On popular positions

There's still an open question as to how the NDP can turn current warm-and-fuzzies into more substantive support when it's actually time to go to the polls. But in the wake of today's Harris-Decima poll (warning: PDF), it's difficult to reach any conclusion but that the NDP has been the big winner so far in this fall's Parliamentary maneuverings:

Nationally, Jack Layton’s position is the most popular, supported by almost 3-in-4 Canadians. Nationally, 72% supported Mr. Layton’s position that the NDP will support the government for as long as it takes for EI legislation to become law and the new money distributed, including 18% who strongly supported this position. This position has broad appeal nationwide with no less than 66% in any region indicating they support his position on the matter. Among New Democrats, 81% are supportive of this position, while 13% are opposed. The position of the NDP leader is also supported by 70% of Liberals and 78% of Conservatives.

Gilles Duceppe’s position is well-supported in Quebec and among BQ supporters. In Quebec, 70% of respondents support Mr. Duceppe’s position, while 20% are opposed. Among his own supporters, his support jumps further with 86% of BQ voters supporting his position, and 14% opposing it.

Nationally, 31% of respondents either strongly support (11%) or support (20%) Mr. Ignatieff’s position that he no longer has confidence in the government and would no longer support it. 57% are opposed to this position, including 24% who are strongly opposed to it. Mr. Ignatieff’s position is most popular in Quebec, where 40% support it, and least popular on the Prairies, where 64% are opposed. Unsurprisingly, his position is more popular among Liberals than other voting groups, with 54% of Liberals supporting his position and 39% opposing it. However, this split is by far the lowest support any Opposition leader received among their own supporters.

In fact, the commentary actually seems to understate the gap in support for the leaders' positions. Layton's stance isn't just more popular with his own party than Ignatieff's, it's actually favoured by Liberal supporters compared to what Ignatieff has on offer - and by a fairly noteworthy gap (70%-54%).

And equally remarkably, Layton's stance that the NDP will avoid toppling the Cons in order to pass EI reforms is more popular in Quebec (77% support) than Gilles Duceppe's position that he "he may or may not support the government solely on the basis of whether the legislation to be voted on helped Quebec or not" (70% support).

Again, there's still a significant question as to how the NDP can best build on its current position. And it of course shouldn't be forgotten that Michael Ignatieff managed to secure some momentary public support as well when he was the one acting on the basis of avoiding an election. But for now it looks undeniable that the NDP's move get improved EI legislation passed has been a huge win in terms of public opinion - and the NDP surely prefers the question of how best to build on its successes to the Libs' position of actively debating whether it's time to panic.

On narrowing perspectives

There's been plenty of talk about the content-sharing agreement between the CBC and the National Post. But as problematic as it is for the CBC to be outsourcing any of its content, I'm surprised there doesn't seem to have been any discussion of exactly what it is that the CBC is farming out - and what that figures to mean for those who see media diversity as an important priority:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Post today announced an agreement which will allow both organizations to share content across their respective media platforms. The agreement is effective immediately.

CBC.ca will run daily financial stories and podcasts from the Financial Post in CBC’s online Money section, and The National Post will run daily sports stories in the sports section of nationalpost.com and periodically in the sports section of the newspaper. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Now, I'd think there's little room for dispute that most media outlets have a self-interested perspective when it comes to discussion of financial and economic matters. As major corporate entities themselves, they have every incentive to present reporting and commentary that affirm their own nature and serve the interests of their corporate owners - even if the effect is purely unintentional. (And of course it should be mentioned that the National Post tends to be a particularly noteworthy offender on that front.)

In contrast, the CBC is the only national media outlet which can combine both the capacity and reach to investigate and report on financial issues across the country, and an internal structure which gives it a different perspective on such issues - even if it too is bound to be sensitive to the interests of corporate advertisers. Which makes it a serious concern if the CBC is about to amplify the views of just another corporate media outlet rather than continuing to offer its own take. And the problem is equally obvious whether one actually prefers the CBC's theoretical position to that of the corporate media, or merely recognizes enough value in media diversity to view it as a plus for both types of perspectives to be presented.

Mind you, the deal's announcement doesn't say specifically that the CBC is actually planning to cut back on its own financial reporting. But it would only make sense that to the extent it plans to populate its own Money section with content from the National Post, the CBC will end up reducing its own reporting efforts. Which means that while the one media outlet capable of remedying that problem instead directs its attention toward reporting on sports (where there's surely far less reason for concern about presenting multiple perspectives as a matter of citizen information), Canadians will have effectively nothing but corporate voices to listen to in a major area of public interest.

