morning Links

You should be outside enjoying the weekend. But if you're not, then here's some reading material to help pass the time.

- While it's dangerous to plan too much based on a single poll result, the news that health care is back as the top issue of importance for Canadians looks to make for some interesting calculations for the federal parties. In particular, the issue seems to have mostly surfaced on its own, as the only major development in the area (Quebec's implementation of user fees) has actually received less discussion than would be expected on the federal scene - meaning that there would seem to be room for the numbers to grow further if anybody decides to put on a full-court press on the issue.

- Toby Sanger points out the latest analysis of the impact of Ontario's HST (this from the NDP using Statistics Canada data), and puts it in context as to how it'll affect the tax system:

If we assume that businesses pass on their savings from the HST to consumers through lower prices, I think it is fair to say that reductions in corporate income taxes would flow through to the owners of the businesses. If only half of of these benefits flow through to households in Ontario, then the picture is quite different. (About 28% of Cdn profits go to Canadian controlled corporations and I assumed that 1/3 of the remaining Ontario profits also flow out to people in other provinces)

Once you take account of the distributional impacts of the corporate tax cuts flowing through, the impact of this tax package is mildly progressive on the bottom end, but regressive in the middle to top end. Families with incomes of less than $30,000 are better off by an average of $20 to $80 a year, those in the middle income range from $40,000 to $100,000 are worse off by about 0.5% of their income level (~-$200 to -$400 a year).

However, those with family incomes of over $100,000 would, on average, be better off by about $365 a year after accounting for the all elements of the tax package since this group receives a disproprotionately (sic) higher level of investment and capital income.

So Ontario’s HST tax reform is not an overall massive tax grab, but it is a major tax shift – and it certainly isn’t all progressive.

- If anybody would care to explain why there's any principled basis to tie the Canadian Wheat Board's streamlined payment for grain to the deliberate disenfranchisement of producers, I'd love to hear it. But it looks entirely likely that the Cons are simply looking to hold the former hostage by insisting on the latter - and it'll take another strong push back simply to avoid having the Cons permanently destroy the underpinnings of the CWB.

- Michael Geist points out why the constant stream of anti-Canadian propaganda on copyright issues deserves to be mocked rather than taken seriously:

Late last month, the IFPI, which represents the global recording industry, released its annual Recording Industry in Numbers report that tracks global record sales. The report targeted two countries — Canada and Spain — for declining sales and linked those declines to copyright law. Not coincidentally, both countries are currently working on legal reforms.

The IFPI release succeeded in generating attention but a closer look reveals that it put the spotlight on the wrong country.

Canadian sales declined 7.4 per cent last year. That was bad news, but nearly identical to the global average of 7.2 per cent. Moreover, the declines were far larger in both the United States (10.7 per cent) and Japan (10.8 per cent), yet neither of those countries was described in similarly negative terms.

The same week the U.S. government chimed in with its annual Special 301 report. Often described as the global piracy list, the U.S. chose to lump Canada together with countries such as China and Russia as allegedly among the world’s worst intellectual property offenders.

Rather than embarrassing Canadians, the list itself is increasingly viewed as the embarrassment. This year’s report ignored a submission from the world’s largest technology and Internet companies (including Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Fujitsu, AMD, eBay, Intuit, Oracle and Yahoo), which argued that it is completely inappropriate to place Canada on the list.

Moreover, the data suggest Canada is a leader, not a laggard. According to the software industry’s own piracy numbers, Canada’s piracy rate is declining and is dramatically lower than any other country on the priority watch list. In fact, the Business Software Alliance has characterized Canada as a “low piracy country.”

The news is similar with respect to movie piracy, where the motion picture industry has acknowledged that incidents of illegal camcording have dropped in Canada as the country is one of few in the world with criminal convictions for such activities.

- Finally, for those who haven't yet seen the Citizen's article on the Harper government's steps to suppress information from last weekend, it's worth a read.

On advance notice

Following up on my earlier posts, let's note one final topic worth mentioning out of the extended exchange between Dwain Lingenfelter and Brad Wall this past week. This time, the part worth highlighting involves a policy position which Wall apparently wanted to play up for the occasion despite it not normally forming an area of strength for his party.

Here's Wall discussing health care in response to questions which had to do generally with the poor results under the Wall government rather than any specific concerns about the type of delivery:

Hon. Mr. Wall:...We need to keep our options open with respect to using regional operating theatres if we have to, perhaps engaging private clinics and surgeons, surgeons that are involved in those private clinics.

We hope members opposite will support that. Members opposite have been voicing concerns quite rightly about the kidney transplant situation, about the need to get patients their kidney transplants obviously. I hope they will also work with the government as we move to solve the wait times initiative and use all of the options within the public health care system, including the potential of private clinics to add to the resources of the province and the regional operating theatres.
...
I would also say this to the member. He asks a question about wait-lists which are still too long in the province. I ask him this. It's now 18 months from the next election. And so now we need to hear, if what we're doing is not enough— and fair enough, that's part of the debate — I think we need to hear what members opposite would do. I think we need to hear why members opposite would oppose, within a public system, a single-payer system. We need to find out why that former free-enterprising capitalist from Alberta would oppose the use of private clinics to come into the province and deliver, within a public system, on surgeries for Saskatchewan.

