Not good

Most of the commentary on Stephen Harper's interview with the Globe and Mail has focused on Harper's declaration that as far as he's concerned, any taxes are too many. But maybe even more remarkable is interviewer Eric Reguly's response to exactly that point:

Reguly: Do you regret cutting the GST now?

Harper: No, not at all.

Reguly: No?

Harper: No, it's ... First of all, I believe cutting all taxes is good policy, okay? I... I'm of the school that... You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes. It's important to remember when we cut the full two points of the GST, the budget was still in surplus. Anyone who says we put the budget in deficit by cutting the GST is wrong. I also think cutting the GST had some important effects. I think it's important to say why it was a good policy, besides fulfilling an electoral commitment to cut the GST, um... besides being a tax cut which as I say is good in and of itself. The problem at the time we cut the second point of GST was making sure we sustained consumer spending during what appeared to be a recession elsewhere. And all the evidence is that that was actually pretty effective, that we sustained consumer spending pretty late in the game. In fact consumer spending didn't drop in Canada until very near the end of 2008. So I think it was good policy. And I also think as well it was fair. I mean part of our tax cut package is to make sure you cut taxes for everyone. The GST is the one tax everybody pays. And cutting the GST, cutting a highly visible tax like the GST, was a strong sign of credibility to the population at large that we were serious about cutting taxes.

Reguly: Good.

Harper: Yeah.

Now, I can think of more than a few ways that this answer invited serious followup questioning. And that goes well beyond the most obvious response of "No taxes are good taxes? So your bottom line is that government should pay for and do absolutely nothing?"

One could challenge the assertion that the GST cuts were completely unrelated to the Harper government's mounting deficits when at the time of the January budget, they perfectly matched up with Canada's projected red ink. One could listen to the CAITI company line (however single-minded that may be) to point out an example of taxes being increased under Harper. One could point out that even Harper's chief of staff has admitted that the GST cut was an asinine move if one cares about "economic evidence" rather than political calculation. Or maybe point out that between the second GST cut and the recession which it was supposedly intended to plan for, Harper spent the better part of an election campaign pretending that the recession which he now claims the cut ws aimed at forestalling was utterly impossible (at least as long as he kept power). Or if one's preference is simply to talk about underlying phliosophies, the nature of the GST would also seem to be ripe for questioning: is it really as universal is Harper says, and more importantly should it be if that means adding to the costs associated with the necessities of life for Canadians who can't afford it?

Any of those would actually offer a prospect of actually inviting some genuine give-and-take about Harper's policies and prior statements - you know, what one might have called "journalism" a few decades ago. But instead, Eric Reguly's followup was..."Good".

"Good".

Not even with any apparent sense of "Okay, let's move on to another more important topic", as Reguly apparently left enough time interject a cheer for himself in response. Instead, the exchange reads with an underlying tone of "That's enough for me to put a check mark next to 'taxes'. Thanks for continuing to insult the intelligence of our readers".

Which of course fits nicely with Harper's usual PR strategy of counting on being able to sell his own message, secure in the knowledge that even the most compelling refutation won't receive enough play to move the needle of public opinion as far as his own messages. But the more the corporate media keeps playing right into Harper's hands, the less credible it's bound to become.

Musical interlude

Delerium - Truly (Wise Buddah Radio Edit)

Challenging assumptions

A reader points out the news that the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a policy banning political messages on transit advertising (a policy which was replicated in Regina around the 2007 provincial election).

Now, I agree entirely with the view that there's absolutely no reason why a political message shouldn't be permitted where a commercial ad would be - and on that basis there's no problem with the Supreme Court's decision. But I'd see the deeper issue as one which dovetails nicely with the question of whether the Canadian left is doing enough to offer a real alternative to the corporatist philosophy: namely, is there any good reason why public transit should serve as a commercial billboard both inside and out?

The buck stops anywhere but here

While there's been no lack of discussion about Stephen Harper's use of the international stage to launch a completely ill-informed attack on Michael Ignatieff (since he probably can't find any difference on anything of substance), I haven't yet seen anybody point out the fact that it happened in the same speech where Harper offered up this mock outrage:

"Sombody running an unsubstantiated story that I would stick communion bread in my pocket is really absurd and I think it's a real, frankly, a low point, this is a low moment in journalism, whoever is responsible for this. It's just a terrible story and a ridiculous story and not based on anything as near as I can tell."

So in summary, he's all about the accountability for anybody who gives mainstream life to utterly unsubstantiated stories. Except when they come from his own mouth, in which case it's all Dimitri's fault.

Update: CC has more.

Ambushed

Never mind that he went voluntarily to a socon news outlet to pitch the story that one of his partymates had been punished for failing to discriminate against the gay community. Now that the whole incident has proven an embarrassment, Brad Trost is outraged that anybody would have any follow-up questions:

After the interview was over, Trost accused the StarPhoenix reporter of "ambushing" him with questions about the issue and pressed the stop button on her voice recorder.

Update: BigCityLib has more.

Roots, not stars

Murray Dobbin has started an interesting discussion as how much room there is for improvement in the development of a meaning-oriented progressive community. But while noting there's still a long way left to go, one has to like the philosophy being followed by the main voice for that movement, as the NDP looks to build on its developing strength in Quebec:

Questionné à savoir si une seconde victoire en sol québécois ne passerait pas plutôt par la présentation d'un autre candidat vedette, le chef néo-démocrate a réitéré sa position selon laquelle il cherchait avant tout des personnes connues et impliquées localement.

"On ne cherche pas des vedettes, on cherche des racines, a-t-il lancé. Ça prend du temps, changer les choses."

Or roughly translated:

Asked whether a second Quebec victory will only happen with another star candidate, the NDP leader reiterated that above all he's looking for candidates who are known and respected locally.

"We're not looking for stars, we're looking for roots," he said. "It takes time to change things."

Not that it hurts matters to have a few big names in the mix - and the NDP did better in that department in 2008 than it had in decades.

But the longer-term outlook of a party is bound to be based primarily on its deeper connections to the broader public rather than on the presence of a few stars within its ranks. And hopefully the NDP's development of roots in Quebec and across the country will bear fruit in the form of a more engaged and involved movement to boost both the party and its progressive ideals across the country.

(h/t to Pundits' Guide.)

Deep thought

My first reaction to somebody with a reckless habit of playing with fire wouldn't be to keep him in charge of the matches.

What Simon said

The CCPA's Simon Enoch takes on the Sask Party's push toward a flat tax:

Economic modeling of flat tax proposals in the United States demonstrates that flat tax proposals shift the tax burden predominantly to the middle class. Similar results have been identified in Alberta. In essence the middle class pays more and receives less, particularly as former exemptions and reductions are eliminated in the name of “simplicity.” Not exactly the model of “tax fairness” that flat tax proponents claim.

Of equal concern is the effect such a tax would have on income inequality. Saskatchewan is already experiencing growing income inequality as the CCPA’s Growing Gap Project demonstrates. Reducing the amount of tax that the richest among us pay would only exacerbate this troubling trend. The economic and social costs of reduced social cohesion that income inequality generates are immense. According to British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, the bigger the income gap, the worse the rates of mental illness, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, homicide, incarceration and reduced life expectancies. Conversely, more equal societies tend to display higher levels of trust, reduced levels of stress and greater attachment to community.

Your daily debunking

Jim Harding eviscerates the spin applied by the UDP and the pro-nuke contingent as to the direction of the industry around the globe:

The Uranium Development Partnership (UDP), however, wants to perpetuate the “nuclear bubble”. What it calls “potential new nuclear capacity additions by 2020” is based on very tardy and manipulative “research”. It lists only 31 plants actually under construction, anywhere, and if you check the “Nuclear Status Report” you’ll find 11 of these have been under construction for more than 20 years. This is called “stacking the statistics.” The UDP then combines “anticipated” with “planned” reactors, a very unreliable category, to squeeze out 173 more possible plants. This includes 35 for North America, which is very farfetched, and an extreme example of the “400 % exaggeration factor”, for a recent assessment in the wake of the credit crunch and growing U.S. opposition to further nuclear loan guarantees, has only 3 new plants by 2015.

In small print we find the UDP’s sources include “press releases” and “nuclear industry publications”. We should rightly ask how, with $3 million funding from the public, the UDP was able to avoid doing original research prior to making recommendations now being brought to public “consultations”.

Of course, by the "count anything that's even been suggested" standard, the UDP would figure to have included roughly five new reactors in Saskatchewan as part of its list.

