Maclean's Interview: Jason Kenney - Now Partially Annotated

Since Kenneth Whyte's interview with Jason Kenney seems to have missed a few key points, I've taken the liberty of adding a touch of context to Kenney's first few answers.

Q: When you’re speaking at citizenship ceremonies, you tell new Canadians our history is now their history, that you don’t want Canada to be viewed as a hotel where people come and go with no abiding commitment to our past, or to citizenship. What is the meaning of our citizenship?

A: Legally speaking it gives people status in Canada and certain rights like voting, but I think we need to reclaim a deeper sense of citizenship, a sense of shared obligations to one another, to our past, as well as to the future. In that I mean a kind of civic nationalism where people understand the institutions, values and symbols that are rooted in our history.

In case it actually needs to be said, the government knowing or suspecting something about a Canadian citizen isn’t enough to essentially exile him. Ottawa’s incredibly churlish behaviour on this file—endlessly setting conditions, then arbitrarily changing them when they’re met—brings the very foundations of government and citizenship into disrepute. It has to stop.

Q: They don’t understand those things now?

A: Well, heck, if you look at polling data—there’s a massive historical amnesia about the Canadian past, and massive gaps of knowledge about our parliamentary institutions, our democratic procedures. There’s a massive civic illiteracy.

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

Q: For old Canadians as well as new Canadians.

A: Yeah, for younger Canadians in particular, whether they’re new or well-established.

Audio recordings, photographs and documents that were leaked from a recent Conservative Party student workshop at the University of Waterloo expose a partisan attempt to take over student unions and undermine Ontario Public Interest Research Groups (OPIRGs) on campuses across Ontario.

At a session held in early February by the Ontario Progressive Campus Conservative Association (OPCCA) and the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, campus Conservatives, party campaigners, and a Member of Parliament discussed strategies to gain funding from student unions for the Conservative Party and ways to run for-and win-positions within student unions.
...
"Yeah we had a front group like that: the Campus Coalition for Liberty. It was really just a front for the Conservatives, but it gave us like two voices." said Lee-Wudrick.

He added: "Don't think that the Party doesn't like that, because they do. They're things that will help the Party, but it looks like it's an organically-grown organization and it just stimulated from the grassroots spontaneously. They love that stuff... Remember all of the Rallies for Democracy ... that's just an example of how big those things can get."

Q: But if the problem is general, why are we doing it as an immigration program?

A: Because I’m not in charge of the schools, I am in charge of the citizenship process.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made no apologies yesterday for ending the flow of funds to the Canadian Arab Federation...

CAF executive director Mohamed Boudjenane was surprised by the minister's comments, and surprised to learn about the end of funding for programs the organization runs to help settle newcomers and give them English lessons.

"We have a contract to provide English for newcomers," Boudjenane said. "The LINC (language instruction for newcomers to Canada) school and we have a workshop for newcomers. The agreement is until March 2010. I don't know what he is talking about," he said, adding that contracts were signed for two years.

Q: There are questions about civic literacy on the citizenship test. Are they inadequate?

A: It’s pretty weak. We’re reviewing the materials with a mind to improving the test to ensure that it demonstrates a real knowledge of Canadian institutions, values, and symbols, and history. Right now, if you look at the preparatory booklet for the test, there’s three sentences, I think, on Confederation history, and not one single sentence about Canadian military history. It’s bizarre to think that someone could become a Canadian citizen without ever being told what the poppy represents. It doesn’t even show up in the book but it talks about food processing in New Brunswick and how you recycle.

(Kenney) said the information booklet that leads to the citizenship test has a page on recycling, but he said he doesn’t recall seeing one paragraph on Confederation.

Really, minister? Here is the booklet. Flip to page 12.

Need we go on?

Coalition-fabricating

Following up this morning's post, it had sounded initially like Andrew Steele had come to much the same conclusion. That is, until his post went off the rails entirely:

Harper must recognize that forcing the NDP to sustain his government is self-defeating; a divided NDP will allow the Liberals to consolidate more centre-left votes and potentially defeat Conservative incumbents in Ontario and the Maritimes. The Lower Mainland of B.C. is one of the few places where the NDP and Conservatives go head-to-head, but even there the Liberals remain a threat to come up the middle if the NDP vote falters.

Instead, the Conservatives can help maintain a healthy NDP protest vote (and a split on the centre-left) by finding ways to get the Bloc to abstain.

Abstentions by the BQ cost Duceppe's party nothing, allow the NDP to maintain its symbolic opposition to the Conservatives and keep the Conservatives in power, while freeing all three of those parties from losing seats against a resurgent Liberal Party in a sudden election.

The fact is that the renewed vigour of the Liberals has created a new majority coalition in the House of Commons: a Conservative-Separatist-Socialist coalition that will almost definitely secretly conspire to keep themselves in office for another year.

So in Steele's mind, the likely result is that the NDP will at no point back down from its record to date of voting against the Cons, meaning that Harper will have to rely on the Bloc to prop up his government. Which is an eminently reasonable theory to start with, and still probably the most likely outcome going forward.

But if Steele is indeed of the view:
- that the NDP won't vote with the Cons under any circumstances, and
- that Harper will deal solely with the Bloc because of that fact...

... then how on earth could he even pretend that the NDP would be part of a "coalition"?

And even Steele's talk of an "understanding" fails to make the slightest bit of sense. After all, how would it serve any purpose for Harper to try to deal with the NDP - however informally - if he plans on relying on Duceppe alone to prop up his government in any event?

Of course, the likely answer to both questions is that Steele is more eager to try to turn the "socialists and separatists" language against Harper - with an added bonus of building an illusion of Con/NDP agreement - than to think through the actual implications of his theory. But it's hard to see how that leads to a message any more honest than the Cons' original bluster which Steele is impliedly criticizing.

The reviews are in

The Toronto Star:

For a program that's supposed to get people working by cutting red tape, Ottawa's $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund seems overburdened with onerous tangles. Indeed, there are so many restrictions on federal money for municipalities that a cynic might question Ottawa's dedication to contributing to what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has dismissively called "the pothole business."

Although Flaherty announced the new stimulus fund in his January budget, municipalities only received the criteria for acceptable projects two weeks ago – and the deadline for applications is this Friday. That didn't give cities much time to complete their paperwork.

Municipalities across Canada are scrambling to meet the deadline. For example, York Region council last week considered a hurriedly assembled $223 million list of potential projects. "It's like dangling a carrot out there," said Vaughan Councillor Joyce Frustaglio at the council meeting. "The timing is so short they (the federal government) obviously have no idea how local governments work."

On joint efforts

Duncan Cameron discusses how the parties in Parliament figure to handle the rest of 2009. But perhaps his most interesting point is to suggest a possibility for cooperation which might prevent either the Cons or the Libs from picking their preferred time for a federal election:

While it is in Harper's best interest to keep the Bloc and the NDP divided, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe can work together behind the scenes to exact concessions from Harper, and forestall an unnecessary election.

As Cameron notes earlier, the Cons can theoretically stay in power with the support of any one party in the House of Commons. Which on its face would seem to give them significant leverage even if they come to the conclusion that they can't rely on the Libs supporting their every move.

But both the NDP and the Bloc also have strong reasons not to be left supporting the Cons either on their own, or for anything short of massive concessions. After all, the NDP's current branding is based largely on its being the lone party never to have propped up the Cons alone - and I for one wouldn't want to see that change without an awfully good reason. And the Bloc's 2008 campaign message was aimed entirely at holding the Cons short of a majority. Which makes the likelihood of NDP support on its own virtually nil, while the Bloc too has reason to be wary.

So what would happen if the NDP and Bloc worked together to develop a common set of demands, and agreed that neither would support the Cons unless all of those demands were met?

At that point, Harper's leverage would seemingly be down to zero if the Libs ever did get around to acting like an opposition party. Rather than being able to play opposition parties against each other, he'd face an all-or-nothing decision as to whether or not to accept the NDP/Bloc platform.