On news dumps

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that these two stories both managed to surface in exactly the same Friday news cycle, leaving no time for any particular research or response before the weekend:

- Brad Wall's old boss Grant Devine was awarded the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, presumably for his breathtaking achievements in the fields of deficit-accumulating and economic mismanagement. The majority of the advisory body responsible for the choice would have been selected personally by Wall in 2008 (given the previous pattern of appointments in 1996 and 2002 and the three-year term which applies to the position) - but as best I can tell, he didn't bother publicizing even the fact that he'd actually made the appointments, much less the names of those who are now responsible for choosing Devine.

- Brad Wall's old boss Grant Devine has stepped down from the board of the still-disputed Saskatchewan PC trust fund. And in the process, the man who was just honoured by a Wall-appointed committee took the opportunity to endorse Wall's government and suggest that the money which would otherwise be used to revive his old party should be diverted toward a new wingnut welfare program.

Nope, nothing smells the least bit off about this arrangement. And it's still entirely unfair to point out that there might be some problematic links between the Devine government which decimated the province in the '80s and the Wall government which is following in its footsteps.

Musical interlude

Skydiggers - What Do You See?

On telling responses

It's definitely for the best that the misuse of federal resources to fund-raise for Con MP and Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt is going to be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. But it's worth noting what could be done in the meantime to ensure the Cons don't wrongly benefit from even what they acknowledge to have been improper - and what it might mean that they seem to be deflecting instead.

After all, it would seem to be a fairly easy step to determine exactly how many of the attendees at Raitt's fund-raiser appeared in response to Janet MacDonald's e-mail, and ensure that the Cons return or at least set aside the funds raised through the Port Authority. But if they're not willing to take even that type of basic action to avoid benefiting from wrongdoing, might it signal that the Cons aren't swimming in quite as much spare cash as they'd like to claim?

Messages received

While we're on the subject of public input from concerned Saskatchewan citizens, it's worth noting that there still seems to be some information available for public release from this summer's uranium consultation process. While Dan Perrins' report referenced thousands of submissions (most of them against nuclear development), it appears that only a few dozen organizational submissions along with full meeting recordings and notes have been released in full. And as far as I can tell, that leaves hundreds of written and electronic submissions getting included only in Perrins' statistical analysis rather than being made available for public debate.

So it's worth asking: is there any plan in the works to make the balance of the submissions public (with personal information removed of course) to ensure that all of the ideas counted by Perrins are also available for public review? And if not, might a FOIP request be in order?

A chance to be heard

For anybody interested in appearing before the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies to talk about Saskatchewan's energy strategy, the witness guide is here (warning: PDF), and the deadline to let the committee know you're interested in speaking at the round of hearings from the 6th to the 19th is noon today. So now would be the time to make a request if you haven't already.

Unfortunately, the process doesn't provide any guarantee that any particular witness will be heard by the committee, which will put together its own witness list based on the requests it receives. But this still looks to be one of the few ways in which the Wall government will ever hear from anybody outside its corporate bubble - so I'll encourage anybody interested to make that known.

Particularly idle musings on today's confidence vote

1. On its own terms, the Liberal motion specified that they had "lost" confidence in the government, such that it would not accurately describe the position of a party which never had confidence in the Harper Cons to begin with. Discuss.

2. Over/under on the first declaration that the NDP's voting "present" means that it's imitating Barack Obama: 9:21 PM EST.

On pre-emption

Speaking of Lib deflection and projection, Brian Topp nicely pre-empts any attempt to tar the NDP with the "Toronto-run/top-down" criticisms being levelled at Michael Ignatieff by pointing out Jack Layton's diverse inner circle and focus on consultation. But is it enough to point out something as easily ignored as reality to a party which is mirroring many of Stephen Harper's principles and tactics? Stay tuned...

Heads up

This morning's post on the possibility that Stephen Harper might be able to parlay Lib MPs jumping ship into a majority without another election was intended to be a "where the puck is going" type of analysis rather than a description of where matters likely stand now. But in keeping with the hockey analogy, let's point out where the nearest goon figures to be during the course of the play.

The moment any names of Lib MPs actually considering crossing the floor become public, watch for a "little birdie" to leak the rumour that Olivia Chow is planning to join the Cons (presumably egged on by the "Mulcair people"), and at least a half-dozen of the less-canny/more-dishonest Lib bloggers to discuss how this proves it's really the NDP that's in trouble.