Meanwhile, ScruffyDan points out that there are serious reliability issues associated with nuclear power generation - particularly for inland reactors which rely on river water for cooling purposes. So it's lucky for us that the Wall government is willing to give the province such a great deal on its oceanfront property near Lloydminster to avoid that problem.

One day, this could all be ours

We'd sure hate to miss out on the chance to have stories like this coming from Saskatchewan's largest city:

AECL officials said Wednesday the Chalk River leak itself is a tremendously challenging engineering problem.

For one thing, it is at the bottom of the tank nine metres below the nearest access point and that access point is nothing but a small hole just 12 centimetres in diameter. AECL must design special tools that can squeeze through that access point and then navigate to the bottom of the reactor vessel — a vessel filled with a tangle of tubes, wires, and the reactor core itself — and then complete a tricky welding and repair job in a highly radioactive, dangerous environment.

The cone shaped vessel that houses the reactor's core is about 3.5 metres tall and 3.5 metres in diameter. The vessel itself is encased in a larger structure.

"I've heard it described as . . . trying to change the oil in your car from your living room," said David Cox, the director of the NRU repair project. "We're faced with conducting remote investigations in a radioactive environment with high radiation fields, conducting the examinations and inspections through small openings in the top of the reactor and accessing, over great distances. So it's technically challenging."

And all this with a minister responsible agitating to get the unit back in service as quickly as possible even though it's already had to be shut down twice in a year and a half.

In fairness, of course, that's not the only possible outcome: a new isotope reactor could just flat out be unfit for service to begin with after a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars thrown away. So what's not to like?

Strong public opposition vs. weak private government

Shorter Brad Wall:

Why, of course I'll take into account any dissent that I hear against my plan to force an isotope-generating reactor on the province without the slightest bit of public consultation. But for some reason, I can't make any out over the sound of my own cheerleading.

On overheated rhetoric

Shorter National Post editorial board:

BREAKING: A single overstated phrase in a Sheila Copps column proves conclusively that everybody to the left of Ted Morton hates Canada and considers it hell on earth without any supporting evidence. We now return to our regularly-scheduled column on how human rights commissions are worse than Hitler.

Liberaservatives for Voldemort

In case there was any doubt where Republicans for Ignatieff originates (particularly in the face of the server-based evidence), one need look no further than the text on that site which comes straight from the Cons' talking points about Stephen Harper. (Exactly how many New Democrats would one expect to hear praising the fact that Harper is "charting Canada's own course" to oblivion on the international scene?) In contrast, this nicely points out the fact that actual Republicans are probably equally happy regardless of whether it's Harper or Ignatieff in charge.

Planning for failure

While Canada's political scene is abuzz with discussion about the Cons' most recent wave of reckless and chaotic spending as epitomized by the Marquee Tourism Events program, Stephen Harper is apparently determined to make sure that any future wave of stimulus is similarly rushed rather than allowing for any intelligent planning:

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper downplayed the need for a second round of stimulus spending, as suggested by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, saying the priority should be to ensure countries are meeting their initial pledges.

"My own thought is before there's talk of additional stimulus, I would urge all leaders to focus first on making sure the stimulus that's been announced actually gets delivered," said Harper. "That's been our focus in Canada and I would encourage the same priority elsewhere."

Harper's government believes a recovery will take hold in 2010, and with the recession turning a corner, it's time for leaders to work through coordinated actions to wind down some of the extraordinary spending programs.

Now, it would be fair enough if Harper's position were simply one that the federal government should be planning for all possible contingencies. But contrasting his statement that we shouldn't even talk about additional stimulus with his government's public push for an "exit strategy" from the current round, it's clear that Harper's aim is something different entirely.

Instead, Harper's position looks to be exactly the same one which forced his government into its current panicked and ineffective stimulus package in the first place. Rather than making any effort to be prepared for any further economic downturn, he's stubbornly proclaiming that the recession which he said could never come is now over - and concurrently refusing to lay the groundwork for additional stimulus which might actually have some greater prospect of accomplishing anything positive than his government's current haphazard efforts. And it shouldn't come as much surprise if a few months down the road, we end up with an even worse excuse for a stimulus package as Harper tries to compensate for being proven wrong once again.

A theme worth repeating

Paul Wells:

While Colleague ITQ tries to make head or tail of the Ablonczy/Pride fiasco, here’s a little background on the miserably ill-conceived, comically shoddily administered Marquee Tourism Events program from which the money to Toronto Pride flowed.
...
In the end, as one furious Citizen columnist pointed out, this particular Marquee Tourism Event ended up producing an Event That Cannot Possibly Have Attracted Any Tourists, because one simply doesn’t wake up in, say, Cleveland and say, “You mean Terence Blanchard is in Ottawa tonight? By God, if I hurry I just might make it.”

The point of the Marquee Tourism Event, as with the veritable bazaar being run out of Canadian Heritage these days, is to buy back some of the peace and quiet the Harper government lost last year with all that unfortunate business about cuts to assorted arts programs on the eve of the federal election. That led to unpleasant electoral consequences. So this year, James Moore and assorted substitutes have been shovelling money off the back of a truck in a bid to win back the affection of people who want taxpayer money to support arts and culture. But the really big money is over at MTE, in Industry. I had an executive at one of the program’s biggest recipients tell me he was not entirely sure how to spend all the cash that had been dumped on him, because — at the risk of repeating a theme — he hadn’t been given enough time to make many intelligent decisions.

On family matters

One more side of the Diane Ablonczy demotion which doesn't seem to have received much attention yet is the potential for the incident to inflame rifts among the Cons themselves as well as confirming the party's intolerance to outside observers. And David Akin neatly wraps up plenty of internal problems in one paragraph:

More than a dozen Conservative MPs responded to questions from Canwest News Service about Trost's criticisms but most either did not want to comment or did not want to be identified. Two MPs, who requested anonymity for fear of being disciplined by the PMO, said the issue was discussed at a closed-door caucus meeting in June and that Ablonczy was criticized by several MPs about the grant.

Internal bigotry? Check. Abject fear of the leader in place of any respect for the decisions made? Check. Anonymous backbiting? Check.

So will the always-tenuous marriage of convenience between the Cons' bigot wing and their image-conscious pols be the first one to actually suffer due to GLBT pride?

This here Facebook thingamabob may just be a keeper

Not surprisingly, Noah Evanchuk's campaign for the federal NDP's nomination in Palliser is looking to build on the online support mechanisms used effectively by the Meili and Pedersen campaigns in the provincial leadership race. And all signs are positive so far - as a page which just went live last night already boasts 120 supporters and counting.

Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan NDP as a whole has also unveiled a new page in the last month. And for those keeping track, the NDP has accumulated 396 supporters so far - compared to only 172 for the Saskatchewan Party caucus page which has been around for months.

Update: Jason rightly points out another Saskatchewan Party group with just under 600 members - which oddly seems to be in a state of disuse compared to the caucus page with a third as many followers. But nonetheless, let's take this as a challenge: how long will it take the NDP's new page to overtake that number?

Irresponsible

Stephen LaRose rightly notes in comments that my earlier post didn't focus on the reason for Diane Ablonczy's now-confirmed demotion. And there's certainly no doubt that to the extent Ablonczy was punished for daring to fund Toronto's Pride Parade through the Marquee Tourism Events Program which has been removed from her portfolio, that would seem to reflect the worst possible fears about the Cons' most bigoted voices having full control over the party.

But it's worth noting as well that even to the extent some other explanation is forthcoming (and the Cons' first attempt at spin is being met with due derision), there are still serious issues in the facts which the Cons have already conceded to be true. At the time of my earlier post, the odd part was the inability of Ablonczy's department to speak to what responsibilities it actually held.

And that issue is only amplified based on what's come out since. Now, by even the Cons' own account, the Harper government transferred ministerial responsibility and authority for a nine-figure program without informing the public.

Mind you, there's never been much doubt that Harper's ministers tend to lack any real freedom to make substantial decisions. But that doesn't mean they don't still bear an obligation to answer publicly for their responsibilities. And there would seem to be serious potential for fundamental breakdowns in accountability if the Harper government is actually changing those responsibilities behind the scenes and refusing to let Canadians know who's actually in charge of any given part of the federal government.

Which means that as important as the Cons' anti-gay bias is as an issue (as thoroughly documented elsewhere), the incident also highlights a separate problem with the Cons' continued disdain for responsible government. And both factors look to me to offer strong evidence that it's long past time to remove the Harper Cons from power.