There's little reason to think that he'd be able to take much off the table in his effort to hang on. Which means that there would actually be a realistic prospect of both bringing about substantial positive change, and of keeping the Cons' worst instincts in check. (In effect, the obvious questions as to whether the Cons can be trusted could be dealt with by strong enough terms within the deal itself.)

Meanwhile, both the Bloc and the NDP would be able to point to a multi-party consensus which would seriously dilute any criticism about voting with the government. And indeed to the extent a joint platform was based on the principles underlying the progressive coalition which they signed onto, the Libs might have little choice but to vote for it themselves.

Of course, the best option for the opposition parties is still likely to take down the Cons at the earliest opportunity, particularly given the risk that the Libs could get cold feet again. But if the NDP and Bloc can get to the next election being able to show significant policy results for a single confidence vote as compared to none for the Libs' 62 and counting, that could well be the point at which it's worthwhile to see just how much Harper will give to hang on a little longer. And their chances of making that happen are far better if they join forces.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

daveberta points out that there's a battle brewing for the Con nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona to challenge Linda Duncan. And in a party where MPs and candidates aren't allowed to speak for themselves on actual issues, a show of skill and creativity in the party's usual content-free personal attacks would figure to be just the ticket for either Ryan Hastman or Rahim Jaffer to beat out his competitor.

And in other Saskatchewan leadership news...

Apparently the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race won't be the only one to be decided in the province this spring, as the Greens have replaced Amber Jones with Larissa Shasko.

Now, it can't be an ideal result that even the Greens themselves don't seem to have publicized the leadership election in advance: oddly enough, the only public indication seems to have been in Amber Jones' own message in the last edition of the party newsletter. But they can at least be proud that there was enough interest within the Greens to lead to a contested race - which is more than we can say for some parties.

Meanwhile, the Greens' change in leaders also raises a serious possibility that the Sask Party might be the only one which runs the same leader in 2011 that it did in 2007. So who's up to take over the PCs from Rick Swenson?

Leadership 2009 Links

Not surprisingly, there hasn't been a lot of official material on the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race the last couple of days as the candidates wait to find out just how many members they'll be looking to win over. But for those not getting their fill from my musings, give a read to Jason's post on suggested strategies for Ryan Meili, as well as Eddie's on why reports of a generation gap within the party may be greatly exaggerated.

The reviews are in

James Bow:

After Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon backed out on several promises to return the Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik to Canada, citing national security concerns without any offer of proof, representatives of the Canadian government are calling upon Mr. Abdelrazik to admit that he is “a senior al-Qaeda operative”.

I cannot understand the government’s actions in this case. It has every appearance of a petulant set of ministers stamping their feet and making excuses for not doing the right thing. Don’t they realize how bad this makes them look? Don’t they care? This and this alone is enough for me to want an election so we can throw these bastards out.
...
There are few judgements too harsh for what the Conservative government has done here. It is either incompetent with our national security, or it is mean-spirited enough to deny a Canadian citizen abroad the right to return home to his wife and children. It has either sought to duck due process and this country’s responsibility to prosecute accused Canadian terrorists in a Canadian court, or it has put an innocent Canadian citizen through one of the worst hells imaginable. Either way, it has failed us miserably. It has failed to uphold the law, it has failed to deal competently with the affairs of government, and it has failed to stand up and defend the rights of a Canadian citizen.

Burdens and benefits

About my only quibble with Andrew Potter's post on the Fraser Institute's perpetual tax stunts is his assertion that the institute is becoming any more respectable with time. (Though sadly it's tough to disagree on the "influential" side.) But he nicely highlights the sheer absurdity of the institute's latest anti-social tripe:

Get it? Food and clothing and housing are “necessities”. But taxes? That’s a “burden.”

Let’s look at it another way: Since 1961, the amount that Canadians spend collectively providing themselves with defence and other forms of security, health insurance, unemployment insurance, pensions, clean air and water, consumer protection, infrastructure, research and education, and other public goods has increased by 1,783 percent per family. Astounding? I’ll say! Burden? Hardly.

Despite what the Fraser Institute wants you to think, this is an entirely good thing. Only in the bizarro-world fantasies of anti-tax conservatives could a world where families spend over half their income on private necessities be considered preferable to the one we have today. If it’s invidious contrasts the Fraser folks are after, why look to 1961? Today, the average North American spends about 10 percent of disposable income on food alone. In 1933 it was more like 25 percent.

Ahh, but the tax “burden” was so much lower then.

Burning question

The Cons are obviously scrambling to pull out every last page of Dubya's playbook - no matter how thoroughly discredited - to try to escape answering for their own failure to protect a Canadian citizen. So how long will it be before they accuse Abousfian Abdelrazik of hiding Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

A foul odor on the Polar Breeze

A Con-friendly spokesman makes an eminently reasonable point to justify an Arctic surveillance program:

Prof. Huebert compared it to policing a highway. "How can you give a ticket to somebody [for infractions] in an area you claim if you don't even know they are up there?"

So why haven't we heard about the $130 million program before?

Polar Breeze is a military project so cloaked in secrecy the Department of National Defence at first categorically denied it even existed.

Today - apart from backtracking on their denial - the military is refusing to answer any questions on the project that experts believe has a role to play in protecting Canada's Arctic sovereignty and security.
...
Despite National Defence's refusal to comment, clues about Polar Breeze can be gleaned from the more than 50 pages of heavily censored files obtained by the NDP. These suggest the project involves the Canadian Forces' secretive directorate of space development, computer networks and geospatial intelligence - data gathered by satellite.

Polar Breeze also appears to be sponsored by the Chief of Defence Intelligence, an organization that's grown into one the largest intelligence-gathering services in the federal government. Unlike the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the CDI is not monitored by independent civilian oversight.
...
National Defence initially denied any knowledge of Polar Breeze after taking five days to respond to a request for details on the program.

"No such project exists in DND ... called Polar Breeze project or anything close to that," spokeswoman Captain Isabelle Riché told The Globe and Mail April 14.

But last week the military changed its tune after being supplied with evidence from published documents that it is funding Polar Breeze. Still, DND refused to discuss the project beyond acknowledging its existence, saying everything, including its name, is a classified secret.

Which raises an obvious question: would anybody care to ask Professor Huebert how the public should be able to verify that Polar Breeze is properly policed?

A definite improvement

Having criticized Murray Mandryk last week for a column which essentially glossing over the "race" part of the NDP leadership race, I'll give him some credit for his more recent one arising out of last week's debate.

Which isn't to say that I entirely share his analysis. In some areas, Mandryk looks to have overlooked some interesting policy disagreements among the candidates. And in others, he looks to be minimizing some areas of agreement to fit a storyline: in particular, it seems to me that all of the candidates have spent a substantial amount of time talking about putting together a winning campaign in 2011, contrary to his attempt to divide the contenders into three renewal candidates and a 2011-focused Lingenfelter.

But it's definitely a plus to see at least a couple of the creative ideas from the leadership race getting some wider exposure. And hopefully by the time June rolls around, Mandryk will have found reason to be more interested in the contest than he sounds for the moment.

(h/t to Buckdog.)

In a nutshell

Garth Turner (via Aaron Wherry) serves up one more set of quotes which nicely encapsulates the governing philosophy of the Harper Cons:

“You’re a journalist and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
— (Stephen) Harper

“We play as a team or we lose as a team. We have no room for an independent thinker on our team.”
— Conservative MP Guy Lauzon

“What Garth has to learn is that you’ve got to support the prime minister, absolutely no matter what.”
— Senator Marjory LeBreton

“There will be impacts in some of your ridings. They will affect people, and you may be tempted to talk about them. But don’t. Anyone who has anything to say about this will soon find out they have a very short political career.”
— Harper, announcing program spending cuts during a caucus meeting

Of course, it's worth noting that Stephane Dion is quoted as taking virtually exactly the same position as Harper when a Turner blog post proved inconvenient. And at least one Con MP is quoted showing enough principle to back Turner's right to think and speak for himself. But when the history of the Harper government is written, its constant demand for unthinking fealty looks to be one of the defining features.