Municipal roundup

The final lists of nominated candidates for next month's municipal elections are in from Regina and Saskatoon. And there are a few interesting notes based on the last set of contestants to enter the field.

In Regina, the mayoralty race will once again feature three candidates, as Linda White has joined the race against Pat Fiacco and Jim Elliott. It remains to be seen whether either of the challengers will be able to develop much traction, but it's certainly for the best to have a few different perspectives on the city's direction.

Meanwhile, there were also a few noteworthy developments in the council races:

- In Ward 8, Donna Standingready is mostly emphasizing her strong work resume with the provincial government and the First Nations Family Support Centre in challenging Michael O'Donnell. But she also brings a long history of involvement in the Saskatchewan NDP which made her one of Dwain Lingenfelter's named leadership endorsers.

- In Ward 10, the already-crowded race featuring incumbent Jerry Flegel and Chris Szarka now also includes Michael Cassona, whose resume includes the presidency of the Regina Multicultural Association among other community involvement.

- The Ward 1 race won't be quite as crowded as the one in 2006, but both Shawn Kuster and Andy Asherbranner look to be mounting noteworthy challenges to incumbent Louis Browne.

As a whole, the election will feature only two acclamations for Council positions, meaning that Regina voters will have plenty of opportunity to chart the city's course. Candidate bios for the mayoralty, council, and public and separate school board races are available on the City's website.

Likewise in Saskatoon, there looks to be a fairly strong set of races overall: the three acclaimed council positions are balanced out in part by multi-challenger races in Wards 2, 8 and 10, while Lenore Swystun's official entry into the mayoralty race will make her one of four challengers to Don Atchison.

In sum, it looks like we're in for a lively month of municipal campaigning. But we'll have to stay tuned to find out what that will mean for the direction of Saskatchewan's two largest cities in the long run.

On retention strategies

I’ll mostly leave it to others to discuss the merits of Don Martin’s advice for Michael Ignatieff. But it’s worth using Martin’s column as a reminder that there’s more than one path from the status quo to a Harper majority – and the Libs’ current state of disarray may only help to produce that result.

Here are the relevant pieces from Martin:

Fire Denis Coderre

The former Quebec lieutenant did more than mere subordination when he quit in a huff at being overruled in a Montreal riding nomination fight. When he summoned media to blast his leader’s Toronto preference, he precipitated a family feud and handed the Bloc Québécois an invitation to attack the Liberals as a poor fit with Quebec interests. Having watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper ditch a candidate this week for merely stating the obvious — elect a Conservative if you want stimulus megabucks in your riding — Mr. Ignatieff must show similar spine and get rid of an MP who became a traitor to his party’s hopes. If he wants to be a particularly evil genius, he could simply refuse to sign Mr. Coderre’s nomination papers, thus denying him the right to run as a Liberal. It’s drastic, but necessary, action.
…
Bond with caucus

This is a very speculative rumble, but at least two MPs have mused in private about crossing the floor to join the Conservatives. Others complain their leader is deaf to their input and trivializes their value. Given that the Conservatives are no longer markedly different from the Liberals in fiscal or social policy, Mr. Ignatieff might be more caring of his caucus lest his MPs start looking for another party leader who can do better.

Now, the connection between these two items should be obvious when one considers the current party standings in the House of Commons. At the moment, the Cons’ 143 seats leave them 12 short of a nominal majority in the House.

But that number is somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, with Lib Peter Milliken serving as Speaker (removing his vote from the picture in most cases and obliging him to vote to preserve the status quo in the event of a tie), the Cons effectively gain a relative vote compared to the opposition. And second, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier independent MP Andre Arthur was effectively made an honorary Con as Harper elected not to run a candidate against him – and usually votes the part.

What’s more, the upcoming set of by-elections is likely to see at least one more Con elected, as Bill Casey’s resignation leaves Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley likely to return to its usual party leanings. And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that another seat might wind up in Con hands.

Now, as long as the party standings leave the Cons 12 seats short of a true majority, the prospect of flipping enough current MPs to bridge that number of seats looks relatively remote. And even a position 8-9 seats short of a functional majority - with no apparent momentum toward getting MPs to switch sides - may make for a sufficiently daunting gap to keep Harper focused on adding to his caucus through elections rather than through floor-crossing.