In title only

Leaving aside the sheer hilarity of the appointed spokeshill for the Cons saying only that Diane Ablonczy hasn't been fired as Tourism Minister "as far as he knows", doesn't it speak volumes that Ablonczy herself is deferring to a Tony Clement staffer rather than being allowed to answer questions about whether she's still in charge?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On outreach

One more follow-up note on last night's Douglas Park nomination meeting as discussed here: while LRT is right to note that Dwain Lingenfelter's public message hasn't changed much from the leadership campaign, it's worth noting that under his direction the party is making plenty of efforts to reach out to different groups including the blogging community. And the first indication of that can be found in Buckdog's newly-posted interview with Lingenfelter.

On turnout

LRT has already nicely covered the Regina Douglas Park nomination meeting last night where Dwain Lingenfelter was formally nominated for the upcoming by-election. But I'll take a moment to expand on one of the points reported in LRT's post.

Included in the crowd of 200 was a who's who within the NDP across the province: a strong majority of the current caucus was in attendance, along with a lengthy list of former MPs and MLAs and a strong contingent from Saskatoon featuring Saskatoon Riversdale candidate Danielle Chartier. Which means that the good news is that there's no concern at all about unity among the party's stalwarts - a fact which was reinforced by the presence of Brendan Pyle (one of Ryan Meili's Regina co-chairs) as one of Lingenfelter's nominators, as well as a reference in Lingenfelter's speech to the party's priority of achieving gender balance in the NDP's candidates and MLAs as championed by Deb Higgins in the leadership race. (And yes, Higgins was one of the MLAs in attendance.)

But there's somewhat of a flip side to that distribution of audience members. While it was undoubtedly a plus to see plenty of bigger names and out-of-riding members in attendance, it was noteworthy that the actual Douglas Park numbers seemed relatively low: only a handful of riding members moved or seconded motions (often after some prodding), and a minority of attendees raised their hands to vote when that was required.

That distribution within the crowd may be understandable given that there wasn't too much concern about a challenge to Lingenfelter, and the slightly larger numbers at the Saskatoon Riversdale meeting might reflect the fact that more members will be inclined to turn out in a riding which is seen as more likely to face a contested nomination. But I'd still think the high proportion of household names and imports to riding-level members signals that there's plenty of work to be done in developing a broader base of support to go with the top-level turnout - and that seems just as true in longtime strongholds like Regina Douglas Park as in the rural areas which Lingenfelter is rightly concerned with rebuilding.

(Edit: Revised wording of second paragraph - see comments.)

Nettie returns

After posting about possible Regina nominations this morning, I'd planned to deal with the situation in Saskatoon over the next few days. And the latest set of nomination notes from the Pundits' Guide include one excellent piece of news for the NDP on that front, as Nettie Wiebe is planning to take another shot at Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar:

A reader writes to say that three-time NDP candidate Nettie Wiebe is set to give it one more try in the forthcoming election. The former president of the National Farmers' Union had increased her vote share from 26% to 44% between 2004 and 2008, and came within just 262 votes (the 12th closest race of the last election) of winning the seat...

At public expense

It's no great surprise that there's more to Jim Flaherty's use of public resources to direct money toward a right-wing think tank than meets the eye. But Joe Kuchta has uncovered a few details that I wouldn't have seen coming.

In particular, there's the fact that Crowley was getting paid out of federal coffers at exactly the time when he was founding the propaganda machine which Flaherty is now pushing:

On November 7, 2006, Rob Wright, Deputy Minister of Finance, announced that Crowley had been appointed the 2006-2007 Clifford Clark Visiting Economist in the Department of Finance.

And in case there was any doubt that Crowley was in the position for the balance of 2007, Crowley's own current think tank proudly proclaims that he held the post until 2008:

Dated: 20/3/08

Halifax – Brian Lee Crowley, the founding president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), has returned to head the public policy think tank.

Crowley was seconded a year and a half ago to the country’s most prestigious economic policy advisory post in Ottawa: the Clifford Clark Visiting Economist in the federal Department of Finance.

Which makes it highly significant that he was working for the Cons' government at public expense at the time the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was officially founded:

Corporations Canada records show that the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act - Part II on March 12, 2007. The directors at the time of incorporation or as indicated on the last annual summary as of March 31 of the year of filing were: Brian Lee Crowley, David McD. Mann, and Allan Gotlieb.

So to the extent Flaherty is now using his office to shill for the Institute, it wouldn't appear to be the first time public resources found their way into backing the group. Instead, Crowley set up the group while he was personally paid to work for the public.

Not surprisingly, Joe also digs up details about contracts directed toward another Crowley company, as well as donations from Crowley to the Cons. But it seems most damning that the the public isn't just paying for Flaherty to promote the Macdonald-Laurier Institute now, but apparently bore the cost of getting Crowley to set it up in the first place.

On deep benches

Since I posted last week about Noah Evanchuk's intention to seek the NDP nomination for Palliser, there's been a flurry of discussion about impending nomination possibilities. So let's take a closer look at what we might see in Regina's other ridings.

To start with, it's worth noting that at least two of the three other local ridings have strong 2008 candidates who (to my knowledge at least) haven't ruled out running again. In Regina Qu'Appelle, Janice Bernier held onto the 32% share of the vote won by former MP Lorne Nystrom in the previous two elections, and won nothing but accolades as a committed and adept campaigner. And in my home riding of Wascana, Stephen Moore likewise earned nothing but praise personally in holding the NDP's share of the vote at 15% despite a fevered battle between the Libs and Cons over Ralph Goodale's riding.

I'll assume for the moment that Fred Kress won't take another shot at Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre after stepping in at the last minute for Moe Kovatch in 2008. But even there, his success in similarly holding the NDP's share of the vote - despite his starting late, and facing a Liberal star candidate who crashed and burned - should make him a strong possibility if he does want to run again.

From that starting point, the question is how much turnover there might be before the next set of nominations. And more than a few people are tossing out suggestions.

Yens Pedersen in Regina Qu'Appelle? Doubtful, as everything I've heard suggests that he'll stick to the provincial scene, and I'd expect him to want to run in either a riding with a strong prospect of success or one where coming up short won't be seen as a mark against him. (In that respect, in an ideal scenario where the NDP made the federal scene its sole priority, it might be interesting if Pedersen were to say "yes" to Wascana: would a high-profile three-way race finally push Goodale to his tipping point, or even open the door for him to be beaten without going voluntarily?)

"Meili folks" in Regina Qu'Appelle and Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre? While I don't see Buckdog's post as actually making this suggestion, it could reenergize the party's Regina base in a hurry. That said, though, I wonder whether the Meili movement might be best focused on a couple of adjacent ridings rather than spreading itself into most or all of the ridings - allowing for the Meili supporters to put in a concentrated effort in the west or south of Regina, while freeing up the NDP's existing support base to work the other two ridings.

Putting all of the above together, the ideal scenario based on the names and ideas now in play might be something along the lines of Evanchuk in Palliser, another Meili stalwart in Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, and Bernier and Moore each taking a second shot at their respective ridings. But there's every possibility that other top candidates might surface from among Dwain Lingenfelter's personal connections, or be brought in thanks to the federal party's increased organizing efforts.

The question then would be how to fit that kind of talent into an already-strong slate. Which, needless to say, is not a bad problem for the NDP to face going into the next federal campaign - and hopefully it's one that will only get more complicated next time out thanks to the addition of incumbencies to the mix.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On rightthink

It shouldn't come as much surprise that Jim Flaherty's misuse of public resources to push money toward a corporatist think tank is far from the Cons' only recent propaganda move. So here are a couple of other developments worth noting.

First, the Cons are planning a "monument for the victims of Communism" - with the National Post of course cheerleading and demanding that they increase the proposed scope, rather than recognizing the slightest reason for concern at the state effectively declaring war on an idea.

And as already noted elsewhere, the Cons have rewritten federal websites to delete positive references to Vietnam-era draft dodgers and war resisters. Which probably makes a lot more sense as a matter of deleting any history which calls into question the view that anything and everything was justified to fight the Commies, rather than a legal strategy against current Iraq resisters.

Update: Dr. Dawg, Chrystal and Jennifer have more.

(h/t to @tidewaters on Twitter.)

On missed opportunities

According to the CP, Conservative MPs are rushing to take responsibility for sponsoring bills originating in the Senate in order to control their passage (or lack thereof) through the House of Commons. And the result is that even on bills like Mac Harb's proposed seal-hunt ban which the Cons spent months bashing and which didn't even find a seconder in the Senate, it's the Cons alone who have attached the names of actual elected officials as formal supporters.