Leadership 2009 Week in Review - April 27

Following up on yesterday's series of Candidate Checkpoints, I'll take the prognostication up a notch and offer up my guesses as to the likelihood of the possible outcomes in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. For those looking for a 538-style mathematical model, this is nothing of the sort - but it reflects my observations of what data is out there to assess candidate support.

I'll take a look at the following factors:

1st Ballot Win - the likelihood that a candidate will take 50%+ of the vote on the first ballot
Final Ballot - the likelihood that a candidate will appear on a final ballot after the first one
Final Ballot Win - the likelihood that a candidate will win on a ballot after the first one
4th on 1st - the likelihood that a candidate will be eliminated on the first ballot, shifting votes to that candidate's voters' next choice for the second ballot
Total Win - should be self-explanatory, the sum of a candidate's chances of winning on the first ballot and on a subsequent ballot

Note that for ease of comparison, the latter three columns will add up only to the likelihood that more than one ballot is required, since they don't figure to be relevant if the outcome is determined on the first ballot.

There's probably some room to toss in more guesswork as to the permutations and combinations possible on a second ballot as opposed to a third. But for now, it would seem to be largely the above factors that will determine the shape of the convention.

So without any further ado, my current projections as to the possible results of the leadership race:

Candidate	1st Ballot Win	Final Ballot	Final Ballot Win	4th on 1st	Total Win
Dwain Lingenfelter	35	55	20	0	55
Deb Higgins	3	28	20	5	23
Ryan Meili	2	32	18	10	20
Yens Pedersen	0	5	2	45	2

On low points

Shorter National Post editorial board:

Michael Ignatieff's decision to hide any sympathy for the plight of innocent Tamils behind closed doors due to his fear of Conservative smears is a sign of profound moral courage.

Update: While Dr. Dawg has nicely summarized the deeper point, I'll go a little bit further in pointing out the problem with Ignatieff's actions. The starting point is that the Harper Cons have consistently tried to set a "guilt by association" standard when it comes to groups who don't fit into their pool of prospective voters - such that even the slightest public show of concern for the plight of the Cons' designated undesirables is met with shrieks of "they support the terrorists!"

What Ignatieff has done is to validate that exclusionary tendency, instructing his party to flee from an entirely peaceful demonstration - even one that's been carefully sanitized of controversial material, however absurd that standard is to begin with. And to add insult to injury, Ignatieff still has the gall to meet behind closed doors with leaders of the community that he's embarrassed to be seen with in public to try to pretend that his party will defend their interests.

Of course, the National Post couldn't be happier with that outcome, since it means that Harper is calling the shots as to which types of discourse are acceptable and which groups are unworthy of public sympathy. But for the reasons pointed out by Dr. Dawg, that should be reason for embarrassment rather than pride on the Libs' part.

Edit: added label.

Tributes and tribulations

Sure, one wouldn't think the Libs could top this as a way to rub salt into a past leader's wounds at their convention. But just wait until John Gomery delivers his stirring salute to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

Yens Pedersen Candidate Checkpoint - The Lone Wolf

The Candidate

At a time when the Saskatchewan NDP was going through its lowest levels of enthusiasm in ages, Yens Pedersen was one party member who stepped up. In the 2007 election, he ran against a well-known municipal figure and nearly holding a Regina South seat which figured to be a tough battle for the NDP. At the 2008 convention he took over the party's presidency, only to step down in the fall when he started talking publicly about making the leadership his next goal.

In fact, Pedersen was the one eventual candidate who spoke publicly about the race before the new year, and became the second one in the contest in January 2009. But in retrospect, one has to wonder whether Pedersen nonetheless waited too long to get into the race.

The Strategy

While each of the other candidates apparently waited to have a solid base of organizational support before entering the race (even if Ryan Meili's didn't include much of the party establishment), all indications seem to be that Pedersen took the plunge in large part based on the hope that support would soon follow. Which might not have proved to be a disadvantage if he'd been alone in the race to try to build support as the only "anybody but Lingenfelter" candidate.

Instead, though, Pedersen's entry into the race was followed in short order by Higgins and Meili - both of whom were able to bring high-profile endorsements with them in relatively short order. And that's left Pedersen looking particularly lonely for lack of any endorsements that he's seen fit to highlight.

Not that Pedersen hasn't managed to make his presence felt in the race - by raising issues, inserting himself into the media narrative on others, and connecting with a substantial number of supporters. And he's consistently held his own when the candidates have shared the same stage.

But in the absence of others willing to lend their reputations to his campaign, Pedersen has been left with the steepest hill of any of the candidates. And while Pedersen has done his best to seek out voter pools that the others may have missed, there isn't much reason to think he's going to be able to make the climb on his own.

The Result

So what can Pedersen do to win? At this point, the answer looks to be that there isn't much of a path to victory that doesn't involve a total collapse or two among the other candidates.

That will leave Pedersen with a choice as to how to handle the rest of the campaign. On the one hand, he can try to make high-controversy, potentially high-reward moves to get his name into the public eye - even if that means alienating other factions within the party. But it's hard to see that being a winning move - and it may only serve to make it more difficult to capitalize even if another candidate does stumble and create an opening.

Which means that the better option for Pedersen looks to be to build as much support as he can around the margins without making enemies for himself out of the current contest. And if that leads to his taking a cabinet position under another leader grateful for his contributions to the party and to the race, then Pedersen may have an easier time attracting followers if be makes another run for the leadership in the future.

Ryan Meili Candidate Checkpoint - The Movement

The Candidate

At the start of the leadership race, Ryan Meili looked like an ideal candidate on paper. But regardless of what was on his resume, it was anybody's guess as to whether or not he'd be able to put together a successful campaign - and especially whether he'd manage to build support in a party where each of the other three candidates seemed to have some obvious connections.

Over the course of the campaign, Meili has managed to put those questions to rest, performing well enough on a personal level and on the debate circuit to bring in a substantial amount of support both within the NDP's inner circles and beyond.

That is, among those who have had a chance to meet or see him personally. But judging from what little polling is available, Meili still has a ways to go in getting his name known beyond those who have taken an active interest in the campaign. Which is hardly a bad position to be in at this stage of the race - but means there's plenty of work left to do in advance of the June convention.

The Strategy

In principle, a substantial part of Meili's appeal rested on the potential to carry out an Obama-style campaign, as I and others suggested early in the campaign. But despite his adoption of "community organizer" language along with a few other echoes of Obama's campaign, it's probably fair to say that Meili's model is quite different from the one that propelled Obama into the White House.

A couple of the major differences may arise out of the types of party systems involved. Meili has apparently spent a greater proportion of his time and effort on specific policy development rather than general themes. And in a system of strict party discipline, he hasn't extended his message of positive politics to the point of talking up bipartisanship.

But more interesting is an organization difference that looks to be largely a function of the resources involved. Obama had a year and a half to build on a national foundation put in place by Tom Daschle, and was able to dedicate huge amounts of time and money to training an army of volunteers. Not to mention that he was already at least moderately well-known among U.S. Democrats for his 2004 convention speech and work in the Senate.

In contrast, Meili has had to start nearly from scratch with far less time to work with. In some respects, that may have limited how much he's been able to do - but if anything, it may also make the movement for renewal and change that he's been able to build into an even more authentic expression of support.

The Result

But how far can that movement go in swaying relatively casual party members when it counts? That's the big remaining question which Meili's campaign will need to answer over the next month and a half. And the road may only get tougher from here on in.

While the Lingenfelter and Higgins campaigns will be able to spend their time trying to play up the relative merits of candidates who are relatively well known, Meili will still have to focus on introducing himself to members who haven't been following the race all that closely - and then persuade them to send their votes his way only after that task is carried out. Which means that there will be more work for Meili's volunteer-based organization to do over the next month.

And complicating matters even further, Meili can't count on a straightforward road through the convention even if he succeeds in his first goal of at least working his way ahead of Higgins. As I mentioned in my earlier post on Higgins' campaign, there would figure to be at least a reasonable number of Higgins first-ballot supporters who might switch to Lingenfelter on a later ballot. Which may mean that it won't be enough for Meili stay on the third ballot: instead, he'll likely need Lingenfelter's earlier-ballot support to top out the low 40s at most to push the odds into his favour by the end.

