New column day

Here, on how the TILMA's regressive trade rules are spreading across Canada in other forms.

For further reading...

- I've posted several times before about just some of the problems with the TILMA and the arguments made in favour of it, while also comparing it with the AIT as it stood a couple of years ago and highlighting how it's been replicated in the NWPTA.

- And for more recent commentary, I'll link again to posts by Erin (X2) and Alison.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading...

- While I agree with Murray Dobbin's latest to a point, I'd think it's worth clarifying exactly what kind of fight we can and should expect from the NDP over the next four years.

To the extent one considers a "culture war" to mostly involve the U.S. issues normally linked to the term (abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.), I'd think the deciding factor in the NDP's strategy will be the Cons' actions. And while any attempt at backsliding in those areas needs to be met with a furious response, I wouldn't see the NDP getting any further than the Libs if it tries to focus on them at the expense of what's being discussed by the Cons and the media.

Which means that for the sake of clarity, I'd think the better term for the NDP's ideal plan is a "values war" - consisting of a clear clash of ideas including, but not limited to, what's normally considered to be cultural conflict. And I'll certainly agree with Dobbin that the measure of the NDP's success will be its ability to build a movement to overcome the one the Cons have developed on their side of the spectrum.

- Will Verboven highlights some of the extra costs of tearing down the Canadian Wheat Board:

The privatization of the Australian Wheat Board has set a bad precedent of what might happen once monopoly powers are removed. That marketing entity couldn't compete, was subsequently sold to private companies and has disappeared. Most anticipate a similar fate will face the CWB once its monopoly powers are removed.

Time will tell if eliminating the CWB monopoly will put an extra dollar in a grain grower's pocket. Those located far from the U.S. border and seaports will find their grain shipping costs dramatically increased. And as with so many surplus farm commodities, producers may well find themselves competing for the lowest price. At least the CWB was able to mitigate and average out that all too usual practice.

The surefire loser in this change will be the taxpayer. When the U.S. launches its inevitable trade actions against an anticipated flood of Canadian grain into American border grain elevators, it will be the Canadian government that will have to pay the bill to fight those actions, not the diminished CWB.

The CWB also carries liabilities of millions on past sales that went bad, and of course, it carries employee pension and severance liabilities that could exceed $100 million. The government may try to prop up a new CWB to avoid facing those realities, but somehow you just know the taxpayer will be on the hook. I guess for a few, it's a small price to pay for one of the founding ideological goals of the Reform and Conservative parties.

- Michael Geist continues his coverage of the CRTC's net neutrality/UBB hearings with this observation:

While the arguments about network congestion from dominant providers such as Bell remained much the same, as the week wore on it appeared the commission was beginning to realize that congestion claims may be overstated and being used to mask fears of competition from the independent ISPs.
...
The CRTC commissioners appear to have recognized that proposals based on limiting the volume of Internet use are not only bad policy — discouraging Internet use benefits no one — but are ineffective in dealing with network congestion. The reason is that the amount of data consumed has very little to do with whether the network is congested.

Consider a four-lane highway that can comfortably accommodate 24,000 vehicles per day. If the vehicles are spread evenly at 1,000 per hour throughout the day, there is no traffic congestion. But if 20,000 of the vehicles attempt to use the highway over a four-hour period, the highway becomes very congested during that time frame. The aggregate volume of traffic may be the same, yet the congestion implications are very different.

The same is true of networks, which can be used to capacity without congestion concerns.

It is only when there is simultaneous demand — called peak periods — that there is the prospect of congestion and the need to augment the network. Pricing to peak periods is precisely what the independent ISPs have proposed, noting that volume pricing hurts their competitive flexibility and does little to address congestion.

After years of debate, that message may finally have resonated. In her questioning of Bell, CRTC Commissioner Candice Molnar said, “We all, I think, can hopefully agree that there is no marginal cost to using the network when you are not causing augmentation.”

- Finally, Erin picks up on the fact that the TILMA which the Wall government promised not to sign is has been entirely rolled into Wall's WEPA.

One and the same

Edit: Post removed by request.

On strategic considerations

Edit: Post removed by request.