We need a lot of orthopedic surgeries in the province. Well the member is kind of smiling. He's kind of grinning. Maybe he wants to get up in the next question and tell this House and tell the people of the province why he would object, why he would object to the use of private clinics who will come in, in the public system, operating in operating theatres to reduce the wait-list.

So what's significant about that exchange? Last I'd heard, the Sask Party wasn't publicly stating an intention to do anything more than study the concept of a privatized surgical system. But to the extent there was any doubt about the Sask Party's plans, Wall looks to have put an end to it: there surely wouldn't be any reason for him to start demanding the NDP's support for a privatized surgical system if it was merely one possibility rather than the path the Sask Party fully planned to take.

As a result, Wall looks to have given away the game as to what his government plans to do. And while the topic obviously wasn't at the top of the NDP's list for discussion last week, I'd think Lingenfelter has reason to grin about how the debate will play out if the province votes based on whether it wants to see money gush out of the public health care system into the hands of private operators.

On waiting strategies

I've noted before that it seems that the Cons would have more to gain than anybody from pushing the concept of auditing Parliamentary expenses if they didn't think the results would be disastrous for their own MPs. But on further reflection it's worth noting neither they nor any other party would figure to get a lot of mileage out of such a message - if only because it's highly unlikely that any move by a national party as a whole to demand such audits will meet with any particular resistance.

After all, the cost of being seen rejecting transparency when it's being demanded by one's main opponents will be far higher than the cost of accepting non-disclosure as a mutually agreed status quo. Which means that any advantage associated with taking the first step will be a limited one - and will create some additional risk of being labeled a hypocrite if the first party to move ends up taking the worst of any coverage once the results of an audit are released.

So if there was any reasonable expectation the issue would die off, I'm not sure any of the federal parties would be upset to keep up the current system. But with plenty of voices coming together to keep MP spending in the headlines, it now seems like only a matter of time before at least one of the national parties decides to take that first step toward calling for a full audit.

To date, only a couple of individual MPs in Michelle Simson and Peter Julian have done so. But as long as the issue stays in the front pages with public opinion squarely on the side of audits, there can't be much doubt that one of the leaders will eventually decide that it's worth getting in front of the parade - and again, the others will have little choice but to follow when that happens.

Which means that the main decision for each of Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper is whether to try to claim any boost that comes from being seen to move first, or to wait for somebody else to momentarily own the issue. And considering all the effort that the party leaders put into achieving even the smallest of gains, I'll be shocked if it takes long for one of them to take the opportunity to be the first leader to speak up for full auditing of MPs.

Fair and balanced north

Let's see if the National Post's report on corruption in the U.S. political system managed to miss anything:


But in fairness, I'm sure they just couldn't think of any examples.

Well said

Brian Topp presents his thoughts on prorogation as presented to a House committee. And while I'd like to see some effort to make sure that Parliament's role extends beyond voting confidence or non-confidence, it's tough to disagree with the principle behind his call for a simple, absolute rule that the executive shouldn't be able to avoid accountability in Parliament:

In my view the power to declare or withdraw confidence is THE fundamental power of the House of Commons.

There are other critically important powers, like the right to originate money bills.

But the right to assign and withdraw confidence in the Ministry is the crux of the matter -- the central act of legitimacy and political power in our political system between elections.

This being so, subordinate or unelected players must not interfere in its exercise. I refer here to the Cabinet, to the Senate, and to the Governor-General as well as to the Courts.

To do so is to attack responsible government in Canada at its root.

It is therefore my view that the Crown should and must never again seek to interfere in the sitting of the House of Commons when a confidence vote is properly before it.
...
I suggest you find a way to say that when a confidence vote is properly before the House, the House cannot be prorogued or otherwise interfered with. In any circumstances. For any reason. By anyone. Until that confidence vote has been dealt with.
...
If you feel the need to pass rules on the broader issue, I suggest you establish that the Prime Minister shall not advise the prorogation of the House without a prior authorizing vote by all MPs. Ever, in any circumstances, at any point in the Parliamentary calendar.

The guest list

Let's take a leisurely stroll through Thursday's Hansard and see which guests' names turn up now that nobody is trying to shut important voices out of the Legislature. Say, what's this?

Hon. Mr. Boyd: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, during the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies hearings on SaskPower future generation plans in late 2009 and early 2010, we heard that our electrical utility would be pursuing emissions-free hydroelectric generation as part of its medium- and long-term plans.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome some very special guests to the Legislature here this morning that are seated in your gallery. They are here today for an announcement that we are very pleased to be hosting in the Legislative Building at 11:30 this morning regarding a significant agreement on hydroelectric power between three First Nations in this province and additional folks as well.

