Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- pogge offers up the definitive response to the Cons' attempt to encourage a sell-off of First Nations reserve land:

When you look past the paternalistic argument that the only way First Nations communities can possibly thrive is to be more like us, this is what's left:

...businesses that want to unlock the economic potential of reserves, from real estate development to forestry and mining, need the legal certainty that a property regime makes possible.

In this context, "unlock the economic potential" looks very much like a euphemism for "streamline the regulatory and tax regime to make it as easy as possible for us to suck all the wealth out." We've been unlocking our own economic potential since around the time Reagan was elected president south of the border. We've unlocked so much economic potential that we now live in the Age of Austerity because all the money is stashed in offshore accounts. If the First Nations have any sense, they'll tell us to get stuffed.

- Meanwhile, FSIN notes that the Cons are slashing funding for First Nations housing.

- If we haven't yet turned every public service into a Con crony's profit stream, it isn't for a lack of trying - with the administration of public benefits programs looming as the next area to be handed over to the corporate sector. But there are some pieces of the Cons' work that are too dirty for even the most anti-social corporation to take on.

- The Victoria Times Colonist and Graham Thomson are duly skeptical about Stephen Harper's claim to be the slightest bit interested in science in determining whether or not to force the Gateway pipeline on B.C. And if we needed another reminder of how distant science is from the Cons' spin on the environment, Marc Lee highlights a few of the more glaring holes in the Cons' latest report on greenhouse gas emissions:

The report creates an alternative “do nothing” scenario that leads to surging emissions of 850 Mt in 2020, then subtracts estimates of federal and provincial actions taken to date, which gets us to 720 Mt. That is a lot of spin on the numbers, perhaps hoping few people will bother to read the actual report and just report the government’s line.

But even the 720 Mt number is suspect for a variety of reasons. First, the economic downturn lowers the baseline, with 2010 emissions coming in lower than previously expected. Next, the feds have included land use changes in the calculations for the first time. The decline in forestry activity means more carbon will remain sequestered in Canada’s forests, and this will lower emissions by 26 Mt. Take these out and the 2020 target jumps back to 745 Mt, slightly more than 2005 levels. Then report also arbitrarily lowers emissions from BC’s natural gas sector, relative to National Energy Board projections. And it assumes that proposed regulations yet to be ratified contribute to decreased transportation emissions. And that Saskatchewan implements carbon capture and storage for four new coal-fired power plants.

The other matter is to what extent the feds can take credit for any reductions in various sectors of the Canadian economy. Much of the heavy lifting appears to have been done at the provincial level, including BC’s carbon tax, Quebec’s cap-and-trade regime and Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired electricity. In transportation, new vehicle regulations are touted but these just copy the new regulations established by the United States. The report makes repeated reference to new regulations being developed for the oil and gas sector, too, but these have been promised for a long time and no draft regulations have yet seen the light of day.

- Finally, Brent Rathgeber makes the case for sitting MPs to stay out of the boundary revision process. Needless to say, his Saskatchewan caucus-mates don't seem interested in listening.

Silenced

The news that the Wall government is planning to eliminate dozens of provincial boards and commissions doesn't really mean much on its own. But taking a closer look at exactly what's being axed, there's serious reason for concern that the Sask Party is entirely eager to cut off important lines of communication with unfriendly stakeholders - and all without any actual savings resulting from the move to insulate Sask Party ministers from genuine input.

To start with, the majority of the boards and commissions to be cut do appear to be ones which are dormant or which have completed their work. In most of those cases, the decision to carry out officially what's already happened in practice serves as a mildly useful administrative move, though not one which can plausibly be claimed to save money or otherwise result in government efficiencies. (Though it's worth noting that the Sask Party itself may have something to do with driving some committees into hibernation: take for example the Minister's Provincial Park Advisory Committee, which held its last meeting just after the Wall government took power, and is now being slashed for having "not been active since November 2007".)

Another broad group of the committees being cut includes those which are explicitly being replaced by something else of the Sask Party's creation. Notable on this list are the current advisory committees on drug and alcohol abuse and HIV/AIDS, as well as labour and education forums.

Now, this might be seen as somewhat less objectionable than a declaration that input actually isn't required on those issues. But the replacement of one committee with another does raise a couple of important issues.

First, it's downright dishonest for the Sask Party to claim savings from eliminating the existing committee without taking into account the cost of creating a new one - particularly when there's bound to be more work involved in developing something from scratch than maintaining an existing structure. And more importantly, it's worth wondering whether the new committees will actually represent as broad a group of participants as the existing committees, or whether the Sask Party will pick and choose only those voices which they want to hear in areas where there's obvious potential for socon or corporatist biases to lead to disastrous results.

Which is of course an even greater problem where existing consultation mechanisms are being replaced with absolutely nothing. And there are many key areas where the Wall government is sending a clear signal that it doesn't think meaningful stakeholder consultations are worth its time.

Oddly enough, the largest group of these falls under the agriculture portfolio, where no less than 8 advisory committees are being eliminated on the basis that the Ministry of Agriculture "already consults directly" with affected parties. But there's a significant difference between the type of consultation available through an ongoing committee which both facilitates discussion among stakeholders and provides a regular checkpoint between that stakeholder group and the government, and that based simply on a Ministry dealing with parties on a one-on-one basis. And the Sask Party's eagerness to systematically eliminate the latter type doesn't speak well to its interest in working collaboratively with the groups involved.

Among other particularly egregious examples:
- The Advisory Committee on Family Planning is to be disbanded, with its role taken over by non-government organizations. Who else sees a possible issue with allowing right-wing politicians to hand-pick their ideological buddies to set the province's direction on reproductive health?
- FSIN's Circle of Partners Advisory Committee - highlighted just this spring as an example of the Sask Party's commitment to engaging with First Nations - has apparently been "determined to be unnecessary by Enterprise (Saskatchewan)". We'll see how kindly the FSIN takes to being told by big business that its input is neither necessary nor welcome.
- The Early Learning and Child Care Advisory Board is being eliminated in favour of "ad hoc" consultations. Which would seem to send a strong signal that child care is headed absolutely nowhere as long as Wall is in power.
- Finally, the Provincial Youth Advisory Committee is being cut on the basis that "(youth) representatives on boards across government make this Committee unnecessary". Aside from the issue of allowing for collaborative efforts rather than mere token representation, that seems to leave the door wide open for a single Sask Party supporter to be taken to speak for youth across the province on any given issue.

We'll find out soon just how determined the Sask Party is to follow through on the cuts. But from what I can tell, the Wall government's move seems to be aimed entirely at trying to selectively freeze out voices it doesn't like rather than actually finding efficiencies - and it'll be important for everybody affected to speak out now before being silenced by the Sask Party.