Now, it would seem to me that there's an obvious response available to the Libs which would both expose the tactic and create substantial public leverage against the Cons. For each controversial bill already put forward, the simple answer would be to focus attention on the Cons' sponsor as supporting any the bill and let that MP explain to his or her constituents how the connection is only the result of the Cons gaming the system. And for an added bonus, the next step would be to put forward some bills designed to make the Cons squirm to see if they're reckless enough to keep rushing to sponsor the Libs' Senate legislation as a procedural tactic.

Instead, the Libs' response has been...to release a Dion-style complaint that it's all unfair. Which both fails completely to attach any cost to what Con MPs have done already, and gives the (correct) impression that the Cons are running circles around the Libs when it comes to turning the rules of procedure to their advantage. And that outcome only figures to reinforce the Libs' weakness when it comes to dealing with Harper's political tactics.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The first game of the season was definitely a positive one for the Saskatchewan Roughriders, who put a few of my worries to rest while beating one of the team's Western rivals. But while the 'Riders did what they needed to win on Friday, let's take a look at what the opener might say about the team's chances later on.

The main story in coverage of the B.C. game was the 'Riders' defence, and with good reason. So much for my theories that Omarr Morgan may have lost the quickness to disrupt an opponent's passing game or that Stevie Baggs might not hold his own on the end, as the two led a dominating performance featuring multiple interceptions and fumble recoveries to go with a jaw-dropping 9 quarterback sacks.

But there's one serious problem with trying to read too much into the 'Riders' defensive performance. By choice early in the game and out of necessity following Ian Smart's injury (leaving them only a banged-up Martell Mallett in his first CFL game at running back), the Lions effectively abandoned any attempt to run the ball - despite the fact that they were very successful when they tried, with their running backs averaging a combined 9.3 yards per carry.

Of course, the 'Riders could only defend against the offence facing them, and definitely rose to the challenge against the Lions. But Friday's game doesn't do anything to answer the questions surrounding the team's rush defence. And it stands to reason that the pass rush will have to be somewhat less aggressive when the 'Riders need to make adjustments in response to a team which sticks with the run.

Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan offence had serious turnover problems of its own throughout the game, leading to a bizarre disconnect where a team with 388 yards of offence didn't score a single touchdown on a series longer than 29 yards due primarily to turnovers at the end of what would have been long drives. But the good news is that there doesn't seem to be much about its performance that can't be repeated and improved as the season goes on.

In particular, while Darien Durant showed some inexperience in serving up three interceptions and two fumbles, he also managed to engineer plenty of impressive results - including five passing plays of 30+ yards to three different receivers. And while he'll need to work on ball control and consistency, those would figure to develop naturally as he gets more time at the controls. Though a healthier offensive line would certainly help, as the 'Riders finally seemed to hit their breaking point when Belton Johnson went down against B.C.

As for Durant's playmakers, running back Hugh Charles also showed his inexperience at times but had a few breakout plays of his own. And the receiving corps was stellar: while Weston Dressler was the obvious box-score standout, nearly every ball which was anything close to catchable seemed to find its way into the receiver's hands (which the 'Riders have seldom been able to take for granted in the past, and the Lions couldn't count on in this game). So while wasn't yet in top form, it gave every indication that it's capable of getting there as the season develops.

Finally, the special teams were largely nondescript aside from one blocked Jamie Boreham punt. Boreham and Luca Congi were otherwise solid, and while returner Eric Morris didn't manage to break any returns and may have trouble doing so as long as he relies on spin moves rather than being able to build up speed, he took good care of the ball and didn't do anything to hurt the team.

In sum, the 'Riders probably can't claim to have been fully tested on defence and aren't yet ready to get a top-of-the-class grade on offence. But in addition to gutting out a win, the team did show hints that it has room to improve as the season goes on - and particularly if the offence can move toward the upside it showed in the first game while cutting down on its giveaways, the 'Riders may well be on track to place near the top of the West.

On institutional bias

Oddly enough, this story about Jim Flaherty's effort to use both his name and his office to promote a right-wing think tank seems to have gone largely unnoticed other than in Linda McQuaig's recent column. But while the news may have escaped much attention in the midst of the latest confidence showdown, it's worth pointing out now as another example of how public resources are being misused by a Con government which apparently believes that the public sector exists only to further its political ends:

Tomorrow night, the country's Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, will host a private dinner at the Albany Club in Toronto to raise support for a new, non-partisan, private sector think tank. Called the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and designed to be national in scope but based in Ottawa, it is the creation of Brian Lee Crowley, currently president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax.

Mr. Flaherty is "giving it my personal backing," he says in a letter inviting well-heeled Bay Street types to the event "and I hope that you will consider doing the same."

Having spent several years in the capital, the minister says "I can speak with some authority when I say that driving change within Ottawa is not easy. There are powerful actors in Ottawa, within the civil service, Parliament, the media and in many non-governmental organizations, that actively resist progress. ... Although I have always felt very well supported by friends and colleagues, I have clearly felt the need for independent research, support and promotion of these ideals," which he enumerates as smaller government, lower taxes and greater personal responsibility.
...
The minister concludes his pitch to potential backers of the new think tank by saying: "I'd like to see him return with a strong, independent and well-financed organization behind him to help transform Ottawa for the better, regardless of who is in power. This important national initiative deserves to succeed. Please join me in ensuring that it does. My office will follow up with you."

Now, the first message worth taking away from Flaherty's statement is that the Cons are still pushing the paranoid style of politics when it comes to dealing with the civil service among other actors. And it can't escape notice that the sitting Finance Minister is trying to use the prestige associated with his office to whine about "powerful actors" who have the nerve to point out that public policy shouldn't be measured solely by how much wealth it transfers upward.

Needless to say, the inclusion of the civil service in the list looks all the more ridiculous in light of Flaherty's stated intention to put "his office" to use in twisting arms for Crowley, including by ensuring that the latest propaganda machine is "well-financed". And I'd have to wonder how that could make for anything but a glaring misuse of the public resources at Flaherty's disposal.

Which means that there's a definite need for followup as to just how much public time has been dedicated to Flaherty's private support for Crowley's group. And hopefully if the truth comes out, it'll go a long way toward ensuring removing Flaherty from any position where he's able to do anything similar in the future.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Speaking of the NDP Convention...

For those looking for the latest unofficial news on the NDP's convention in Halifax this summer, keep an eye on Devin's blog for details about the Tweet Up planned for the Saturday night, as well as a Twitter feed about the convention.

On rebranding

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the possibility of a party name change will be one of the significant topics for discussion at the NDP's upcoming convention in Halifax - with Ian Capstick making some of the case both for and against here. So I'll take the opportunity to wade in on the issue.

Off the top, I agree with the view that it's time to remove the "New" from the party name. In general the goal of a name should probably be to capture a party's long-term philosophy rather than ephemeral forces behind its creation. And the problem with focusing on initial "newness" is only highlighted once the term has formed part of a well-established party's name for upwards of four decades.

What about the choice between merely dropping the "New", and looking to add a "Social" or "Progressive"? It's probably true that either of those terms would be more descriptive when set out in full. But it's worth noting that a rebranding effort will also have to consider the new shorthand term for the party. And with a two-word lead-in, the end result would likely be another set of initials (SDP or PDP) or an abbreviation (SocDem or ProgDem) which is both less memorable and less positive than a single-word descriptor.

In contrast, "Democrat" alone as a shorthand for "Democratic Party" would set up the best possible footing to make sure that casual discussions about the party involve positive associations rather than neutral or negative ones.

That is, assuming that there isn't a problem to be found in confusing the party's brand with that of the U.S. Democrats. But just as I don't see the Obama phenomenon as much of a point in favour of trying to adopt the name, nor would I expect there to be too much trouble in maintaining a distinct identity - particularly given that the same faces now associated with the NDP would present the first public image of a Canadian Democratic Party.

Mind you, that also reflects an important reason to rein in any expectations as to what a rebranding will accomplish. After all, the expected continuity in the party would make for a difference from most of the recent party rebranding efforts which might be looked on as positive precedents, since those have tended to be combined with clear efforts to unite substantial elements of two or more parties. (See e.g. the Alliance and the Conservatives federally, and the Saskatchewan Party provincially.)

And I'd also want to be careful in throwing out too much of the NDP's branding during the course of a changeover. For example, while Capstick looks at a name change as a chance to drop orange as the NDP's main colour, I'd wonder whether there's much to be gained in that department given the lack of viable alternatives that aren't already associated with other parties. (About the best options would be either trying to elbow the Greens out of the colour which also forms their name, or switching to a yellow which wouldn't seem to be much of an improvement - and either of those would come at the expense of years of work based on concepts like Get Orange, the Orange Room, etc.)