Joining us today are...Guy Bruce from SaskPower; Kevin Doherty from SaskPower; Wayne Rude from SaskPower; and Ray Desjarlais from SaskPower.

Let's see. Kevin Doherty from SaskPower...Kevin Doherty from SaskPower...why does that name ring a bell?

Ah yes, that Kevin Doherty from SaskPower. Who's apparently being invited to participate in public announcements on behalf of a public utility even as his name and face are being blasted from the rooftops as part of the Sask Party's 2011 campaign.

Now in fairness, the fact that Doherty was introduced based on his role at SaskPower rather than his capacity as a candidate suggests that the Sask Party hasn't gone quite as far as its federal cousins in directly using public announcements to promote unelected non-representatives who have nothing to do with the subject matter of an event.

But it's still rather dubious that Doherty is being chosen for media presentation at a government-sponsored event while he's actively involved in a political campaign on behalf of the governing party. And it'll certainly be worth keeping an eye on just how often Doherty's current job is used to raise his profile for electoral purposes.

Musical interlude

Daft Punk - Voyager

This really doesn't strike me as that difficult

EFL seems to be having a serious break from reality. So let's see if we can make this even more clear with two points that I'd think would be unassailable.

1. The Liberal Party is not CAPP. Nor is CAPP the Liberal Party. Disagreement with the Liberal Party on any particular issue does not constitute derision of, nor any other position toward, CAPP.

I'd normally expect EFL to be smart enough to figure this one out. But that only makes it all the more egregious that he's pretending not to understand it.

2. The Liberal Party's plans are not revelations from on high, such that another party's merit or good faith is judged solely by its enthusiastic embrace of them. Instead, reasonable people may consider the Liberal Party's plans to be fallible or subject to disagreement.

And it's not as if EFL doesn't recognize this one from time to time - but apparently the principle doesn't apply to members of other parties.

What's saddest about EFL's embarrassing outburst is that CAPP's actual events made for an excellent example of people from multiple parties (or no parties) putting their differences in allegiance aside in support of a common goal. And indeed Cons were invited to participate and treated respectfully when they showed up to counterprotest.

But apparently at least some Libs are in the midst of a wholesale rewrite of history, cutting NDP supporters (and presumably Greens, Bloquistes and anybody else outside the Libs' tent) out of their mental pictures of CAPP's rallies in order to proclaim that the popular movement to protest Harper was theirs and theirs alone. And that can only have the effect of helping to undo whatever goodwill the opposition parties managed to generate through grassroots cooperation.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Final and unreviewable

Kady has the terms of the tentative deal on Afghanistan torture documents. And while there are a few points which seem somewhat positive, on the whole the outcome looks to be something less than the opposition parties should have accepted.

The good news beyond what should have been expected already (i.e. full opposition MP access to unredacted documents) is that the documents will be accompanied by the ability to seek further information from government officials. We'll see whether or not the Cons instruct those officials to stonewall (and no, "(a)ssuming good faith...is all one can do" isn't a reasonable standard when Stephen Harper is involved), but there's at least some prospect that the opposition has secured some cooperation which will help them to get to the bottom of the documents.

On the surface, it's also a plus that relevance will be tested solely by the MPs involved. But that step itself looks to be a superfluous one which effectively undercuts the meaning of Parliament's previous order. In effect, the agreement suggests we're starting at square one as to what documents are "necessary" to enable the opposition to hold the government to account - and each document will have to be reviewed individually in a process which the Cons can stall in order to have it declared relevant and necessary.

But it's the next step in the process that's most problematic. Even after the MPs have decided that a document is relevant and necessary, a "Panel of Arbiters" will make its own "final and unreviewable" determination as to what will actually be released, with an implication that the rule will be summaries or redactions rather than full disclosure of anything. It remains to be seen who will be on the panel, and it's possible that the right panelists could result in reasonably broad disclosure - but there's little reason for confidence at this point, particularly with the same government that's fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing anything having to agree to all panel members.

And it can't be ignored that the agreed process actually requires that all documents be reviewed and evaluated twice before they're disclosed - ensuring at least some delay, though again the amount remains to be seen.

In sum, then, while the agreement could have been worse, there are still far more ways for the process to go off the rails than the opposition should have been willing to accept. Which means that it's far too likely that those declaring victory now (and unfortunately the NDP was quick to do so) will end up having to eat their words.

Negotiating away a win

This doesn't exactly provide reason for confidence about the outcome of the ongoing negotiations on access to documents about torture in Afghanistan:

“We’ve crossed the Rubicon on the idea there’s a panel and the government crossed the Rubicon on the idea that they have to show un-redacted, unfiltered documents to MPs,” one MP familiar with the negotiations said.

“We’re circling around how the panel gets triggered and how do the MPs relate to the panel. That’s where we are, sort of,” the MP added.