But if Ignatieff were to expel Coderre from the Libs, it’s difficult to imagine that either Coderre or Harper would have too many scruples about a switch to the Cons. And if a Coderre party switch were followed by two more Libs also gravitating toward power – reducing the majority gap to 5-6 seats while setting a precedent for others who might consider jumping – then the cost/benefit analysis involved in trying to entice existing MPs might look far more appealing both to Harper and to the opposition MPs who might be interested (presumably consisting of power-seeking Libs and right-wing Bloc MPs).

So what does that mean for the Libs’ strategy at the moment? For one thing, they’d be well advised to support Don Davies’ anti-floor-crossing bill if only to increase the pressure on their own MPs to stay loyal.

From a party management standpoint, though, Ignatieff has to worry not only about keeping his party generally satisfied with his leadership, but also with keeping his individual MPs from finding their way over to the Cons as a matter of personal interest. In Coderre’s case, that presumably means trying to be conciliatory rather than responding to his petulance in kind; in the case of caucus members who might be tempted to jump to the Cons even without being expelled first, that requires making a compelling argument as to why individual MPs who may have been enticed to get involved in politics due primarily to the promise of power should stick around opposition benches rather than seeking what Harper might have on offer. And if Ignatieff fails in those tasks, then all the ad campaigns in the world won’t help stop Harper from reaching majority status.

The jury is out

I'm in full agreement with NBC Dipper that the NDP's latest ad figures to strike a chord with a substantial chunk of the general public. And I'll add that it makes perfect sense as an extension of the Darrell Dexter strategy of appearing mature and above the fray compared to one's opponents.

But while it's never a bad thing to build positive associations among those who are relatively far removed from politics (and the "on your side" message can easily enough be adapted to a more adversarial stance come election time), it remains to be seen whether the message will resonate anywhere near as much with Canadians who are inclined to support the NDP based on their seeing the problems with Canada's political system going beyond Harper and Ignatieff needing to "get down to work". And unless the NDP actually does expect either an election in the near future (whether or not based on the HST as a poison pill) or a massive number of otherwise-uninterested Canadians to open up their wallets to the appeal, I'd have to wonder whether its attention would be better focused on rallying and adding to its base than joining the arms race for warm-and-fuzzies.

On disparate treatment

A couple of weeks ago, the McGuinty government tried to pressure the mutual fund industry into backing the HST by threatening to inform the province about the harmful effect of investment fees. But I don't believe anybody else noted how bizarre it was that nobody seemed to be pointing out how problematic it would be for the province to be sitting on such information in the first place.

Now, it looks like the mutual fund industry and McGuinty's Libs are on the verge of a deal: they're currently talking about exempting the industry from the HST, which would presumably lead to the industry then backing the tax which they previously opposed.

So the industry gets a sweetheart deal exempting it from the rules which apply to the rest of the province, plus presumably some assurance that a damaging message won't get released.

The McGuinty government eliminates one of the voices opposing the HST.

And the citizens of Ontario get...no disclosure of the work their government has done on the costs of investment fees, one less voice on their side in trying to fight against a closed-door decision to make their lives more expensive, and one less industry paying the bill if the HST does come to pass.

Anybody else sense that something's not quite right about this arrangement?

Update: Let's note that Greg has already posted about the possible exemption. But I'd think the sequence of events looks an awful lot worse when the seemingly-withdrawn threat of full disclosure about the effect of investment fees is included in the mix.

Edit: fixed wording.

On public interests

Apparently Brad Wall's gang of merry corporate lackeys isn't the only Western government which has been forced to concede that the supposed benefits of contracting public services out to the private sector are purely a mirage. Indeed, Gordon Campbell's government is now in-sourcing project funding and program administration alike due to the simple fact that it's more efficient than the privatized alternative:

The Campbell administration's devotion to the virtues of privatizing and contracting-out government services seems to have been wavering lately. For example, in February, The Surrey Leader's Jeff Nagel paraphrased Partnerships British Columbia chief executive officer Larry Blain as saying "switching from private to public borrowing" for the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion project will save $200 million in financing costs. Ministries have also been asked to keep their professional services contracts to a minimum. And here's another example: during estimates debate last week, Forests and Range Minister Pat Bell said the government's Forests for Tomorrow program - which was being administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP - has been taken in-house, saving $200,000.

Of course, that isn't stopping both Wall and Campbell from trying to tie the hands of future governments in putting the public interest over private profit motives. But surely the fact that both are recognizing the folly of doing just that when they're responsible for the results should be the first step in reversing the trend of pushing public activity into the private sector.