In sum, I agree generally with Capstick's view that a name change should make for a net plus for the party. But it's important as well to be aware of the limits on what the change would accomplish - as it'll ultimately be the structure behind the brand that matters most in determining the party's success.

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board:

While half a world away gay citizens of India celebrated a historic high court ruling that denoted a vast advancement in their human rights, the Saskatchewan Party government was asking for a court's guidance on how to allow a group of public officials to discriminate against homosexuals.

Attorney General Don Morgan, himself a lawyer who owes the justice system more respect than to attempt to use it as a political cats-paw, announced Friday he's asking the Court of Appeal for an opinion on legislation that would allow marriage commissioners not to perform same-sex marriages if it's contrary to their religious beliefs.
...
It's difficult to imagine any other grounds for discrimination that the province's Justice Minister would seem worthy enough to seek a court reference.

Would the minister go to bat for a social conservative who objects, justified on grounds of "traditional values" or religion, to wed a mixed-race couple? How about a Hindu doctor who refuses to treat a person he believes to be of a lower caste?

The point is, in a secular society that goes to great lengths to separate people's personal religious beliefs from their performance of job duties in the public sphere, what Mr. Morgan is asking the court to do is reprehensible.

Musical interlude

Basement Jaxx - Do Your Thing

Noah Evanchuk to Seek Palliser NDP Nomination

One of the main questions coming out of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign was how much of the movement behind Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen would keep up its momentum once the leadership race was over. And there's some good news to report on that front: Noah Evanchuk, one of Meili's key Regina organizers, is planning to seek the NDP's nomination in the Palliser riding.

I'm not aware of a date being set for a nomination contest, and it could be that others will also come forward to contest a seat where Don Mitchell and Jo-Anne Dusel both put up strong second-place finishes in the last two elections following Dick Proctor's painfully close loss in 2004. But all indications are that Evanchuk is looking to build on Meili's model to take back Palliser for the federal party - and based on the structure that's already in place, there's plenty of reason to like his chances.

(Edit: Fixed typo.)

Cheque please

The Cons are apparently ensuring that while the rest of Canada's economy declines, the giant novelty cheque industry will continue to see exponential growth. But while the tactic might have seemed to have no downside in the past, the Photoshop era would seem to leave the Cons ripe for well-deserved scorn. So without further ado, a couple of easy ones to get started...

On measures of success

Douglas Bell's latest post is definitely worth a read in pointing out the perverse effects when power is put in the hands of anti-government parties. And it's true enough that a right-wing regime can effectively succeed in its long-term ideological goals by failing miserably as a government: every time it spends money recklessly, lies to the public, or puts its own interests ahead of those of the people it governs, it only helps to build a longer-term narrative that the public sector generally shouldn't be given any room to operate.

But it's worth noting the flip side to that, in that it's also impossible for that type of government to succeed completely in their goals or to maintain much of a shelf life.

As a general rule, the anti-government crowd is only able to take power when combined with a good-government message directed at perceived misuse of resources by a competing party. And while it all too often takes a term or two for that coalition to unravel after the former group takes over in power, it's essentially inevitable that those who restraint and good government will eventually find its way into another camp as a result of the abuses which inevitably flow from a party which thinks that if government can't do any good anyway, it had might as well use the public purse for its own ends. And that goes particularly once the previous concerns about another party become a thing of the past.

What if the good-governance crowd manages to take control? The obvious answer to that is that we'll deal with it if it ever happens, which seldom seems to be the case. But the tension would seem to be just as strong there. A responsible-government focus would prevent the governing party from carrying out the selloffs and giveaways that the wrecking crew wants to see - resulting in inevitable challenges from the right, either within the party or from the outside.

So while the government-bashing crowd can succeed in part by failing to govern competently, it also fails in part if it happens to succeed from a governance standpoint.

In contrast, a progressive government has every incentive to keep those concerned with good government on side while in power. When the goal is to build sustainable structures rather than destroy them, it's a necessary step to make sure that whatever is built can hold up over an extended period of time and succeed in its stated ends. Which means that while there may be some tension as to how quickly to move on priorities, there's no inherent conflict between left-wing governance and accountability movements.

Of course, a right-wing party in opposition will naturally go back to picking at the actual money spent by the governing party, and eventually find some success doing it. Which is why any progressive government isn't any more likely than its conservative counterpart to survive more than a few terms in all but the most extreme cases.

But at the very least, a progressive government's natural goal of developing confidence in public institutions isn't hampered by the kinds of internal contradictions that plague any right-wing coalition which takes control of a structure which it abhors. Which is why a progressive vision and a good-governance model can be as potent a combination as they form over the long term.

(As an aside, the downside of Bell's post is that he sadly perpetuates at least one fairly glaring evidence-free assertion, classifying Michael Ignatieff as a "progressive" even while pointing out that Iggy has scrupulously avoided actually presenting any policy which could merit the title.

Deep thought

We'd sure hate to lose this kind of sober second thought.

Let down

In the wake of Dave Batters' tragic death, a friend and reader offers up some commentary on how mental health unfortunately continues to receive short shrift as a public policy priority:

We all do foolish things in our lives; thankfully the healthcare system is usually there to bail us out. For example: We jump from somewhere a bit too high, or pull a crazy stunt and break our leg. We go to Emergency. We get it fixed quickly. Sometimes we go to Emergency with a bad case of the flu and have to wait upwards of 6 to 8 hours or more just to see a doctor. We rant about how unreasonable this is.

But let me ask you this: 6 to 8 hours versus 6 to 8 months. Which is more ridiculous?

Our mental healthcare system often leaves people with no other choice but that of waiting for months on end to get the treatment they need. Please keep in mind that the distinction I make between mental and physical health is that of a false dichotomy: the brain is a living organ that produces chemicals, just like your thyroid or any other organ for that matter.

That being said, however, the idea of people "not being severe enough to need immediate attention" in a mental healthcare situation is a dangerous proposition indeed. Mental illness ebbs and flows at quick rates. While a person can be "very sad" one day, three weeks later life events or chemical imbalances caused by a bad prescription can push someone over the edge.

Research in the past 3-4 years shows that, when the brain is subjected to feelings of sadness or anxiety or, quite often, a combination of the two, the rate of production of neurotransmitters is altered. Just as your metabolism will, in some ways, change if you radically change your diet and exercise patterns, life events which affect your mood eventually alter the way your brain works.

Of course, this is all reversible, but painstakingly harder to do once the process has started. Ironically, it is at around 6 months of time that the brain really starts reorganizing itself to work in a consistently different way -- the same amount of time it takes to get in to see a psychiatrist in Saskatchewan (and elsewhere).

Furthermore, people often do not seek treatment for mental disorders because they feel ashamed, or are afraid that their employers, family, friends, and even their own self-concept, will view themselves as "weak." Some people falsely believe you can "go this on your own." At other times, assertions from people outside professions dealing with these issues (certain healers, etc.) lead individuals astray. Many people have suffered in silence for years due to these problems.

Mr. Batters' willingness to face his problem head-on despite all of these obstacles, even though he ultimately lost the battle, is indeed extremely courageous. Furthermore, his family's willingness to "go public" with the reason for his death is an act of bravery that cannot be ignored; it is paramount that it help advance the cause of mental health in our province.

One role of the healthcare system -- arguably its most important one -- is to disseminate accurate knowledge amongst its population to help keep them healthy. Being proactive even makes sense: it saves money. So why do STIs and BMIs get coverage, but not MDDs (Major Depressive Disorders)? Another role is to properly direct funds so that they can assist in finding new techniques, more hospital beds, more resource persons, and assist with more research which will help prevent more deaths. Mental health has been consistently underfunded, leading to a loss of lives which, as aforementioned, often goes unnoticed by the general public due to publication bans or feelings of shame.

People do not choose to remain mentally ill. It is more painful than a great deal of other illnesses. It can be crippling and unbearable. At the extreme, it makes us want to take our own lives. None of us start out wanting to take our own lives. We need to look at this situation carefully, and not dismiss it as someone simply choosing to take the wrong path. Our healthcare system needs to take some responsibility.

Mr. Batters was let down, as so many others have been over the years. I hope he is now at rest. I commit to keep fighting for the rights of the mentally ill his memory and those of others I know who have lost their battle with this illness.

On selective reporting

When the party who came in a distant second in Saskatoon Riversdale in 2007 nominated its candidate for the upcoming by-election, the Star Phoenix reported it immediately.