On no-brainers

Let's grant Barrie McKenna this much: his "frustratingly long" list of four identified trade barriers is indeed probably the longest I've seen from anybody in the anti-government chorus that's long demanded that Canada's provinces sign over their ability to govern, and makes for a welcome change from the argument by absence of evidence that's become far too familiar. And he even takes the time to note that he's demanding massive political restructuring based on "back-of-the-envelope" calculations, presumably because any more thorough analysis would result in rather less generous totals.

But before we give him too much credit, let's note that a grand total of half of his identified barriers are from provinces who three years ago agreed to exactly the kind of government suicide pact the free-traders have been demanding. So isn't the obvious takeaway once again that the provinces' time would be better used dealing with identified irritants, rather than signing agreements which stifle future action without doing anything about the supposed problem?

Update: Erin points out a few more of the serious problems with McKenna's piece. But of course it's bound to remain uncontradicted in the corporate media.

Ignorance as policy

Lest anybody accuse the Harper Cons of being the only government in Canada which makes far too many decisions based on a complete lack of information, Joe looks to have uncovered another glaring (if unsurprising) example:

The subsequent request to Executive Council resulted in a phone call from Garett Murray, the manager of corporate planning at central management services with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, on June 28, 2010, to discuss the matter. The central management services branch provides support to intergovernmental affairs through a shared services agreement.

Murray advised that there is no one document containing a comprehensive list of barriers to trade and investment between the three westernmost provinces, but proposed that the provincial government would create a new record that had the information. It was further agreed that such a record would also contain the source for each barrier listed.

Unfortunately, the Wall government reneged on the offer without explaining why.

In a letter dated July 22, 2010, Bonita Cairns, the executive director of corporate services with Executive Council, provided a one-page record prepared by intergovernmental affairs staff listing five “general examples” of barriers to trade and investment that currently exist between the three westernmost provinces.

“A comprehensive list of barriers does not currently exist,” the document states.

In other words: months after the Wall government signed onto the WEPA to permanently tie the hands of Saskatchewan's public sector based on its faith-based belief in the need to eradicate mythical trade barriers, it hadn't yet lifted a finger to determine what barriers actually existed. And that looks to me like a far more damning statement about the Sask Party's decision-making process than its later refusal to do its homework after the fact.

On shining examples

Sure, there's plenty to criticize in Todd Hirsch's column, which for reasons unknown seems to have been given prime real estate in the Globe and Mail.

But let's be fair to Hirsch: while his column may be an embarrassment from the standpoint of having anything useful or accurate to say, it does look to be perfectly emblematic of the TILMA/WEPA corporate movement. After all, it takes somebody whose depth of understanding is in the range of "BC = pot! (hehindeedy!) Saskatchewan = ViCo! (hyukhyukhyuk!)" to overlook the complete lack of reality to the supposed "trade barriers" he's so eager to fight - not to mention the fact that the examples of procurement and labour mobility have long since been dealt with.

Well said

Joe Kuchta takes full advantage of a chance to rebut a poorly-informed Star-Phoenix editorial on the WEPA, boiling down both what the agreement actually does and how dishonestly it's been peddled:

Those who claim the new agreement is not TILMA are not being entirely honest. The format is exactly the same and the content nearly identical. The new agreement retains the worst elements of TILMA, such as the right of private parties to challenge government entities. The New West pact provides for financial penalties of up to $5 million if a government is found to be non-compliant with its obligations.

Agreements like TILMA and the New West Partnership are meant to pressure governments to reduce standards and regulations to the lowest common denominator or abandon them altogether. They are by intent, design and structure no more than instruments for deregulation.

Just wondering...

...but since nobody seems to have thought to ask even as Brad Wall has used it as his pretext for a trip to China, there are a couple of questions crying out for answers about the Wall government's relationship with B.C. and Alberta.

If the goal in establishing a "partnership" is simply to brand Western Canada's resources on a regional basis in travelling abroad, then why in the world has membership in the club been limited to those provinces willing to sign away their right to democratic government? And isn't it downright negligent of the Campbell, Stelmach and Wall to have refused to invite, say, Manitoba to participate as well if the primary goal involves building links for the region?

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.

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.