The bright side is that Meili may have already accomplished much of what I'd hoped to see done during the course of the leadership race: whatever the results in June, the movement that Meili has managed to build over the past few months has the potential to serve as the backbone of progressive politics in Saskatchewan for years to come. But it remains to be seen whether Meili will be able to overcome stalwarts past and present to win the leadership of the NDP now.

Edit: added tag.

Deb Higgins Candidate Checkpoint - The Comeback

The Candidate

On paper, Deb Higgins figured to start the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race solidly in second place. While she couldn't match Dwain Lingenfelter's head start, she was the only other candidate to have caucus endorsers from the beginning. And all expectations were that the rest of her campaign would similarly be near the head of the pack.

But as the weeks went by, it seemed like Higgins' campaign was in hibernation. Her initial web page was severely lacking in both design and content, and for at least a couple of days it was replaced with error messages or placeholders. And she didn't unveil much by way of endorsements or policies for at least a month after entering the race, leading to some question about how seriously she was taking the leadership campaign.

While it took some time, though, Higgins has since worked her way back toward the front of the pack. And indeed from the chances I've seen to see the leaders, I've reached the surprising conclusion that the one contender with recent cabinet experience - who on paper should have had plenty of strengths to start with but proportionally less ability to improve - has actually done the most to boost her campaign and her standing over the last month-plus. Having taken awhile to start saying anything of substance in the campaign, Higgins didn't take a back seat to anybody in her policy strength at the Regina leaders' debate in particular.

The Strategy

But where does Higgins go from here? I've noted a couple of possible themes for her campaign going forward. First and foremost, she needs to broaden her support beyond the present caucus and her strong riding - and organized labour presents the most obvious opportunity for her to add followers to help persuade undecided members over the next month and a half.

Then there's her Link-tweaking strategy, which seems like it may have missed the mark in at least one respect. While Higgins may well have hoped to turn the race into a one-on-one confrontation between the two putative frontrunners, Lingenfelter has preferred to avoid any direct confrontation - which makes for a logical response, since it isn't in his interest to accept his weaknesses as the battleground for the contest.

That said, Higgins still figures to be able to get at least some more mileage out of a similar strategy. Even if Lingenfelter doesn't respond directly, Higgins can still see some obvious benefit in raising doubts about him. And she'll surely be happy if she can turn the race into the two-person battle at the top which it once figured to be.

The Result

Despite her slow start to the race, Higgins has a fairly clear potential path to victory. But it depends on her finding the right balance between a couple of conflicting goals.

On the one hand, she needs to dampen Lingenfelter's support enough to make sure that he doesn't win on the first ballot. Which in principle should mean that she'd be relatively happy to see strong showings by the other two candidates in the race, while having little reason to reinforce any of Lingenfelter's messages.

But the ascent of Ryan Meili has raised another problem for Higgins. As a result of the momentum that he was able to build while Higgins's campaign was largely silent, there looks to be a serious possibility that Higgins could finish behind Meili on an early ballot. And that's particularly so if Yens Pedersen gets eliminated on the first ballot and throws his support to the other youth/renewal candidate on the second.

Which means that Higgins needs the help of Meili and Pedersen to hold Lingenfelter short of a majority on the first ballot, while needing to simultaneously ensure that their combined support doesn't exceed her own. As a result, she'll have to guess just right as to how to weigh an experience-based message that might reinforce Lingenfelter's strengths and increase the risk of a first-ballot romp against a renewal-based one that undercuts Link and boosts the younger candidates.

Mind you, if Higgins can thread that needle to get to a final ballot against Lingenfelter, then she probably is the challenger best positioned to sweep the support of the candidates below her.

After all, it's relatively plausible that some Higgins supporters who value her experience and past involvement - or whose primary loyalty is based on their experience with her personally rather than the principles at play in the race - might list Lingenfelter as a second choice. In contrast, there figure to be few if any reasons why a member would support Meili or Pedersen first that would suggest a final-ballot vote for Lingenfelter over Higgins.

So Higgins still has a path to victory from here. But one has to wonder how many regrets there are in her camp about the fact that her initial disadvantages have made the terrain far less certain.

Edit: added label.

Dwain Lingenfelter Candidate Checkpoint: The Collective Memory

With the end of the official candidate debates and (more importantly) the passing of the deadline to sign up new members, the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race now figures to be entering a new phase. But before that starts in earnest, I'll take some time to discuss how the campaign so far has gone for each of the candidates from my standpoint - as well as to toss in some armchair prognostication about how the campaign figures to go from here.

Not surprisingly, we'll start with Dwain Lingenfelter.

The Candidate

Lingenfelter's front-runner status in the race was never an accident, and by most indications he's stayed out in front so far. Having apparently made his decision to enter the race based on the promise of a strong volunteer and fund-raising base, he's put those advantages to good use to stay at or near the head of the pack in virtually every poll, survey or other means of measuring support.

And his time in the private sector doesn't seem to have hurt Lingenfelter's political skills. As Jason noted, Lingenfelter's public speaking has stood out from the pack to go with a thorough command of the underlying policies. And there isn't much doubt that he's kept up his ability to work a room or drive a media narrative.

But there's one additional factor in play that might deserve more attention than it's received. Simply put, it's worth asking why it is that Lingenfelter didn't have to doubt that it would be possible to line up volunteer and fund-raising strength.

The answer may not be obvious to those of us who weren't paying close attention to politics during Lingenfelter's formative political years. But while the younger set within the NDP may tend to see support for Lingenfelter as a matter of bandwagon-jumping or crass calculation, there's no lack of people within the party who built strong loyalties to him personally during the course of the fight against the Devine government. And that factor may go a long way to explaining some of the more curious moves by Link's campaign.

The Strategy

As I've noted, Lingenfelter seems to have largely abandoned his early-campaign effort to play everything to everyone by talking up renewal strategies and youth involvement. Instead, his campaign has focused almost entirely on taking up immediate opposition to the Wall government, and in so doing he's frequently brought up past fights which most would have considered to be behind the province.

But then, the fights surely aren't forgotten by those who participated in them. Which means that there's sure to be some latent willingness to buy into much the same message now. And that figures to be a largely untapped resource, as the circumstances surrounding the last leadership campaign (held while the NDP was in government) didn't much allow for a similar strategy.

If Lingenfelter can tap into the same opposition mindset that built the party to its early-'90s apex - spread by his loyalists through a population that surely hasn't forgotten the era entirely - then he'd naturally serve as the face of the effort. And when one considers that the NDP of that time was five times the size of the party now, that strategy would provide Lingenfelter with an obvious path to take up the mantle of leadership without having to attack his opponents in the process.

The Result

The problem, though, is that such a strategy is fairly limiting for the rest of the campaign. While Lingenfelter can likely move first-ballot support toward himself by accessing fond memories of NDP strength past, it's hard to see how that kind of focus will win him any significant later-ballot support.

Which makes Lingenfelter's campaign into somewhat of an all-or-nothing effort at this point: he'll either manage to draw on enough of the NDP's collective memory to win on the first ballot, or he'll find out too late that there's more of an appetite to work toward the future than there is unmet demand to repeat the past.

A point of clarification

Shorter Con MP Rodney Weston, Thursday, April 23:

On behalf of the citizens of my riding, I'd like to raise an important local issue.

Shorter Con MP Rodney Weston, Friday, April 24:

On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, I'd like to encourage the government to wash its hands of my important local issue.

On image development

In the wake of this week's news about Alberta's marketing strategy, I've been thinking of pitching a few of my own ideas to the Stelmach government to promote it and its province. Reader thoughts are welcome on the portfolio so far.

Leadership 2009 - Facebook Support Update

It's been less than two weeks since I last updated the Facebook support standings for the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. But there are a couple of developments since then that bear highlighting.