And likewise with the party who came in an even more distant third. (Though it omitted the noteworthy detail that the candidate was apparently poached from the Sask Party's 2007 slate.)

But when the party which has held the seat in all but one election since 1967 nominated the likely next MLA? The crickets have been chirping since Monday, and there's no evidence that they'll stop soon.

Update: In comments, Jan points to a link to a story from Tuesday which oddly didn't show up on Google News searches for either Chartier's name or the riding name. My mistake to a point - though both the title attached to the link and the lack of search results still seem off.


Update 2: And now the Star Phoenix mentions Eileen Gelowitz' party switch.

On liabilities

With all the other issues surrounding nuclear power in Canada, it wouldn't have come as much surprise if the Cons' efforts to pass another sweetheart liability regime for operators both public and private had managed to slip under the radar. But fortunately, NDP MP Nathan Cullen is on the job in pointing out how the Harper government wants to leave the public on the hook for any nuclear damage:

The government wants to update the Nuclear Liability Act to increase the maximum to $650 million in damages from the current $75 million set in the 1970s, but the NDP's Nathan Cullen said it should be in the billions of dollars.

"The crux of it is how much you can sue for in the event of a nuclear accident," said the MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley.

Cullen said it's difficult to have confidence in an industry that has to be afforded this kind of protection in the first place, but completely another matter to lowball the cost of human life. "Get somewhere in the ballpark ... into the billions for sure," he said in an interview.
...
Cullen said the liability limit is about $10 billion in the U.S. In most other countries there is no ceiling.

"It is a pretty unusual situation as far as we can tell that Canada would have this very low ceiling," he said.

Cullen and other critics suspect the reason behind the $650 million figures (sic) is to make Canada more attractive for companies wanting to build nuclear power plants.

Of course, the argument for a higher (or no) liability ceiling would seem to be one that the nuclear industry would readily concede if it actually believed its own spin that nothing can possibly go wrong. But to the extent nuclear operators do actually see an exceptionally low liability cap as a reason to build in Canada, that fact would suggest that the industry itself is far less confident about the safety of nuclear power than it presents to the public.

On the other hand, one could argue that liability cap actually doesn't serve as much of an inducement. But if that's the case, then the cap would seem to be nothing more than a gratuitous giveaway to an industry that doesn't value it in the slightest. And there's little reason to believe that Canada's population at large wants to financially subsidize the effects of nuclear development gone wrong, particularly when any incident would seem sure to have plenty of other public consequences as well.

So one way or another, the Cons' attempt to keep an unusually low liability limit for nuclear operators should raise some serious questions about whose interests they really have in mind. And the likely conclusion seems to be that the public shouldn't be caught on the hook for any nuclear incidents.

Today's right-wing vocabulary lesson

Coup: A vote in which parties representing the majority of seats in a legislative body use their superior democratically-elected numbers to vote down a governing party which has lost their confidence.

"Coup": The military seizure and subsequent forcible exile of a democratically-elected leader.

On the upside...

...your definitive good-news story for Canada Day is here.

We stand on guard for thee. But in ever less sufficient numbers.

Surely we can at least count on a right-wing government to get military development as a point of pride, right? Sadly, no - and in fact a gap between intentions and manpower only figures to get worse:

The Canadian navy is operating with significantly fewer service men and women than it needs on its East Coast ships, says the country’s top sailor.

"On this coast, I would say . . . I’m probably operating somewhere between 10, 13 per cent below the numbers that I want in sea-going billets," said Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden.
...
(T)he admiral’s trip to Halifax and meeting media outlets is to get the word out about careers in the navy. There are 2,463 East Coast naval positions, but only 2,200 or so are filled.

The need for enhanced recruiting will be more noticeable by 2014 when Ottawa’s defence strategy calls for the rolling out of six to eight Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, he said.

Our Home and Native Land. (Sold for pennies on the dollar, then leased back at a premium)

Today is the time to reflect on and appreciate our national institutions. At least, until they're done selling off their homes to keep the lights on:

The CBC says it would consider selling buildings that house its radio and TV stations in a bid to wrangle control over its cash-strapped budget.

Hubert Lacroix, president of CBC/Radio-Canada, says anything could be up for sale if efforts to generate funds elsewhere fail.
...
“It's a question of us being owed money over time and accelerating these cashflows,” Mr. Lacroix said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Montreal.

“If that doesn't work, we're going to have to go to our real estate portfolio,” he continued. “Anything that we own we would then look at probably trying to sell and lease them back.”

Strong. Free. And Fossilized.

Truly it's a day for national pride:

Canada is now the G8's classroom dud on climate change, sliding to last place among the world's industrial leaders in the annual climate scorecard released by the World Wildlife Fund and insurance giant Allianz today.
...
"We have the resources – financially, intellectually, ecologically – to be leaders, and we've simply chosen not to."
...
"Canada is becoming increasingly isolated in clinging to the fossil economy while the rest of the world is moving on to green economy," he said.

Update: Which isn't to say there's a lack of reason to celebrate Canada Day. See here for Regina event details.

Not listening

For the most part, Kevin Libin's screed about Stephen Harper's Facebook page falls somewhere between a non-story being played up on a slow news week, and a stunning attempt to push Stephen Harper to be even less open to the public than he already is. But there's one part of the article which does bear mentioning:

A read through the photo comments section of the Facebook page of PMHarper finds supporters complaining about the distasteful tags being applied to the prime minister. Back in December, Julie Wu was asking "Can someone remove those tags? Not only is it immature, but extremely rude to the PM of Canada."

Weeks before that, in October, Nathan Lynes pleaded with the PM's Facebook minders: "Update the tags on your picture. Don't allow anyone to do this." Kelly Fitzgerald had noticed the same thing and "tried e-mailing his handlers," to alert them to the problem, "to no avail." Even before that, in September, Craig Drebit was asking "Can anyone remove the insulting tags on this photo?" The entire photo comment is a timeline of Conservative supporters galled at their main man's page being defaced by troublemakers.

Now, what's noteworthy isn't so much the fact that Harper hasn't done what some Con supports have suggested - which would be entirely understandable if some explanation was provided. Instead, the most striking aspect of the story is the fact that even Harper's supporters are going unanswered and unheeded for months at a time.

From my standpoint, it's that failure to even pay attention to supporters' comments and concerns in a rare medium which allows them to be made public in connection with a public figure which really reflects how much the Cons are missing the point of social media as part of their top-down vision of public communicaions. And that figures to remain a problem whether or not Libin's push to change Harper's tagging policy through the corporate press finds more success.

Self-serving

Having obviously recognized that Canadians aren't about to buy the argument that a summer of committee meetings with Pierre Poilievre makes for a substantial achievement, the Libs are apparently test-driving another excuse for their continued capitulation to the Harper Cons. But while this one from Warren Kinsella tries to sound positive on the surface, it may be even less plausible than the rest of the Libs' rationalizations for rolling over:

(W)hen Harper's Reformatories whipped up a crisis at the end of last year, my leader had lots of people—including some in the Liberal Party—urging him to push Harper out and lead a coalition government. Ignatieff certainly could have done that.

But that just isn't how Ignatieff wanted to win. On reflection, he and other Liberals determined that wasn't what Canadians wanted, either. We Liberals want to win, for sure—but we want (sic) win the right way.

Right now, the Liberal Party is either ahead or highly competitive in the opinion polls. We've got a great team and we are ready for an election. And, once again, Ignatieff heard from a lot of people—including Liberals—who wanted to defeat the government at the end of June, and have an election just a few months after the last one.

Once again, Ignatieff and Liberals thought about that. And Ignatieff decided, once again, that wasn't how he wanted to win.

Now, it's ridiculous enough for the Libs to be putting on a holier-than-thou front - particularly about election brinksmanship given that the only substantive demand they've ever made of the Cons is for a constant stream of confidence votes. But consider for a moment what message they're actually sending with quotes like these.

The Libs don't seem to dispute that the Cons' policies are both falling short of meeting the needs of a recession-wracked country, and burying Canada's future under a mountain of debt. And at the most extreme, the Libs have sent the message that Canadians will be starving over the course of the summer due to the negligence of the Harper government.

Faced with that starting point, one would expect the reaction to be one of outrage - combined with a desire to get back on the right track as soon as possible. Which could include either demanding real change from the government now in power, or seeking to persuade Canadians that they can do better.

But the Libs' line is that they can't be expected to pursue either of those possibilities. Instead, they're more concerned with winning by some nebulous "right way" than with actually improving the lives of Canadians. And if the Cons manage to do more harm even while the majority of Parliament claims to disapprove of their policies because the Libs are too busy pondering exactly which path to power they think will best serve their own egos...well, that's just tough luck.