On disharmony

As we await the terms of B.C.'s impending HST agreement, it's worth noting as well that some of the provisions of the preliminary deals seem to have received relatively little attention beyond last week's musings from Dalton McGuinty.

To give some indication as to how harmonization figures to complicate the relationships between provincial and federal governments, Ontario's preliminary agreement includes:
- a requirement that Ontario not raise or lower its sales tax rate for two years;
- a provision allowing for sales tax rebates on a limited amount of the sales tax base;
- a provision allowing Ontario to limit business purchase rebates on provincial sales taxes on a "select list of items" for up to five years, with a three-year phaseout period after that;
- a requirement that the federal government secure Ontario's agreement before reducing the GST so as to affect Ontario's sales tax revenues by more than 1%, or compensate Ontario for its failure to do so.

The first point worth noting is the number of moving parts and complexities involved in harmonizing the taxes which should make the public all the more skeptical of any claims of administrative efficiencies. But more interesting in the long run is the ability of each level of government to hamstring the other's actions.

For any province, the agreement effectively ties its hands to the extent the federal government wishes to make radical changes to the GST's structure which don't adversely affect its revenue base.

By way of example, let's say the Harper Cons were to decide that the current tax system isn't quite regressive enough for their liking and that the GST should be applied to basic groceries. At that point, Ontario would have effectively no recourse against the fact that its 8% provincial tax would be applied to the same items as well. At best, it would be able to set up a rebate within the 5% limit to make use of the sales tax administration system, then try to set up countervailing programs on its own - but in the absence of any remaining structure to actually deal with sales tax at the point of sale, that would be at best an inexact and costly effort which would basically require re-establishing exactly the type of unit which the HST is supposed to eliminate.

In contrast, the province is somewhat protected against any reductions by the 1% of revenue rule. But that would still allow for a steady erosion of provincial income without any compensation if a federal government plans to cut away as much of the tax base as it can without hitting that trigger point - and for the next two years at least, the province wouldn't even have the ability to raise its own tax level to compensate, potentially giving the Harper government significant ability to add to provincial deficits.

At the same time, though, the rule also creates a substantial disincentive for the federal government to carry out any reduction for specific types of goods which might reach the 1% threshold. So ideas such as, let's say, removing the GST from family essentials would potentially become unworkable for a federal government which would not only lose tax revenue of its own but also have to pay provinces to carry out the effort.

So the ultimate effect of harmonization is to make it more difficult for either level of government to take into account the needs of its constituents. And while that may be just fine in the view of the likes of Harper, McGuinty and Campbell, there's plenty of reason for Canadians to be all the more unhappy with the HST scheme.

On deadlines

I'm sure neither level of government will be rushing to make a public show of it given that the public is thoroughly outraged over the HST. But the agreement signed by Deficit Jim Flaherty and his B.C. counterpart in red ink Colin Hansen establishes today as the date by which British Columbia and the federal government were supposed to sign a final HST implementation agreement - so it'll be worth seeing whether either of them is willing to own up to having signed such an agreement, not to mention what it might include. (And that goes doubly given some of the unanswered questions about Ontario's deal which I'll discuss shortly.)

On inefficiencies

If we needed any more evidence that privatization and budget-slashing are just two sides of the same anti-government coin and that both are being pursued with no regard for the public interest, Brad Wall has provided it in truly comic form.

Having set up a P3 secretariat earlier this year without any apparent reason other than their ideological commitment to outsourcing profits, the Sask Party has apparently reached the conclusion that the province doesn't have enough potential corporate giveaways to keep such an entity occupied. At which point they took an operation which they created without considering whether it served any useful purpose - and converted it into an "efficiency secretariat".

Mind you, I'd hate to miss out on the opportunity to offer a constructive suggestion. So let's help the new unit out with a first source of government efficiencies: "don't waste our money on useless projects like P3 secretariats".

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Clearing the path

I suspect we may have just stumbled onto one way to getting Saskatchewanians interested in politics again. But is it possible that Chris Szarka is really only blocking for Stu Foord in Ward 9?

On reputations

I've wondered for quite some time whether anybody has actually paid attention to the NDP's track record of outworking its political opponents. But apparently the list includes Aaron Wherry for one:

But here is Mr. Kennedy now, looking into things, doing research, adding and subtracting large numbers, carrying the one and generally making it his job to hold the government to account on a daily basis. And such is the current state of things that such stuff has seemed no less than revolutionary. Indeed, if you weren’t paying sufficient attention, you might assume Mr. Kennedy was a member of the NDP caucus.