Let's start off with the standings now, along with where they were as of April 12:
Dwain Lingenfelter - 639 fans (602)
Ryan Meili - 404 supporters (346)
Yens Pedersen Campaign - 227 members (225)
Deb Higgins for Sask NDP Leader - 96 members (71 supporters for Higgins' politician page)

The first point worth noting is the continued growth in Meili's camp, as his group's total has increased by roughly as much as those of the other contenders combined. In contrast, Lingenfelter's lead seems to be narrowing, while Pedersen's support looks to be relatively stagnant (and indeed his group has apparently lost members over the last few days).

Meanwhile, Higgins' data is worth a closer look. Her leadership group doesn't appear to be a new one, as the wall posts date back to her entry into the race. Instead, it seems to have been opened up in the meantime where it didn't show up on public searches before - meaning that she may have had more Facebook support all along than had previously been visible, and in any event isn't as far behind the pack now as seemed to be the case before.

Perhaps more important, though, is one of the names who shows up in Higgins' group: Larry Hubich, the president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and probably the most visible labour leader in the province.

Remember that to date, the labour movement's public involvement in the leadership race has been in favour of Lingenfelter, with several endorsements and a substantial amount of money flowing his way. Which was always a somewhat surprising outcome, given Higgins' experience with the labour file.

Now, there's at least some hint that Higgins is adding high-profile labour support to her existing bases. And while it's too late to actually work on recruiting more union members to the party fold for the race, it wouldn't be at all surprising if a push from organized labour could have an effect in persuading those who did sign up for the party.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Hubich will make a public endorsement rather than simply lending his support to the Facebook group. And there's probably some question as to how much Hubich personally can influence the union locals who would be more likely to contribute money and volunteers directly.

But even if Hubich does little more than support Higgins in principle, that still sends a signal that organized labour doesn't have to play it safe and stay behind Link. And that can only figure to make the race more interesting going forward.

Musical interlude

Gandharvas - First Day of Spring

Happy in the dark

Shorter Kevin Gaudet:

The scariest part of the recession and ensuing bailouts is that people might think there's reason to look behind the curtain at what corporations are doing.

One last reminder

There are just a few more hours to sign up for a membership in order to vote in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. With that in mind, be sure to sign up so as not to miss out on the chance to shape the future of both the NDP and the province as a whole.

Deep thought

Apparently Con BC caucus chair Dick Harris has proven to be an utterly useless MP no matter how hard he tries to get heard by the Harper government. So maybe another party should appoint a liaison to represent his constituents.

The reviews are in

Andrew Mitrovica:

Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day (who would later be appointed to cabinet by Prime Minister Stephen Harper) seized upon Cannistraro's story as unimpeachable evidence that Canada was, in fact, a "soft spot" for terrorism and he called on the Liberal government to immediately undertake an overhaul of Canada's immigration and security policy.

"We know," Day said a few days after the attacks, "that Canada is seen as a soft spot ... of undesirable people, possibly criminal elements, being able to gain access to our country."

Today, in the aftermath of Napolitano's grating comments, Harper and some of his cabinet members who once condemned Canada as a "soft spot" for terror, have been busy instructing their man in Washington to disabuse the Obama administration of the notion that Canada was or remains a soft spot for terrorists.

In other words, Harper has mobilized the diplomatic and political machinery at his disposal to try to finally shatter a frustrating myth that senior members of his government once enthusiastically promoted.

Deep thought

I'll bet at least one Saskatchewan NDP leadership contender is hoping that Deb Higgins' young candidate target doesn't get turned into "58 under 58".

Amen to that

Far too often, the ever-laughable spin that right-wing governments should be seen as fiscally responsible manages to get a free pass from the media. So kudos to Jeffrey Simpson for recognizing the facts:

Deficits are dangerous for liberals, but especially hard for conservatives, to talk about sensibly. A mantra of conservative parties is that deficits are bad, but the way they govern invariably produces deficits, or at least weakens the fiscal position of the government.

This observation is heretical to conservatives and counterintuitive to others, but the evidence in Canada and the United States bears it out.

In opposition, then in office, conservatives promise lower taxes, and try to deliver them, as the Harper Conservatives did with their two-point cut to the GST that cost the treasury about $12-billion.

Having eroded the government's fiscal capacity, conservatives then promise to eliminate "wasteful" spending. When that effort produces meagre results, as it always does, the government either cuts programs (but never enough to make up for the tax reductions) or lets spending proceed apace, as the Harper crowd has done.

Twenty years of Republican administrations under three presidents followed this formula: a political campaign based on lower taxes and an attack on "wasteful" spending, followed by lower taxes but higher spending, with resulting chronic deficits.

Deficits of the kind conservative parties left in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Ottawa (Alberta was the exception because of energy royalties) also suggest that deficits and conservatives go together, rhetoric notwithstanding.

A forum for discussion

As may have been mentioned before, the last Saskatchewan NDP leadership forum took place in Regina tonight. And a near-packed house was treated to a strong performance from each of the candidates - which shouldn't come as much surprise given that each has had a chance to hone a message over the course of the last two weeks. But there are a few individual notes worth pointing out.

While there wasn't a lot new on the policy front, Deb Higgins did present one extremely interesting idea which I hadn't heard from her before. On a question about youth involvement in the NDP, she proposed that the candidate targets should include a youth component, with the intention of running 30 candidates under 30 (or 40 under 40).

The proposal sounds like it's still at a relatively early stage of formulation. But it's certainly one which deserves plenty of future discussion - and indeed in a campaign where the possibility of targets for female, First Nations and other underrepresented types of candidates have already been proposed, it makes sense to add youth into the mix as well.

Meanwhile, the strongest critique of the night also came on the question of youth involvement. In his response, Yens Pedersen attacked the idea that younger party members should be satisfied with the opportunity to be mentored by older ones who keep control over the party. Which of course makes for a direct challenge to Dwain Lingenfelter's effort to defuse his own age as an issue by talking about grooming another generation within the party.

But then, the issue stopped there as Lingenfelter didn't pick back up on the theme. And indeed the most striking element of his performance was how his early-campaign ideas about party renewal seem to have largely gone by the wayside: to my recollection he didn't mention the mentorship proposal at all, alluded to a policy renewal process only tangentially, and even on the youth involvement issue proposed little more than outreach to sell more youth memberships (with little about how to better involve current young members).

That could be the result of a conclusion that he's better off directing the conversation to his perceived areas of strength in terms of policy knowledge and political experience. But one has to wonder whether a reduced emphasis on renewal in the leadership race might continue after the convention.

Finally, Ryan Meili's performance was highlighted by his answer on nuclear power which zeroed in on a theme which looks to be worth plenty of development. While Meili mentioned the environmental and cost considerations of nuclear as compared to renewable energy, he also spent a substantial part of his time discussing the opportunity to spread out renewable-energy development around the province so as to benefit a far greater number of communities and provide for local control.

Coupled with the efficiency concerns surrounding nuclear or other centralized power mentioned by other candidates, one could easily see that critique serving as the backbone of the NDP's energy policy to counter the Sask Party's obsession with a nuclear megaproject. And if the ballot question in 2011 comes down to the Sask Party backing a nuclear reactor which creates jobs and development in only one community against an NDP rural revitalization strategy which emphasizes localized power projects across the province, then one has to like the NDP's chances of reaching its goal of bringing rural seats back into the fold.

Update: See Leader-Post coverage here, and Jason's take here.

Vous avez des suggestions?

Apparently the Libs have some company in the "ineffective opposition" department, as Blogging Horse notes that Gilles Duceppe is apparently sending out hurried tweets for help in figuring out what to ask in question period. Which makes me wonder whether he may be looking eventually to reverse Lucien Bouchard's move in splitting off from the Cons: what better fit could there be than a Prime Minister who doesn't let his party members speak for themselves, and a group of MPs with nothing to say?

On memorable results

Adam Radwanski's interview with NDP strategist Brian Topp makes for an interesting read generally. But one of his points in particular bears highlighting.