Suddenly it all makes sense

No wonder the Sask Party was almost completely devoid of resolutions at its convention this year. Instead of wasting any time on a "party" which doesn't serve as much beyond a public relations department, the Sask Party's corporate base apparently saved its plans for the organization that'll ultimately make the province's decisions as long as the Wall government is in power.

And particularly given the Sask Party's track record of leaving no promise unbroken and no reality undenied in order to give big business what it wants, it's certainly worth wondering exactly how long it'll take for the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's plans to become the law of the land if Wall stays in office past next year.

On misleadership

The Sask Party's inevitable decision to put Don McMorris' political interests ahead of the Legislature's ability to request accurate information from government ministers can't come as much surprise. But while the prima facie breach of privilege in McMorris' misinformation is certainly worth pointing out, it's worth noting as well that the significance of McMorris' falsehood pales in comparison to other examples from the Wall government.

Indeed, it's been in just the last week that Brad Wall has publicly presented a patently false explanation as to how the WEPA supposedly differs from the TILMA which he previously promised not to sign. And there's no lack of earlier issues where there's an obvious gap between what the Sask Party has said publicly and what it's planned internally: see e.g. Rod Gantefoer's sudden reversal in going from claiming one day that the province would never enter a recession, to deciding three days later that we were coming out of one.

Of course, McMorris' statement lent itself to immediate censure in that it was made in the Legislative Assembly itself on an issue where the Sask Party couldn't plead that the issue was one of interpretation or debate. But neither McMorris' inaccuracy nor the Sask Party's refusal to acknowledge any problem with it can be said to reflect any particular departure from the Wall government's usual standards. Which means that the McMorris story reflects just one more indication that it'll take a sharp message from the province's voters in 2011 to ensure an honest government.

Update: For more on the McMorris incident, see columns from the Star Phoenix editorial board and Murray Mandryk. h/t to Kent and Leftdog.

Tuesday Morning Links

So much going on, so little time. So let's deal with a few recent developments in point form.

- Regina Councillor Chris Szarka wants to put in place a Regina Big Home Lottery (wealthy property owners guaranteed to win!). Christine Whitaker responds by pointing out the problems with shifting the cost of services even further toward those who can't afford to pay more.

- Brad Wall's Sask Party government: consistently outraged that anyone has the nerve to seek out the truth.

- Two former Saskatchewan NDP leadership contestants look to be making solid progress in their riding nomination races: Ryan Meili has relaunched his website and funded his Saskatoon Sutherland nomination contest through a single money bomb, while Yens Pedersen is back blogging with a strong comment on the WEPA.

- Finally, the Georgia Straight reports that the Campbell Liberals have even more to worry about by way of public backlash to the HST as the anti-harmonization forces are looking at recalling MLAs. Meanwhile, Colin Hansen is shocked to learn that the rules apply to his government - while Elections B.C.'s rightful rejection of pro-HST propaganda makes it all the more likely that the current petition initiative will succeed.

The reviews are in

Bruce Johnstone slams the Wall government for having already done serious damage to Saskatchewan's Crown corporations while diverting money toward corporate mouthpieces:

(A)s (CIC Minister June Draude) has admitted on several occasions, (the Sask Party's) plundering of CIC for dividends -- representing 100 per cent of the profits of all but one of the Crowns -- is clearly not sustainable.

Crown corporations, like other companies, need their profits to reinvest in their operations and their infrastructure, such as plant and equipment. If they're starved for capital, they either wither and die or their debt gets too big. Neither outcome is desirable.

Also not sustainable is the wholesale confiscation of proceeds from asset sales to pay for ongoing operations. Those proceeds should be used to pay down debt, not spent like any other source of revenue.
...
(A)sset stripping is not sound business practice, nor is it good public policy. It artificially boosts revenues with one-time gains, while leaving the fix of the over-expenditure problem to another day.

OK, you say, where should the government get the money, if not from the Crowns?

Well, for starters, how about scrapping Enterprise Saskatchewan and Innovation Saskatchewan? What have we received for the $40 million to $65 million a year these agencies spend?

Aside from a lot of talk about building the new economy and investing in innovation, not much.

The Saskatchewan First policy also needs to be scrapped. Crowns have enough constraints on them without being confined within the boundaries of Saskatchewan.