Of course, it's highly doubtful that Kinsella or anybody else actually believes this latest bit of rhetoric any more than the Libs' previously-abandoned posturing. But the fact that the Libs think for a second that Canada could be more concerned with the Libs' sense of self-righteousness than with its own problems would seem to send a strong signal that the arrogance and sense of entitlement which got the Libs booted from office in the first place have returned with a vengeance. And that should offer reason for voters whose priorities are focused more on real-life outcomes than the Libs' place in the history books to turn their support elsewhere.

On pre-emptive war

Shorter Leader-Post editorial on the Sask Party's flat tax plan:

It's unjustified class warfare to question our belief that rich people are objectively better and more important.

Nominated

Word comes out that Danielle Chartier has been officially nominated as the Saskatchewan NDP's candidate in Saskatoon Riversdale. In case anybody was still operating under the misapprehension that Chartier figures to be anything short of a "heavyweight", she managed to assemble 165 Facebook fans and a substantial support network even before the nomination race was over - so while there's plenty of work to be done to elect her as well as Dwain Lingenfelter in the next set of by-elections, she figures to be in excellent shape to carve out a major role within the NDP for years to come.

On impending attacks

Others have already commented on the statement that the Cons have every intention of eliminating vote-based funding for political parties:

Whenever the election does come, Harper has one plan in mind for afterward: the elimination of public funding to political parties. A punishing blow to his opponents. Sure, the idea caused a showdown last autumn, the adviser said. “But in retrospect, we should have stuck to our guns. It was strategically smart. It’s still strategically smart. We’re going to run again on it. And we’re going to do it, if we win the next election. It’s coming.”

But I haven't heard much discussion yet about the chances of the move going further this time than it did as part of the 2008 FU. So I'll take the opportunity to expand on my comment over at Challenging the Commonplace about the danger that the Cons might succeed this time out.

Remember that at the time of the fiscal update, the Cons' plan was based on the laughable theory that the NDP would support a fiscal update which ran contrary to everything the party stood for in the name of inflicting damage on the Libs:

(According to "various and sundry Conservative pundits, both official and unofficial"), the Conservatives are counting on the NDP eventually coming around to their point of view, on the theory that Jack Layton and company’s almost pathological desire to destroy the Liberal Party forever will override any short-term concern over losing a few million dollars a year.

I noted at the time (as well as later) the sheer gall the Cons exhibited in first assuming that the NDP would accept both a blow to its own finances and an abhorrent policy package in exchange for the possibility of hurting the Libs even worse than themselves. And it became all the more comical when the Cons then tried to paint the NDP's decision to instead pursue a coalition which could have resulted in better policies for the country at large as reflecting a comparative lack of principle.

Fortunately, the NDP actually did stick up for its values rather than bowing to Harper's pressure. But unfortunately, it may soon be the Libs in the same position. And after all the principles they've thrown under the bus in the last 79 confidence votes, there's little reason for confidence that they'll treat per-vote funding any differently.

Having spent most of this year crowing about some improvement in fund-raising, the Libs would seem far less likely to recognize any risk to themselves in supporting the elimination of per-vote funding than was the case last fall. And as I noted in response to Chrystal's post, if the Libs think they can count on keeping up their early-2009 fund-raising levels, it's entirely possible that Harper and Ignatieff could see it as mutually beneficial to cut funding to the NDP, Bloc and Greens who operate as barriers to anybody's ability to form a majority government.

Of course, it could well be that Harper will instead prefer to keep the issue in his pocket as part of an anti-Ottawa message in the next election campaign. But it shouldn't come as a surprise if the Cons move to cut their inconvenient opponents out of Canada's political scene at the earliest opportunity - nor if the Libs decide to roll over on party financing as they have on so many issues before.

Unproductive

So apparently all the Libs have to show for their latest decision to roll over is...more face time for Pierre Poilievre. This is what happens when one fails to include a "no cartoon characters" clause in describing the composition of a panel.

Which isn't to say that the Libs are likely to complain - at least to the extent they're focused purely on the political rather than any hope of accomplishing anything useful. After all, while Poilievre's inclusion further lowers the likelihood that the Cons will agree to EI reforms, it equally increases the chance of their embarrassing themselves in the process.

Yes, it's summertime...

...but I didn't realize that even the Hill Times and its anonymous Liberal sources went into reruns:

A Liberal source told The Hill Times that the Liberals are unlikely to vote for the Harper government on confidence votes anymore.

"There's an inherent dichotomy in, 'This government is terrible but I'm going to support them.' How do you reconcile that? [Stéphane] Dion took a lot of political hits because he never reconciled that," said the Liberal source.

Now where might we have heard the same line before?

Putting safety into question

Needless to say, the latest revelations about safety concerns with effectively all of AECL's CANDU nuclear reactors figure to be glossed over just as thoroughly as the recent concerns with the MAPLE and Chalk River isotope reactors. But in addition to providing evidence that nuclear technology is anything but free from trouble and uncertainty, the latest news would seem to cut to the core of any attempt to claim Saskatchewan's geography serves to favour nuclear power over healthier alternatives:

Canadian nuclear safety regulators say they have underestimated the seriousness of a design feature at the country's electricity-producing reactors that would cause them to experience dangerous power pulses during a major accident.
...
The discovery prompted the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to warn that it may have to order nuclear power plants to run at less-than-full power indefinitely to compensate for what it deems less-safe conditions at the stations, according to the document.

The commission and the three utilities that operate reactors – Ontario Power Generation, NB Power, and Hydro-Québec – will likely have to spend “considerable resources” dealing with safety issues related to the problem and still may not be able to resolve it fully, it said.
...
Although positive reactivity is not well known outside the nuclear industry, problems connected with it prompted Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to scrap its two Maple reactors in May, 2008, after spending more than $500-million on them, leading to a crisis in the supply of medical isotopes.

According to the document, commission staff have always known that Candu nuclear power plants have positive reactivity, but they conceded that they miscalculated the magnitude of the condition. For instance, they said they underestimated a number used to measure it by 50 per cent.
...
Mr. Rzentkowski said the commission would consider ordering the stations to run at less than full power if safety margins shrink to unacceptable levels, with the Pickering and Darlington reactors in Ontario the first to be considered for such output cuts.

Greenpeace asked for records about positive reactivity compiled at the commission from Sept. 1 last year to March 31. But Mr. Rzentkowski said he thought the undated document, which was marked as a draft, was likely written in 2007 and was used in discussions with nuclear utility representatives.

The positive reactivity problem is highly technical, and has arisen because of the unique design of Canada's reactors. According to the document, the main factors “that introduce this hazard” are the Candu's use of natural uranium as fuel and the internal structure of the reactors, in which the heavy water used to cool them is separated from the water that moderates the pace of atomic chain reactions to safe levels.

So what does the revelation mean? Remember that the closest the Sask Party has ever come to offering a justification for pushing ahead with a nuclear reactor a vague claim that since uranium is mined in Saskatchewan, it should be used in Saskatchewan.

But even the nuclear industry's own UDP recognized that refining isn't a viable choice for the province. As a result, the only way Saskatchewan would actually have any comparative advantage over other jurisdictions in generating nuclear power would be if natural uranium can be used.

Which means in effect that if the Wall government were to push ahead with nuclear power generation, it would have one of two choices. On the one hand, it could select a non-CANDU model - which would eliminate any pretense of competitive advantage and thoroughly undermine Wall's apparent plan to buy into AECL. Or instead, the province could voluntarily choose a design which poses well-known and escalating risks which are now close to coming to fruition in the form of massive costs and potential shutdowns.

But what about the much-vaunted regulation which the CNSC in particular has spent so much time trumpeting? Well, it apparently wasn't enough to push the CNSC itself to make the known issues public two years ago. And that was before the Cons strongarmed Parliament into overruling the CNSC itself on safety issues at Chalk River.

So there's no reason for confidence that the CNSC itself is telling the public the whole story about the risks surrounding the industry under its regulation. And it's tough to take much comfort from an organization whose mandate seems to have shifted from actually regulating anything to a PR exercise in proclaiming what a wonderful job it's doing.

Finally, it's worth noting that the similarity between the issues which caused the MAPLE isotope reactors to be abandoned and the ones also present in CANDU reactors may push Wall's federal allies to the opposite side of the table. At the moment, there's a regular food fight going on between the Cons and the Libs as to whether or not the MAPLE project should have been abandoned - but Harper and company can hardly make a credible claim to have done the right thing by scrapping MAPLE while promoting the construction of new reactors which face the exact same problems.