Here's what Topp had to say about the NDP's recent polling numbers:

Adam Radwanski: Given that there really isn't all that much of a policy gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals right now, are you surprised that NDP support has stagnated - if not dropped - in the past few months?

Brian Topp: I'm not surprised - so far.

The New Democrat caucus tried to do a big thing - tried to replace the government. And it didn't happen. That's the most memorable thing our team has done so far in this parliament. Undertakings that don't succeed don't build support.

The essentially seamless unity of purpose between the Harper Conservatives and the Ignatieff Liberals does now create an opportunity for the NDP - one New Democrats know they need to step up to by shaking off the events of November and addressing the issues Canadians are focused on today.

If the NDP succeeds in doing this, we'll (hopefully) be rewarded in the polls.

Now, the same principle can easily work in the NDP's favour where its efforts succeed. Remember that in the wake of its "better balanced budget", the NDP spent much of the summer of 2005 polling well into the 20s. Meanwhile, the Cons reached roughly the same level from the opposite direction, as Harper and company spent the better part of the summer seething with rage over their failure to force an election that spring. (It was only that fall - when the Libs refused the NDP's entreaties to strengthen the health care system - that both numbers moved back toward their previous levels.)

Unfortunately, the coalition plan was eventually seen as giving rise to two separate points which might be seen as "failures": both Michaelle Jean's decision to grant prorogation and Michael Ignatieff's choice to keep propping up Harper served to undermine the potential of the coalition. And in that light, one could have expected the NDP to suffer even more than it did as the lone party to engage in a strong defence of the coalition.

Conversely, there's no telling for sure how matters would have been different if the coalition had taken office. But if Harper had been saddled with an unsuccessful attempt to cling to power after already having watched his fiscal update blow up in his face, then it would have been the Cons wearing the title of failure - and we might already be in the midst of a Con leadership race as part of the fallout.

Based on that upside as well as the potential for an NDP presence in government, the coalition gambit was well worth the effort even in retrospect. But the end result (particularly as precipitated by the Libs) does speak to the importance of setting goals which are both visible and attainable as the NDP works on building its public perception back up now. And presumably those will both be major guiding principles in the NDP's planning going forward.

A working theory

Following up on this post on Yens Pedersen's rather surprising internal poll results, let's see if we can piece together exactly how those might have come about.

I noted in comments on the previous post that the one robo-call which I received from Pedersen didn't seem to be associated with the poll in question. But in retrospect, that may have been a matter of how the call was organized - in essence starting with what amounted to an audio ad for Pedersen which resulted in my classifying the call as a recorded message rather than a poll, before going into an informal-sounding "who do you support?" question (all delivered by Pedersen personally).

If that's indeed how the call was structured, it could explain the otherwise dubious poll results in a hurry.

To start with, there would be a significant selection bias in who would still be listening to the call by the time the poll came along. Anybody who wasn't interested in listening to Pedersen's personal message (whether due to a dislike for robo-calls generally, or an intention to support another candidate) would have hung up long before there was any hint of a poll, while those still on the line would be those who were most interested in what Pedersen had to say. And that possibility would be consistent with what looks on its face to be a large non-response rate (16,000 calls to 2,000-odd respondents).

And of course it couldn't hurt Pedersen's numbers to have the poll question presented immediately after his own appeal for support, while the other candidates were presented in name only. Which might further explain why the support numbers look so far out of line with expectations.

I'll be looking to confirm with the Pedersen camp that this is roughly how the call was set up. But assuming it's right, let's note what the results do and don't say.

One would be hard-pressed to say that a call which gives precedence to one candidate's message can be taken as an accurate reflection of the relative support for the four candidates involved. So the percentage numbers highlighted by Pedersen don't figure to carry much force.

That said, whatever the methodological problems with the poll as a means of measuring public opinion generally, there still looks to be some value to Pedersen in the raw polling data.

For a candidate whose greatest weakness has been a lack of demonstrated public support, it has to be a plus if 2,000-plus respondents listened through his personal appeal and close to 500 indicated their intention to support him at the end. Even if that number doesn't figure to put Pedersen in contention personally, it surely signals that he may have enough voters in his camp to help swing the results at the June convention.

Moreover, it's entirely possible that a call which seems to have served at least two purposes may have served another as well. After all, to the extent Pedersen is now able to link his own supporters and the undecideds in the poll to the numbers called, he would figure to have a highly useful support list for use for the rest of the campaign.

So while there are some apparent problems with the poll as a survey of public opinion, it may still serve a couple of useful purposes for Pedersen's campaign. And we'll hopefully know before long whether or not that's the case.

One promise you can trust

Last night, I noted that the Wall government was abandoning one of its excuses to push for nuclear power by declaring that it wasn't going to bother keeping any promises when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Now, Crown Corporations Minister Kevin Cheveldayoff is apparently determined to undercut another one by promising that the Sask Party will deliver increased power bills for years to come.

Which raises the question: will there be so much as a single excuse left standing by the end of the week other than a desire to enrich the Sask Party's good friends at Bruce Power?

Ummm...seriously?

Suffice it to say that I'm rather curious to hear the explanation behind this.

And while I'll reserve final judgment until we hear something about the methodology involved, it's tough to see much explanation other than that someone from the Greens' Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River byelection campaign has found their way into Yens' camp.

(Edit: Screen capture removed.)

On twisted equivalencies

Shorter (and indeed frighteningly close to verbatim) David Frum:

Barack Obama shouldn't let his administration prosecute Bushites for authorizing torture - lest the Republicans prosecute him for not authorizing torture when they get the chance.

A reality check

It's been fascinating to watch a single comment expressing nothing more than unsourced gossip turn into a two-day media story. But now that the madness is over with, let's note why any deal involving NDP support for the Cons is highly unlikely - and why the Libs' efforts to sell the PR referendum story need to be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

To start with, I'll expand on one of the points that I made when the NDP's new tone emerged this week. Simply put, the new line is solely about working within the time frame which the Libs have already imposed to try to get something positive done. That doesn't involve any retreat from the position that the Harper government is causing nothing but harm - but instead means recognizing that there may not be any confidence votes over the next 10 weeks, and that on any that do come up they can't rely on the Libs to take a stand.

Of course, it's in the Libs' interest to try to pretend otherwise in order to defuse what they surely know makes for a powerful criticism. Which is why they're currently shrieking at anyone who'll listen that Layton has somehow already agreed to prop up the Cons merely by declaring his intention to try to work with all parties.

But the best long-term move for the NDP is to make their new cooperative message an add-on to their existing "real opposition" narrative, not to scrap a year and a half worth of public messaging. Unless...

In theory, one can make a case that if the NDP would be well served if it could count on PR being implemented out of a deal with the Cons, largely for the reasons set out by Robert Silver. But there doesn't seem to be a way to get there from here which doesn't involve unacceptable risk.

After all, a citizens' assembly and referendum process would require at least many months of preparation, and more likely a year or more. Which means that if it tied support for the Cons to PR, the NDP would be committing to vote for at least as much of the Cons' reactionary agenda as the Libs have already passed.

But the NDP wouldn't have any way to count on the Cons holding up their end of the bargain. We already know Harper isn't shy about calling an election in the face of his own legislation to the contrary - and it would be foolhardy to rely on him not to do the same again just as a referendum process was nearly complete.

What's more, with both the Libs and Bloc having shown their willingness to prop up the Cons in the past, Harper could easily back out of any agreement on PR and look to them to sustain his government if he can get a better deal. And considering that a majority-focused Ignatieff and a regionally-based Bloc could both conclude they'd be at least temporarily worse off under a PR system, it's entirely likely that one or the other would make Harper an offer he couldn't refuse to end the process.

In contrast, changes to EI as proposed by Layton would require passing only a single bill, not propping up the Cons on any hostile confidence motions - which would fit well within the range of what the NDP can plausibly put on the table without damaging its existing messages. And presumably there are plenty more policy ideas which Layton can present along the same lines - maybe including PR as a matter of immediate implementation rather than a referendum, though the odds of the Cons accepting that are minimal.