Aside from selling off some profitable assets, like Hospitality Network, (and admittedly a few dogs, like Navigata), what exactly has Saskatchewan First achieved?

Not much, except for allowing even more political direction in the operation of Crown corporations, which the Sask Party government promised would be run more like businesses.

Of course, it'll only get worse now that the Crowns will be forced to make decisions with an eye toward facilitating profits for other provinces' businesses. Which means that if Saskatchewan doesn't change course in 2011, there all too likely won't be viable Crowns left to save.

Smiling while lying to you

Following up on my first quick post on the TILMA/WEPA/WAKKAWAKKAWAKKA (or whatever it's now being called to throw the public off the scent), its worth taking a closer look at what Brad Wall has locked Saskatchewan into following consultations which reached a strong consensus that it had no interest in being bound by the TILMA. Indeed, let's focus particularly on the two areas where Wall claims to have taken the province's concerns into account as a result of the public's distaste for the TILMA.

Wall claims to have dealt with two issues to try to assuage dissatisfaction with the TILMA: Crown corporations, and municipalities. So let's look through the WEPA as compared to the TILMA to see what's changed when it comes to those entities.

Predictably, the answer is: pretty much nothing.

Crown corporations are dealt with specifically exactly three times in the WEPA. Article 14 makes them generally subject to the agreement's procurement rules; Part IV labels them as "government entities"; and Appendix I gives them a reprieve from the effects of Article 14 until July 1, 2012.

And what's the significance of Crowns being "government entities"? Article 2.2 states as follows:

Each Party is responsible for compliance with this Agreement by its
government entities.

So every Crown is fully subject to every provision of the WEPA from the date it goes into effect, with only one limited, temporary exemption. Needless to say, that's Brad Wall's kind of protection for Saskatchewan's Crowns.

How does that compare to the TILMA? There...Article 14 makes Crowns generally subject to the agreement's procurement rules. Part IV labels them as "government entities" which are subject to the general provisions of the agreement. And Appendix I gives B.C. Crowns a partial temporary reprieve from the effects of Article 14 which expired April 1, 2010.

Not surprisingly, the same goes for municipalities. Of the seven mentions of municipalities in the WEPA, six are found in provisions identical to those contained in the TILMA, including provisions making them subject to the agreement as government entities. And the lone exception is the same time-limited exemption to the application of Article 14 alone that applies to Crowns.

In sum, Wall's claims run head-first into the fact that the WEPA in fact binds Crowns and municipalities alike by exactly the same rules as the TILMA. In each case, that's subject to exactly one, temporary exception - in an area where municipalities at least are generally bound by the Agreement on Internal Trade anyway. So the only available conclusion is that Wall simply doesn't care what the province has already told him about the exact provisions he's now signed onto.

Of course, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the latest effort to permanently shackle Western provincial governments involves just as much blatant deception as the first one. (After all, the initial spin about the TILMA - pretending the agreement featured some obligation to harmonize regulations to the higher standard applicable in one of the provinces involved - bore absolutely no resemblance to what was actually included.) But there's no reason why Wall should pay anything but a dear political price for so shamelessly lying to his province - particularly given some of the other areas where he can be fully expected to follow in Gordon Campbell's misleading footsteps given the chance.

Update: Fixed wording above based on Erin's correct observation that the AIT generally doesn't apply to Crown corporation procurement.

On deferrals

One final post on the Sask Party's budget for now, as there's one item in the list of "savings" which bears watching despite having received relatively little attention so far:

Enterprise Saskatchewan
- $5.1 million in savings for a one-time deferral of funding for the Western Economic Partnership Agreement (WEPA), which will be provided in future years as projects require funding.

Remember that last anybody bothered to inform the public, the WEPA (read: the TILMA by another name would smell as foul) was still a matter of ongoing back-room dealing between B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan rather than a full binding agreement. So it's rather remarkable that the Sask Party already had millions of dollars budgeted for it.

But the deferral raises issues about what costs the agreement is expected to impose, as well as what the lack of funding means for the negotiations which are apparently still in progress. And the fact that the funding is obviously seen as less than essential for this year may well call into question whether even the Sask Party thinks the WEPA will result in any actual benefits for the province.