Simply put, the supposed question as to whether MPs are entitled to "un-redacted, unfiltered documents" has already been definitely answered. And the fact that the Cons are finally acknowledging that reality can't be considered a concession.

Which isn't to say that it's completely unreasonable to work toward an agreed outcome with the Cons - as long as a separate panel process doesn't needlessly delay the release of documents, and the majority of elected MPs ultimately has the final say. But not coincidentally, it sounds like those are exactly the areas where the Cons are digging in their heels. And if that's the case, then the opposition parties should all stick to their current position of strength rather than bargaining away the notion of Parliamentary supremacy.

On false equivalencies

Murray Mandryk manages to reach a new level of absurdity in his effort to sell a message of "they're all the same". As a supposed analogy to the numerous ongoing cases of the Wall government ramming through policies without consultation, Mandryk points to a single counterexample...where the NDP actually decided not to follow through with a policy after its initial announcement wasn't well-received.

Needless to say, that's a serious problem from an accuracy standpoint. But it's no less damaging in the incentives it sets up for the Wall government. After all, if the province's media sends the message that it's no better to respond to public concerns after making an initial policy announcement than to barge ahead and pretend to hear nothing, doesn't that make it far easier for Wall to keep on doing the latter?

This will not end well

So in response to a series of Con attacks so ridiculous that even Jane Taber couldn't take them seriously, the CBC has decided to waste time and resources pretending there's some merit to them. But what exactly can the CBC expect to happen now?

There's no reason to think commissioning a study will buy any peace with the Cons. In fact, they've come out immediately with a declaration that they don't think the study is worth bothering with:

Conservative Party spokesman Fred DeLorey said if CBC needs a study to determine the appropriateness of using a Liberal Party donor as a pollster, it demonstrates how “deeply out-of-touch the network has become.”

So what can happen once the study is done? If it doesn't conclude the CBC is biased, the Cons will say it was rigged. If it does find even the slightest hint of slant in any direction, the Cons will use that to attack the CBC further, and perhaps demand that CBC's political programming be turned over entirely to Kory Teneycke, Tim Powers and Allan Gregg. And either way, the fact that the CBC is putting resources into commissioning the study is going to make the network into a juicy target for future cuts, since it implies that the CBC has money sitting around that it doesn't need for programming.

Unfortunately, after getting the answer right to begin with by pointing out the Cons' baseless attacks for what they were, the CBC is now reinforcing and enabling those attacks. And it's difficult to see what good can come of that choice.

Update: As Rick Salutin notes, there's plenty of reason for concern that the CBC actually lists to the right due in large part to the Cons' past pressure. But I'm not optimistic that either they or the Cons will accept that conclusion even if it's true. (h/t to Dr. Dawg.)

Regina Northeast - David Froh Seeking NDP Nomination

It was just days ago that David Froh had a strong defence of the NDP's resource development record published in the Leader-Post (yes, if you listen carefully you can hear veins bursting with rage at NDP Watch). Now, he's announced his entry in the NDP's Regina Northeast nomination race, with both a campaign website and Facebook group already operational.

Of course, I fully expect the Regina Northeast nomination to be at least as hotly contested as most of the NDP's other open-seat ridings in advance of next year's election. But David's combination of NDP roots and business connections should make him a competitive candidate for the nod. So kudos to him for making a run, and I'll look forward to seeing who else emerges in the race.

Question and answer

Andrew Coyne asks a few questions whose answers look far too likely to prove unsatisfactory:

(W)ill the opposition allow themselves to be played in this way? Will they heed the voices telling them that this is not worth fighting an election over? Will they chicken out? Or will they, you should pardon the expression, man up?

Mind you, there's always some potential danger in lumping all of the opposition parties together. But it only makes matters worse that it'll only take one to allow the Cons to turn a Speaker's ruling affirming the supremacy of Parliament into yet another opportunity for delay and denial about their role in facilitating torture. And it's tough to be optimistic at this point.

Memo from your corporate media overlords

Dammit Wherry. How many times do we have to tell you that the 2008 coalition agreement was written in the blood of innocent children and will irreparably burn the eyes of all who dare to so much as glimpse at it before you'll stop trying to get people to look at it reasonably?

Mistakes were made

Let's follow up on yesterday's post with another telling moment from the exchange between Dwain Lingenfelter and Brad Wall on Monday. For obvious reasons, it isn't often that Wall actually seems to talk about his failures in business. But in the extended back-and-forth session, he apparently decided to include his own spin - and what he had to say is rather remarkable:

Hon. Mr. Wall:...Mr. Chairman, I remember, I remember two of the visitors that came to the hall of fame. I did have a management contract through my company, TCB Communications, Mr. Speaker, which worked quite well. My last client was able to offer me a full-time position at the city, and I took that, Mr. Speaker. And I would say this as well, that two of the visitors at the hall of fame, two of the visitors, two of the first visitors to cut the ribbon was Brian Sklar and the current Leader of the Opposition.