But a referendum process would leave far too much to chance to justify signing on to back Harper's government. So the NDP is best off making a push for PR in a future, more friendly Parliament - rather than one where Deceivin' Stephen can so easily send the idea off the rails.

Leadership 2009 - Links & Reminders

Following up on last week's leadership debates, at least one local newspaper dedicated some attention to leadership contestants, as the Melfort Journal has posted coverage of the forum held there. Oddly, the Prince Albert Daily Herald doesn't seem to have bothered covering its hometown forum - and even more inexplicably, the North Battleford News-Optimist is behind a subscription wall.

In the other noteworthy development in the race, Ryan Meili released his policies on the economy and gender equity. As best I can tell, the other candidates' websites seem to have been left entirely unchanged since April 9.

So what comes next? Well, the debate circuit continues over the next couple of days, with a stop in Swift Current tonight (which we really should have rechristened "Wallerton" by now in honour of the dearly departed Corner Gas as well as the appropriate follow-up), followed by the final forum in Regina tomorrow.

And of course, the membership deadline is Friday, April 24. So once more, I'll encourage readers to sign up if they're interested in having a say in the contest.

Promise broken

There was already no reason to take the Sask Party seriously in claiming that their constant push for nuclear power had anything to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But now, there's yet more reason to laugh at the assertion:

The Saskatchewan Party government says it will not be keeping its election promise on cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

During the 2007 election campaign, the Saskatchewan Party adopted the NDP government's targets to reduce gases like carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change and global warming.

The Saskatchewan Party platform called on the province to stabilize emissions by 2010, and reduce them 32 per cent by the year 2020.

But now, Environment Minister Nancy Heppner said that target will have to change...

Instead of the old targets, the province will adopt federal targets, which call for a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, she said.

Of course, there's no explanation as to why there would be any reason for reduced economic activity to lead to higher emissions than planned. But now that the Wall government has predictably taken the first excuse available to trash what had been a bipartisan consensus on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any attempt to use environmental consciousness as an excuse for the rest of the Sask Party's agenda can only look all the more hollow.

On protecting one's own

Jeff's post today offers a useful jumping-off point to toss in my two cents' worth on Ray Lam's resignation as a B.C. NDP candidate. But while I agree with Jeff that there's plenty of reason for concern with both parties' actions, I have to figure (in what's surely a rare result) that he's underestimating how problematic the B.C. NDP's response was.

Let's start off with a bit more detail on how the B.C. Libs first tried to attack over the pictures of Lam:

"This is someone who is running to represent the people of Vancouver-False Creek in Victoria, at a time when we have really critical issues, like crime and the economy," said Mary McNeil, the Liberal candidate in the riding.

But the sheer emptiness of McNeil's rhetoric is obvious. There's not the slightest reason why Lam's ability to deal with those issues would be affected by the photos, and indeed it's McNeil that spared no effort in deflecting attention from her own government's record to try to make the election about her opponent's social life.

And the Libs' response managed to get even less credible from there, as McNeil's posturing was followed by the even more laughable spectacle of Gordon Campbell - yes, that Gordon Campbell - having the sheer gall to bash Lam's judgment.

Now, from my standpoint the proper response on the part of the NDP should be twofold. First, point out that it's the opposition that's trying desperately to distract from real issues with meaningless distractions (all the while ignoring its own glass house on the subject). And ask how plausible it is to suggest that nobody in the Libs has had a minute of fun since crime and the economy became issues - not to mention whether you'd want a government that was made up of the type of automatons that would be required to meet that standard.

Second and more importantly, rally around the duly nominated candidate who was facing an unprovoked, baseless attack. Which is where the NDP unfortunately seem to have plenty left to learn.

Of course, there's every reason for a party to drop a candidate who faces actual substantive ethical concerns. And I certainly wouldn't want the NDP to fall into the pattern of thinking that there's absolutely no degree of moral or ethical failing that shouldn't be papered over for the sake of a party's image. (See Vitter, David; Craig, Larry; Canada, Conservative Party of.)

But by dropping Lam as a candidate, I'd argue that the NDP sent an extremely dangerous message in the opposite direction: that anybody whose youth was photographed should steer clear of the party, as they can't count on any defence against even the most frivolous of public smears.

Which has both immediate and long-term consequences. One certainly wouldn't expect Lam or his personal friends or supporters to stay involved with much enthusiasm in the rest of the campaign, and there's no way of knowing how many other potential candidates (and their own networks) might see the example as reason to stay away. And ironically enough, Lam's example may mean that anybody who might have similar photos in their past will see more potential for a future in politics in the B.C. Libs - since while they'll only be even quicker to go after NDP candidates based on Lam's precedent, they're almost certainly willing to put up with (and vigorously defend) worse among their own.

All of which means that for the sake of avoiding the inconvenience of defending the harmless against the absurd, the B.C. NDP has tossed away a democratically-nominated candidate, and sent a signal which will only encourage even more pointless diversions from their efforts to build momentum.

I've said before that I don't think it'll be long before the political scene does adjust in large part to fact that minutiae about candidates may be easily accessible by developing far more accurate standards as to what actually serves to disqualify candidates. And at least one provincial NDP wing is well on its way to making a similar non-story into the embarrassment for the party's opponents that it deserved to be. But unfortunately, Carole James has missed a golden opportunity to help turn the tide - and we can only hope that her party and province won't suffer as a result.

Missing the point

Shorter Globe and Mail editorial board:

We're all for electoral reform - just as long as it doesn't do anything to lessen the likelihood of a false majority.

On hackery

With a month and a half left to go in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, there's plenty of time for new entries in the battle for the least insightful commentary on the contest. But Murray Mandryk's latest column looks to be a strong contender.

Looking for a single mention of any candidate aside from Dwain Lingenfelter? You won't find that in Mandryk's pontifications.

But if you'd like to theorize (a) that it's somehow a bad thing for the party that Lingenfelter has made some efforts to appeal to the left rather than running solely on a platform of "resistance is futile", and (b) that a single YouTube video from a new and anonymous user somehow represents evidence of an irreparable split in the NDP, then Mandryk has just the kind of content-free NDP-bashing you're looking for.

Walk AND chew gum? At the same time?

Sure, Ron Cannan's earth-shakingly classless segue deserved all the criticism it attracted. But perhaps the more telling recent statement of the state of the Cons can be found in Leon Benoit's pitch to use the Cons' stacked deck to avoid a nomination challenge. Shorter Benoit:

I'm utterly incapable of carrying out more than one task at a time. But fortunately, your doing nothing will allow me to stick to the trained-seal duties which I so enjoy.

h/t to Pundits' Guide.

The reviews are in

The Ottawa Citizen:

For too long the federal government, to its shame, has denied and avoided evidence about the dangers of chrysotile asbestos, a product that Canada mines and exports around the world.

The new release of a Health Canada report, documenting as it does a "strong relationship" between lung cancer and exposure to chrysotile asbestos, means the government can rationalize its irresponsible behaviour no longer, and must finally ban these exports. Canada's reputation as a moral player on the international stage is being jeopardized by its willingness to ship asbestos to some of the poorest parts of the world.
...
Canada's willingness to peddle asbestos to the world's most vulnerable populations, all for the sake of a few dollars in Quebec, is a long-standing disgrace. The current federal government is notorious for its ability to dismiss empirical data and the counsel of scientific experts, but perhaps the Health Canada report will be one study that even this government will be too embarrassed to ignore.

Burning question

Since when does a single leader get to decide on his own to shut down a political party rather than "(letting) anyone else have it"?

Making the best of it

It's perhaps not surprising that Jack Layton's new message of trying to work within the current Parliament is being dismissed by Lib supporters - as if any other response could have been expected. But those trying to draw any link between Layton and the Libs' track record of propping up the Cons may want to take a closer look at what he actually said:

The House of Commons should spend the next couple of months focusing on reforms to employment insurance and pensions, not electioneering, NDP Leader Jack Leader (sic) says.

It's a significant change in tactics for Mr. Layton, who portrayed himself as executioner-in-chief of the Harper Conservatives through a raucous winter run that threatened to topple the minority government at every turn.