In sum, then, today's revelations provide some compelling evidence both that the nuclear industry is less safe than it claims and that known issues are being kept from the public. And that reality certainly can't help the Sask Party's case to rush forward rather than taking a thorough look at the obvious risks from Saskatchewan's perspective.

On effective opposition

Yesterday, I pointed out one egregious example of the Star rewriting history to try to cut out the Libs' complicity in continued Harper government. But it's worth pointing out that the NDP itself could be doing more to point out both its own successes in putting together the progressive coalition, and the potential to do far more in the future in one which actually comes into being.

By way of example, the NDP is currently highlighting its results in Parliament since the last election, including a still-remarkable gap between the NDP and other parties' MPs in terms of bills, motions and questions. But with a few key exceptions which have received a reasonable amount of public attention, those don't figure to be familiar at all to most voters. And even the ones which are relatively well-known (Jim Maloway's Passenger Bill of Rights along with the motion and bill on EI) have yet to result in any substantive change in law - and don't figure to do so in the near future in light of Stephen Harper's obvious contempt for the will of the majority in Parliament.

So the NDP's current examples of effective opposition involve accomplishments which aren't familiar to most Canadians, and probably fall short of top-of-mind issues in any event. And it's hard to see too many potential voters being swayed by those types of considerations.

In contrast to the relatively limited public awareness of the issues now being emphasized, last winter's conflict between the coalition and the Conservatives was by virtually all accounts the high point for public awareness of Canada's political scene over the past few years. But the NDP's retrospective look at its accomplishments doesn't even mention the coalition, and includes the Cons' excuse for stimulus only alongside a clear expression of frustration with its failings:

Forced the Conservatives to respond to the economic crisis: When Conservatives tried to use the economic downturn to play politics while jobs were at risk, New Democrats led the opposition against them. As a result the government put forward a stimulus package – one that still doesn’t help a single new applicant get Employment Insurance, and has been too slow in creating new jobs.

Now, it's true that a month and a half of desperate attacks from the Cons and several more of scorn afterward - echoed by Michael Ignatieff as his excuse for keeping Harper in power - have made coalition politics into a difficult message to sell for now.

But the NDP's role in brokering agreement with the Libs and securing the Bloc's support would be useful in counteracting the current complaint that the NDP is unwilling to work with other parties in Parliament. And for the future, the NDP has more incentive than any other party in Parliament to keep open the possibility of a formal coalition. So it's hard to see why the NDP wouldn't try at the very least to defend the concept for future use while refuting the Libs' most recent line of attack.

Mind you, there's far more potential upside to be had if the NDP goes further in playing up the coalition as an example of its brand of cooperative politics. Presumably there are plenty of Canadians who are no more happy with Harper's government now than they were last winter when so many attended pro-coalition protests, signed up for Facebook groups, or otherwise showed their support. And if the NDP can tap into even a small portion of that enthusiasm - especially while the Libs go out of their way to try to distance themselves from any similar effort in the future - then the result would seem to be to open up a world of anti-Con swing voters who would otherwise be more easily persuaded by electability-style arguments.

Of course, the easiest path for now might seem to be simply to turn attention toward less controversial subjects. But given that the Cons don't seem to have any intention of abandoning the plan to build their next election campaign on the idea of coalition-as-boogeyman, it doesn't seem likely that the topic can be avoided anyway. So better for the NDP to work on claiming the positive results that were generated by the coalition (and better yet, that were missed out on due to Ignatieff's choice to roll over) by putting its at the top of the party's list of accomplishments.

The measure of a man

Shorter Rocco Rossi:

Weakness is strength! Dithering is decisiveness! Failure is accomplishment! And if you liked those, we have plenty more where that came from!

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Ive been meaning for some time to start translating the steady stream of news about the Saskatchewan Roughriders into some content for the blog. And with the regular season set to start next week, there's no time like the present. So here's my quick preview of where the 'Riders figure to place this year compared to their CFL competitors.

Unfortunately, though, there are plenty of reasons for concern with this year's team. While it's always tough to say how an offseason's worth of new recruits will affect the balance of power in the CFL, it surely can't be a good sign when players who couldn't make the cut as starters or roster players last year and don't figure to have developed much in the meantime are beating out the best talent a team was able to bring in. (Hello, Chris Jones, Stevie Baggs and Marc Parenteau.)

Offence: Average (4-5 out of 8 teams)

The 'Riders are obviously below the top tier of offences in Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal where elite quarterbacks enjoy well-developed rapports with multiple star-calibre weapons. But the offseason looks to have been a reasonably good one on the offensive side of the ball - at least, as long as the quarterback situation is managed better than last year.

Barring another freak wave of injuries, the receiving corps includes a nice mix of speed (Dressler, Quinn and Walker) and strength (Fantuz, Clermont, Getzlaf and Bagg), and the depth cultivated last year has allowed the team to move past using roster spots and patterns on ciphers like Michael Palmer and Corey Grant. Wes Cates probably isn't an elite runner anymore after a couple of injury-plagued seasons, but he's still an All-Star caliber back thanks to his receiving and blocking skills, and shifty Hugh Charles and speedy Stu Foord offer contrasting styles which should keep defences off balance. So whoever plays quarterback will have lots of options to work with.

But there's an obvious candidate in the "what could go wrong?" department. While Darien Durant looks to be ready to take over as the starting quarterback, he's at his best when eluding defenders in the backfield and taking running lanes when they're available. But with the offensive line already having to plug the holes left by two injuries and a trade demand, it won't be at all surprising if that style of play lands Durant on the injured list himself. And at that point, all bets are off, as neither Stephen Jyles or Dalton Bell has given much indication of being ready to lead the offence.

Defence: Below-average (6-7)

I'm probably less concerned than most with the 'Riders' lost linebackers in Maurice Lloyd and Anton McKenzie - as the position always seems to be the easiest to fill with respectable talent, particularly with a Rey Williams waiting in the wings. But it's the rest of the defence that looks to be a problem going into the season.

Up front, Baggs' emergence gives the team somewhat more hope than it had before in terms of ability to get to the quarterback - which was the major defensive weakness last year. But based on the preseason, any much-needed pressure on the quarterback seems to be coming at the expense of a new scheme that makes the 'Riders extremely vulnerable to the run. And the team is still just another John Chick injury away from regularly giving opposing quarterbacks enough time to wander off for a leisurely stroll before delivering the ball on any given play.

Of course, the other way to make opposing quarterbacks less comfortable is to have a ball-hawking secondary which can turn any slightly dangerous read into a turnover. But last season's unit aside from Lance Frazier apparently wasn't up to the task, especially after James Johnson (a 2007 West All-Star still in his prime) was pulled from the lineup over a couple of botched reads on pump fakes. Meanwhile, two spots were occupied by Omarr Morgan, whose strategy was apparently to give up an 8-10 yard out anytime the quarterback wanted it in order to give himself enough of a cushion to avoid being beaten deep, and Eddie Davis, who seemed increasingly vulnerable against younger receivers and whose big plays came mostly on blitzes rather than getting the jump on passes in coverage.

Naturally, the 'Riders gave Johnson away this offseason rather than seeing whether his talent could be better harnessed. And Morgan and Davis are back with starting jobs, leading one to wonder just how much damage might result if either has lost another half-step. Mind you, there are plenty of DBs in their athletic prime around as well, and Chris McKenzie, Denatay Heard, James Patrick, Tamon George and Donovan Alexander could combine with Frazier to form a solid young unit. But we'll see how long it takes before the team lets that happen - and until it does, there are going to be a couple of spots on the field where opposing offences can count on being relatively unchallenged.

Special Teams: Average (4-5)

The 'Riders' incumbents on the kicking teams have proven themselves to be steady presences, with Luca Congi showing the ability to be much more than that at times. But the return game once again looks to be a relative weakness for now, though hopefully with more playing time Morris will develop into what Weston Dressler was last year before he got moved toward receiver duty.

Overall: Average (5-6)

In sum, I'd expect the 'Riders to be just below average compared to their CFL competitors, with a record between about 7-11 and 9-9. That might well be enough to make the playoffs either in the West (if the Lions can't fully rebuild from their offseason losses or the Eskimos don't gel under Richie Hall) or as a crossover team. But it would be surprising if the 'Riders are able to once again challenge the Stamps for supremacy in the West - and it remains to be seen how the fan base will react to what looks to be the first real step backwards in the Tillman era.