Oh yes, yes. Oh yes. He never ever misses a chance for a photo op, Mr. Chairman.

You know what? You know what, Mr. Chairman? It was the previous NDP government that approved the grant. Those kinds of grants to business are what we've ended on this side. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, mistakes are made. This side's learned from the mistakes. That side shows up for a photograph at the mistakes, Mr. Chairman.

Now, there are plenty of areas worth discussing that I won't get into since they don't seem to entirely capture the problems with Wall's stance. So I'll just note in passing the absurdity of Wall criticizing a country musician for appearing at a country music museum and the hypocrisy in Wall deciding after the fact that the grant he applied for is the type he believes shouldn't exist.

Closer to the point is the sense that Wall is turning parody into reality with his attempt to assign responsibility for the failure of his museum. "Dwain Lingenfelter is such a poor manager that he even allowed serial business failure Brad Wall to fritter away $150,000 of public money. Vote Brad Wall for Premier."

But even that's not quite right, since the Simpsons' caricature of a Republican campaign at least has the good sense to keep the words out of the mouth of Sideshow Bob. In contrast, it's Wall himself who has the nerve to attack others for offering him an opportunity - and the result is a gobsmacking combination of self-righteousness and evasion of personal responsibility.

After all, Wall doesn't even hint at any possible "mistakes" involved in his application for the grant or operation of the museum. (Though of course the best-known mistake - that of catastrophically optimistic projections with no basis in reality - isn't one that Wall can pretend to have learned from.)

Instead, Wall effectively claims that the sole problem with the failure of his museum was that he was offered an opportunity in the first place - such that his spectacular failure in no way damages his own sense of personal infallibility. Or to phrase the apparent combination of blame and perceived merit put another way, "It's their own damn fault for believing me when I said I knew what I was doing. Suckers had it coming."

From my standpoint, that attitude brings the problems arising out of Wall's museum management far closer to the present day than they'd belong otherwise. To the extent the issue was simply Wall having made some bad business decisions which he'd know to avoid now, it would be simple enough to see the issue as one which should stay in the past. But if he's actually trying to peddle the line that even his most obvious personal failures should be laid at the feet of the NDP, then there doesn't seem to be any limit to the degree of denial involved in his decision-making.

Which is of course a serious problem now that he has far more than a mere $150,000 in public money at his disposal. And Saskatchewan voters will surely have to consider carefully how they'll see their voting decisions once Wall is comfortably ensconced in a cushy corporate job far removed from the smouldering wreckage of Saskatchewan, telling his new bosses "It's their own damn fault for ever giving me power. Suckers had it coming."

Policy in bloom

It's good to know at least something will be growing thanks to the Sask Party. Have we picked a suitable location for the Brad Wall Commemorative Garbage Mound and Dandelion Patch?

Determined to do nothing

Shorter Jim Prentice:

We would never have claimed to want to match the U.S.' climate change policy if we'd thought they'd get anywhere.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

A graceful departure

Within a day after public questions first surfaced about his plans, longtime Regina Northeast MLA Ron Harper has announced that he'll be stepping down after the 2011 election. We'll find out soon just who will seek the now-open NDP nomination in a riding which the party has regularly won in a romp until an unusually close race in 2007 - but for now, Harper deserves credit for his 16 years of hard work in the party and the Legislature.

Flailing

On the surface, the latest developments in the Wall government's patient fund-raising scheme might seem to be positive ones. But on a closer look, they actually suggest both that the Wall government has no clue what it's actually doing, and that it's again misleading the province as to the effect of its actions.

From CBC:

Saskatchewan's health minister says he won't share patient information with hospital fundraising foundations before he can tell patients how to opt out.

The provincial government's plan to amend privacy rules in order to allow the names and addresses of recent hospital patients to be used for fundraising has drawn criticism from the province's privacy commissioner and the NDP.

The amendment, which was approved in April, came into effect this month.

Health Minister Don McMorris now says the government won't release any information until it determines how people who don't want to participate can opt out.
...
Premier Brad Wall recently said that people who wanted to opt out could contact McMorris's office directly.

But McMorris said that won't work.

"There are some [people] that feel comfortable opting out when they're in the hospital, or two months after, some may want to opt out before. Those are the details that are being worked out between the ministry and the health regions," he said.

"We're not rushing into this at all because we want to make sure that we've thought of all the options."

To start with, it's remarkable that Wall ever suggested that members of the public try to create their own opt-out process through McMorris' office. But for the same reason why that supposed solution wouldn't work, there's little reason to think McMorris' supposed moratorium actually means anything.

To see why, take a look at who's actually entitled to use or disclose patient information under the Sask Party's amendment to the Health Information Protection Regulations (section 7.1). The "designated trustees" actually covered by the section are the regional health authorities and their affiliate care providers, not the Ministry of Health or any other provincial body. And nothing in the provision requires further provincial approval for the disclosure of information once the provision is in force.