On Monday, the NDP Leader marked the return of Parliament after a two-week Easter break with a public, 15-minute pep talk to his MPs and party workers, in which he spoke about the toll the recession is taking on Canadians.

The carefully staged, bear-pit speech was noticeably devoid of anything that could be construed as a threat to the survival of Stephen Harper's minority government.
...
“Get moving on it prime minister, work with us to implement the changes that must happen and must happen now,” Mr. Layton told his caucus, clutching a cordless microphone in one hand, stabbing a finger at the news cameras with his other.

Just last December, Mr. Layton ordained that the time was ripe for a change of government. But he was far more circumspect in his interview Monday after two weeks of town hall meetings with voters.

“What I heard [Canadians] say is that they want action,” Mr. Layton said.

“And they want action now, not off in the future when someone deigns to ordain that something should happen in Canadian politics, months and months away from now.”

Now, the Libs are obviously looking to mock the NDP's strategic shift in a vacuum. But let's keep in mind the political context which they've helped to create.

After all, with the Libs sending signals that they may be willing to look at an election this fall at the earliest, the likelihood of the current Parliament coming to an end over the next couple of months is nil. And that's so regardless of the path which the NDP pursues.

From that starting point, it then makes sense to acknowledge that Michael Ignatieff has thrown away any prospect of replacing the Cons with a better government, and look to minimize the damage caused by the Libs' choice to leave Harper in power.

Naturally, that can best be accomplished by focusing on areas like EI where the opposition is in substantial agreement in principle to maximize the pressure on Harper - which also means that the NDP won't be caught in the Libs' predicament of supporting any confidence measure on its own. And it also demands that the NDP take an active role in pushing the Harper government toward better policy outcomes, rather than taking the Libs' position that Canadians don't deserve anything better than an accounting of how Harper chooses to run amok.

In sum, the NDP's newest message doesn't mean for a second that the Cons will be left in power a second longer than can be avoided. But it does reflect the best possible chance of salvaging some positive results from a Parliament dominated thus far by the Libs' giant sucking vortex of uselessness. And while that's far from an ideal result for any progressive Canadian, it's about all anybody can hope to accomplish as long as the Libs have ruled out a coalition or an election.

Lessons learned

Shorter Andrew Steele teaching math:
The group of consumers who will pay more in HST once tax harmonization goes through in Ontario is "broader" than the group of consumers plus employers who pay the PST now.

And shorter Andrew Steele teaching logic:
There's no difference at all between shifting a tax on manufacturers alone so that it applies to consumers, and shifting a tax which already applies to employers and consumers alike so that it hits only the latter.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Out in force

Of course, while some in the media kvetch about the federal NDP's supposed absence from the public eye, the party itself has been in the midst of two major task forces dealing with the economic issues now facing Canadians. So let's note the Star Phoenix' report on Nathan Cullen's stop in Saskatoon:

From rebuilding railways to increased research funding, a handful of federal NDP party members were in Saskatoon during the weekend to envision green solutions to the economic crunch.

"The concern I have is that folks will simply say this is beyond us, that this is greater than us," Nathan Cullen, a British Columbia NDP MP, said in a speech to Saskatoon-Humboldt NDP members.

The federal NDP is in the middle of a cross-Canada trek aimed at polling the grassroots for ideas on how to create environmental initiatives to lessen the impact of a faltering economy. The project is dubbed the New Democrat Taskforce on Economic Recovery.

In Saskatoon, discussion focused on restoring the rail system, research and public transit.
...
Across the country, dialogue has centred around building codes, energy sources and transit in the cities, said Cullen.

The MP's Saskatoon stop included trips to a wind farm and to the Confederation Inn in Saskatoon, a business that is using solar energy to heat water at the hotel.
...
Cullen says Saskatchewan's Conservative MPs need to support green initiatives both in the province and in Ottawa.

He points to one consultant he met who is based in Saskatoon, but does most of his business in Manitoba because the province has more support for environmental initiatives.

Other Canadian companies have left for "greener" pastures in Europe.

"I know, federally, we had an alternative energy program killed. People are confused," Cullen said.

Of course, the likelihood of Con MPs actually taking any stand for the environment looks to be remote at best. But the more the NDP is able to highlight the need to tie economic recovery to sustainable industries, the the better the chances that the Cons can either be pushed to do more than they would on their own, or be removed from any position to keep damaging the prospects of a green economy.

A needed introduction

Angelo Persichilli, meet Google News. I trust you'll take the time to get acquainted before writing another column which cites your own ignorance as evidence of your point.

Leadership 2009 - Week in Review, April 19

After the first of two weeks of debates and with the membership deadline less than a week away, the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race still seems to be getting little mainstream attention - with media coverage seeming to happen late if at all. But in the blogosphere, things are starting to heat up with a couple of the more pointed posts I've seen so far.

Of course, I'm all for ensuring that the candidates get properly vetted and tested during the course of the leadership race. But I'll also offer a reminder of the outcome we're all hoping for from the candidate whose campaign has been the most adversarial at times:

Higgins said the NDP leadership race is strengthening the party overall.

When asked who she would support for party leader if she were not to win, Higgins said it’s too early for her to make such an endorsement, as she believes she has a very strong chance of winning.

However, whoever wins the leadership race, Higgins said all candidates will get behind the leader and work with the party for the betterment of Saskatchewan.

Needless to say, that result is one that everyone in the NDP should be aiming for once the leadership race is done. And ideally the candidates' coming together behind the eventual winner will also encourage their supporters to do the same.

But to bring that about, it's worth keeping the candidates' recruiting efforts for the next week (and persuading efforts until June) focused on positive ideas which can form a basis for a common vision - lest disputes over the points of difference between the leadership candidates (as important as those may be) otherwise make it more difficult to unite as a party once the race is done.

Counted

The Ottawa Citizen reports on the voting records of the parties in Parliament since Michael Ignatieff took over the Libs. And about the best one can say for the Libs is that they don't always show up to do their desired damage in supporting the Cons:

Despite leader Michael Ignatieff’s vow that his party would no longer sit on its hands during votes in Parliament, Liberal MPs have missed three times as many votes in the House of Commons so far this year as Conservative members...

The Liberals posted the worst record for voting of the four parties in the House, standing to be counted fewer times on average than even Bloc Quebecois MPs.

And when Liberal MPs did show up, they voted the same way as the Conservatives 79 per cent of the time.

By contrast, Bloc MPs supported the government on only 14 per cent of votes. With the exception of a few MPs on one motion, NDP members voted against the Conservatives at every chance. Most of the votes where the Liberals aligned with the Tories were related to the budget.

How to be heard

John Snobelen's column today deals primarily with the Ontario PC leadership race. But his message on the importance of participating in party-level politics rings equally true for the Saskatchewan NDP contest:

In our system, leadership matters. Who the premier is makes an enormous difference in how life goes in Ontario. But unless you live in the riding of the leader of the successful party in the next election your only chance to vote directly for or against a leader happens during the leadership selection process.

Most of us decline the opportunity.

But few of us are slow to ask "who picks these people."

I think that's sad. You don't have to join a political party to exercise your right to vote in an election but you do if you want a say in the selection of the leader.
...
I'd like to think that most people just don't know what a huge difference they could make as a party member.

Until more of us figure that out, a few thousand people will go on picking the leaders, the local candidates and the platforms that determine the future of the province. They will decide what new programs to offer and how tax money will be spent.

Some will be long-time party supporters. Many will be encouraged to join by their trade union or professional association. Some will be recruited by their faith community. These are the few who have figured it out; when you join a party you get heard.

Of course, it's not yet too late for anybody interested in the NDP's race to join the party and get a direct say in the leadership race. And hopefully plenty more interested voters will take up that opportunity rather than regretting having stayed on the sidelines when the June convention rolls around.

Update: Chrystal has a different take on Snobelen's column. But I'd have to wonder how recognition of the degree of power that party leaders hold (which itself does vary from party to party) would make for a reason not to get involved in deciding who actually exercises the ability to dictate a party's direction.