In other words, McMorris can't actually speak on behalf of the bodies who have the ability to use or disclose personal health information for fund-raising purposes. And given the Sask Party's track record of not bothering to consult with anybody before making drastic changes, it's anybody's guess as to whether or not the province's health regions and affiliates will see themselves as having to follow a non-binding ministerial statement that contradicts a substantive regulatory change.

Likewise, the requirement for an opt-out is at the trustee level, not the provincial level - which is why Wall's proposal to have concerned patients send their opt-out requests to McMorris' office was off base. But the problem applies equally to McMorris' statement that the provincial government will decide what opt-out process to use: the regulation allows the designated trustees to decide what type of process to follow, such that the province doesn't have any formal role in "(determining) how people who don't want to participate can opt out".

To sum up, then, the Sask Party has followed up its initial failure to consult with a series of suggestions and promises that make no sense based on the regulation it's already proclaimed. And that can hardly offer any reassurance for patients already concerned that the Wall government doesn't take their privacy seriously.

(Edit: fixed wording, typo.)

On finalized terms

As for the terms of the deal between the UK Cons and Lib Dems, while it's certainly to the credit of all concerned that they've been able to reach agreement, there are a couple of points that strike me as somewhat dubious.

First, it's worth noting how the trade-off made by the Lib Dems differs from what's been on offer from the NDP in Canada. Particularly during the 2008 coalition discussions, the NDP has consistently made clear that its top priority has been securing positive policy outcomes. And in order to reach those, it's been willing to trade off any expectation of top cabinet positions such as deputy Prime Minister, as well as to work in structures where its goal of electoral reform isn't on the table.

In contrast, the two largest benefits for the Lib Dems in their agreement seem to have little to do with substantive policy. Instead, Nick Clegg's appointment as deputy PM and the promised referendum on an alternative vote model look to be the main carrots for the Lib Dems in an agreement loaded with conservative policy priorities with only a modicum of mitigation for the worst off.

As a second point of concern, there's this tidbit forming part of the parties' agreement on a five-year fixed term for Parliament:

A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

Now, I'm not sure which of the parties would have been pushing the supermajority standard for dissolution. But the requirement would seem to be a significant departure from the usual principle of majority support in Parliament as the fundamental basis of governmental legitimacy. And the threshold would seem to pose some serious problems if a future Parliament sees two relatively evenly-matched party groupings who lack the ability to form majority coalitions but have sufficient votes to stall any dissolution.

We can only hope

I'm not entirely sure how Chantal Hebert distinguishes between the NDP's longstanding stance on a coalition (open to the possibility, but not discussing possible terms in detail before the end of an election campaign) from that of the UK's political parties. But otherwise she's dead on in her assessment of what we should expect from the next election campaign:

If polls are to be believed, the next election could well prolong Canada’s current minority cycle. Given the current party standings in voting intentions, the next Parliament might be even more prone to deadlock than the previous three.

If minority government is going to be the new normal in Canada, bringing voters in the loop of the available alternatives before they cast their ballot and negotiating how a minority Parliament best could work ahead of installing a government might actually make a lot of sense.

Spin spin sugar

A couple of headline-grabbing comments seem to be dominating the discussion coming out of Monday's discussion of the Wall government's main estimates. But it's worth looking past the most sensational statements to examine what we can tell about Dwain Lingenfelter and Brad Wall based on their apparent showdown.

So let's start with a passage that exemplifies the Wall government's addiction to spin over substance:

Mr. Lingenfelter:...My question to the Premier is: on oil production, since the Premier came to office, can he indicate, based on barrels per oil a day, what has happened to the production level of oil in the province of Saskatchewan, '07 to '09? Can you give us the average daily production of crude oil?
...
Hon. Mr. Wall:...Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the change in price, notwithstanding the change in price, in terms of barrels production we have: 2,007, 156.2 million barrels up to 161.0 million barrels in our first year in government of 2008. Down again, down again to 151 million barrels but, Mr. Chairman, not significantly down. When you consider the differential in price, you'd see that the barrels production even in '09, and these are still estimates, is only down 5 million barrels from 2007. But we went up in our first year to 161. The production of oil in Saskatchewan went up to 161 million barrels, Mr. Chairman.

Now, there are other more glaring examples of Wall trying to ignore economic indicators such as the province's sharp declines in the number of oil and gas wells drilled. And I have no doubt that we'll see those emphasized as part of the NDP's message about the Sask Party's lack of any particular competence in encouraging the sustainable development of Saskatchewan's natural resources. But the above example strikes me as ideal because of Wall's diametrically different responses to a perfectly symmetric set of changes in the span of a single paragraph.

As far as Wall is concerned, a one-year increase in production of 5 million barrels from 2007 to 2008 is a change worth highlighting and evidence of his government's claimed impact on production. Yet at the same time, a one-year decrease of 10 million barrels from 2008 to 2009 - taking production below 2007 levels by exactly the same 5 million number - is supposed to mean that production is "not significantly down", and is brushed off as beyond anybody's control. Which results in the sad spectacle of Wall trying to keep shouting "up! up! up!" even as production has demonstrably declined on his watch.

Which should send a rather compelling signal that the Wall government's message about the province's economy is based on simultaneously inflating gains and minimizing losses even when the two can be readily compared, rather than making any reasonable effort to treat like things alike. And for Saskatchewan citizens who recognize that a sound economy needs to be based on realistic assumptions rather than obviously-misleading boosterism, that should be a far more important takeaway from the discussion of the province's estimates than any personal insults between the leaders.

Well done

It still looks far too likely that the combination of support from the Cons and Libs will result in the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement becoming law despite Colombia's notorious record of union oppression.

But at the very least, the Tweet-in organized by the Council of Canadians to prevent a closure motion from being pushed forward in committee today looks to have been a resounding success. And hopefully the momentum generated by today's effort will build to convince one party or the other that official favouritism toward a notorious human rights abuser isn't consistent with Canadian values.

On questionable recruitment

Kent is right to note that with the Sask Party obviously taking aim at Regina Northeast, the Saskatchewan NDP will need to figure out in fairly short order whether its 2011 candidate will be incumbent Ron Harper or a new face. But it's worth noting that there are some serious questions being raised about the challenger already appearing on Sask Party billboards. Here's Len Taylor from Thursday's question period:

The Premier brought in one Kevin Doherty back to the province to run as a candidate in Regina Northeast. To entice Mr. Doherty to run for the Sask Party, the Premier gave him a job as vice-president of corporate relations at SaskPower. Kevin Doherty is now being paid by the Saskatchewan people through their power rates, Mr. Speaker, to actively campaign for the Saskatchewan Party.
...
So to the minister: did the efficiency secretariat think it was a good idea for the Premier to use a vice-president position at SaskPower to recruit a Sask Party candidate, or is this yet another example of the Premier breaking trust with Saskatchewan people?

Unhelpful

Shorter Christian Paradis staffer Sebastien Tognieri:

Everybody knows that ignorance is bliss. So is it really so bad if our government's policy is to keep Access to Information requesters happy?

The reviews are in

Of course Murray Mandryk is required to close his latest with a refrain of "it's always good news for Brad Wall". But at least this part of his take on the current state of Saskatchewan politics is more than worth pointing out:

Consider the litany of mistakes, (the aforementioned potash projections being the biggest); bad choices, (closing SCN, cutting mosquito and Dutch elm disease control); partisan choices, (its determination to push through an unamended Bill 80); misrepresentations, (Health Minister Don McMorris's debacle with the privacy commissioner, Environment Minister Nancy Heppner's changes to the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act regulation), and; just plain dumb choices (Corrections Minister Yogi Huyghebaert's comment that he was sending the police after Opposition House leader Kevin Yates for alerting the public to an escaped sexual predator).

This is a government that even some Sask. Party insiders admit has somewhat lost its way -- and is now coming across as too arrogant and badly in need of some serious reflection. One even gets the impression that Wall himself is coming to the realization that he and his government are off their game.
...
There's little doubt Lingenfelter and the NDP successfully distracted Wall on several days this session. (On no day was that more apparent than the day the premier blew a gasket when the NDP caucus chief of staff accidentally telephoned Wall's home number while searching for the remnants of Wall's former business Last Stand Adventure Company.) Equally unhelpful to Wall are the enablers he surrounds himself with whose job, it seems, appears to be to work the Sask. Party premier into a frenzy over the slightest criticism aimed at either Wall or his ministers.

This, too, is usually a sign of a government heading into a nosedive -- especially with all the other performance indicators weighing them down.

On exclusion

Shorter Harper Cons:

Surely it's best to only fund tourist events that unite even the most bigoted Canadians, rather than having a divisive debate over whether gays are people too.

On wrong lessons

Shorter Don Newman:

I'm outraged that the 52% of voters who voted for Labour or the Lib Dems might end up with more influence than the larger 36% number who voted for the Conservatives. Have I mentioned that I've been taking math lessons from Jim Flaherty?

h/t to Canadian Cynic.

Update: And Jeffrey Simpson manages to be even worse, focusing on the Lib Dems' percentage of seats under a system which obviously underrepresents them rather than the share of votes where they're well within the same range as the Conservatives and Labour.

On choices

Needless to say, Joe's latest on the Sask Party's sponsorship of and involvement in a corporate propagandafest is a must-read. But it's worth pointing out more succinctly what the post ultimately says about the Wall government.

When it comes to consulting with mere citizens on its policy decisions, the Wall government can't be bothered. But Brad Wall, Bill Boyd and company always have time to hobnob with the corporate sector.

And the Sask Party is eager to use its deficit as an excuse to slash public services ranging from aboriginal employment to SCN to family support programs. But the Wall government can always find public money to be funneled to its cronies.

Checked out

At last notice, Saskatoon Sutherland MLA Joceline Schriemer wasn't sure whether she wanted to bother running to hold the seat in 2011. But based on what happened in the Legislature on Thursday, it's worth wondering whether she's even interested in the job while she continues to hold it.

Here's what happened when a Sask Party motion which Schriemer was supposed to be introducing came up for discussion:

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from Lloydminster.

Children’s Hospital

Mr. McMillan: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak to the children’s hospital in Saskatoon. It’s something that I know we take very . . .

An Hon. Member: — Point of order. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order . . . [inaudible] . . .

The Speaker: — Right. Right. Order. I remind the members that the member has to be in her chair to move the motion forward. I recognize the member from Saskatoon Sutherland.

[Interjections]

The Speaker: — Order. Order. Order. Why is the member on his feet?

Mr. Yates: — Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — The member from Regina Dewdney.

Mr. Yates: — Mr. Speaker, in order for a motion before this Assembly to move forward when it’s called, the mover of the motion has to be in their seat and move the motion, Mr. Speaker, and enter the debate. At the time the motion was called, the member was not there. A second member stood and spoke, began to speak, Mr. Speaker. I rose on my feet to say that was out of order, Mr. Speaker. Subsequently the member came back into the House, Mr. Speaker. The rules would say that that motion should have been passed over, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: — I recognize the Government House Leader.

Mr. D’Autremont: — On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m not in disagreement with the point of order that the member raises.

Now, I'd think that an MLA responsible for presenting a motion would generally want to pay at least enough attention to make sure that it could be discussed. And it doesn't look like anything much out of the ordinary happened on Thursday to disrupt the usual schedule for legislative proceedings.

But Schriemer apparently didn't bother to stay in the chamber at the one point where her presence was actually required, then was caught entirely off guard by what seems to have been her main legislative responsibility for the day. And the result was that the Sask Party threw away its chance to have the legislature discuss its choice of motions for the day.

Of course, that doesn't figure to result in any great loss for the province - particularly given that the motion looks to have been little more than an attempt to pretend that the Wall government's decision to pull funding from the Children's Hospital should be ignored. But Schriemer's constituents surely have to wonder just what else she's missed while hemming and hawing as to whether or not she actually wants her job. And Schriemer's failings can only help convince the riding that it'll be better served electing one of the strong NDP contenders for her seat.

Truly embarrassing

Yes, that's our Prime Minister trying to rewrite history even as it unfolds:

Harper noted the problems flowing out of the debt crisis in Greece, which have led to jittery markets and concerns that the economies of other countries will also be dragged down, are not rooted in the financial sector itself.

“I don’t think we should forget that the primary crisis here, the fundamental crisis, is not in the financial sector. It is in the finances of certain governments,” said Harper.

So what about the global recession that Harper eventually acknowledged after denying its existence through the last election campaign? Or the private-sector financial meltdown that required hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, while toppling the dominoes that led to Greece's crisis?

In Harper's world, they've apparently been officially unhappened. Which frees him up to point the finger at a single government whose greatest mistake was probably its willingness to accept too much of the corporate-first dogma that Harper is once again peddling, while serving as the world's primary defender of financial-sector greed.

Hopefully Harper's complete disconnect from reality will send a signal to the rest of the world's leaders that he shouldn't be taken seriously in his crusade to keep governments on the hook for future financial meltdowns. But the fact that Harper has somehow managed to write any financial-sector problems out of his version of history - and plans to rule accordingly - looks to make it far more likely that Canada will be at the epicentre next time.

On possible benefits

Dan Leger is the latest pundit to pretend that any vote to enforce a simple document production order approved by a majority of elected MPs will give Stephen Harper a free pass to force an election. But he seems to miss an even more fundamental point in implying that the opposition parties should abandon all hope of effective oversight through Parliament in order to avoid any "benefit" to the Cons.

As I've noted before, the Cons' strategy on torture all along has been one of obfuscation and delay in an effort to avoid oversight. So any move to seek extensions or otherwise hold off on the release of the documents only gives the Cons exactly what they've wanted from the beginning. And if the opposition parties prioritize fear of an election above the exercise of their right to hold the government to account, the end result surely won't be anything but to further weaken their hand - both within Parliament in the near term, and when Harper decides it's convenient to plunge the country into another election.

So once again, the opposition parties should be seeking to enforce their document production order in full if (as expected) the Cons refuse to follow through on an agreed process to provide the ordered information to Parliament. And if the end result is indeed for the Cons to show their continued contempt for Canada's elected officials - which would involve deliberately ignoring both the production order and the terms of a contempt order which expressly avoids any implication of non-confidence - then an election may not be such a bad result.

Musical interlude

Hemingway Corner - Watch Over You

Nothing changed

Shorter Brad Wall:

It's unfair to say there was never any consultation about the contents of the WEPA back when it was called the TILMA. We've just chosen to ignore what that consultation actually said.