Liberals Roll Over: Afghanistan

Ever since Canada's combat role in Kandahar began, there's been a significant amount of public concern about the mission. But we've now reached the point where a majority of Canadians want our troops brought back home whether or not they're in a combat role - signalling that the public's concern about the mission has only grown with time.

Unfortunately, that concern has never been reflected in the government's actions. And ever since Stephen Harper took power, it's the Libs who have allowed and encouraged the Cons' desire to keep a combat mission going as long as possible to determine Canada's direction.

The first key Afghanistan vote after the Cons took power was of course on a 2006 motion to extend the mission until 2009. And the vote should have been a gimme for the Libs as an exercise in reining in a minority government testing just what kind of abuse its opponents would put up with.

Not only did the Cons choose not to make the Afghanistan vote a matter of confidence, but they also declared that they'd extend the mission by one more year regardless of the rseult of the vote. So even Libs who agreed with the combat mission in principle had reason to vote the motion down in response to the Cons' arrogance.

Needless to say, no such thing happened on the Libs' free vote on the motion. Most Libs voting did oppose the extension - but enough voted with the Cons to allow them to pass their motion by a slim four-vote margin. And the "yea" votes who had no problem with extending the mission even in the face of the Cons' overreach included both the Libs' then-interim leader Bill Graham, and current leader Michael Ignatieff - whose votes against along with the attendance of former PM Paul Martin would have been enough to defeat the motion.

Incidentally, while Stephane Dion voted against the motion, he had previously argued that the Cons shouldn't even allow the matter to be voted on in one of the Libs' more painful examples of defending executive power in the Cons' hands in hopes of wielding the same themselves. But after taking over the leadership, Dion at least put up a facade of wanting to avoid any further extensions. Which should have allowed the Libs to join forces with the NDP and Bloc to demand that the mission be ended in 2009.

In the spring of 2007, though, the Libs put forward a motion which coupled a 2009 end date with an endorsement of combat until that time - the latter of which served as a poison pill to prevent the NDP from offering its support. And as a result of that gamesmanship (which the NDP responded to by putting forward its own motion calling for an end to combat as soon as possible) there was never a united show of opposition to any extension in Parliament at that time.

Mind you, the Cons didn't figure to pay too much attention to a vote which wasn't held on their terms. But they didn't figure to have much choice but to face the issue in their fall throne speech, where another of Stephane Dion's demands was a 2009 end to the combat mission.

Needless to say, the Libs allowed the throne speech to pass despite its inclusion of a further extension and Harper's declaration that everything within it would be a confidence matter.

But the Cons apparently figured they still had room to embarrass the Libs further. Which they did by appointing John Manley to chair a panel of well-known hawks to rubber-stamp an extension for the combat mission.

There may have been an out for the Libs if they'd taken a strong line against the legitimacy of a panel which was obviously selected for the purpose of pushing through an extension which Dion had said would never be permitted. But instead, the Libs sat quietly, and by the time the report came back with (surprise, surprise!) a recommendation of an extension to 2011, there was little doubt that the Libs' rollover was all but complete.

Which isn't to say that the Libs couldn't find a few more ways to shoot themselves in the foot before backing down. Instead, they carried out a set of public negotations which allowed the Cons to threaten an election over the issue, while "winning" only a 2011 end date which is far too likely to be revisited under either of the main parties - along with "accountability" terms which provided for little more than glossy promotional brochures for the combat mission and have failed to stop the Cons from actually hiding more information as time goes on. And all this just months after a 2009 end to the mission was supposedly a condition for the Libs' willingness to keep the Cons in power.

Rather than seeing that result as the disaster that it was when he took over the Libs' leadership, Michael Ignatieff's reaction was to point to it as his template for dealings with the Harper government. Which should make it less than surprising that this year's confidence showdowns have similarly seen the Cons doing nothing more than promising to sing their own praises a bit more often.

So where do we now stand on Afghanistan, a year-plus after the first end date available if the Libs had voted down the Cons' first extension motion? In theory, the most recent motion calls for a 2011 end date for combat. But this year, there's been a noticeable push afoot to hint at an extension now that the U.S. has a more popular administration. And there can't be much doubt that if the Cons want to push through another extension, they can always find a Lib willing to push their own party into backing Harper (say, what's Bill Graham up to these days?) - or simply count on the Libs to roll over on another vote.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Naturally, there were a few ugly points to be found in yesterday's loss to the Eskimos. But while the game unfortunately drops the 'Riders out of sole possession of first place (with a significant risk of dropping further in the standings over the next couple of weeks), the game also seemed to me to hint at a team with loads of potential for growth as the season goes on.

Most importantly, yesterday's game was the first one where the 'Riders' offence showed some significant ability to generate yards and points when tested.

Even in the team's two earlier wins, it mostly put points on the board by taking advantage of a short field off turnovers. And the team's woeful second-half point totals hinted at serious trouble reacting to defensive adjustments during the course of the game.

But yesterday, the offence faced four series where it started off under particular pressure. And every time it performed admirably.

The first was of course the first-half drive where Richie Hall chose to hem the 'Riders in with a punt rather than kicking a makeable field goal - a move which made sense to me only if one sees a reasonable prospect of forcing a turnover which will lead to more points. Rather than either making a mistake or handing the ball back in great field position, Darien Durant and the offence instead cobbled together a brilliant 102-yard drive (featuring three runs and three passes of 10+ yards apiece) for a touchdown which gave the 'Riders their biggest lead of the game.

From there, the offence went dormant until late in the third quarter. Which is where I'd see some serious room for improvement: especially with a once-massive lead having been reduced to a modest one by halftime, the offence seemed unduly conservative and unambitious, allowing the Esks to spend most of the third quarter on the attack and take the lead. And the issue went beyond receivers having difficulty getting open, as Durant again appeared tentative at times in running the ball when that seemed to be his best chance of generating first downs.

But as soon as the 'Riders were down, the offence woke up again, putting together a 75-yard drive to take back the lead. And on its last two series with a chance to decide the game, the offence found ways to move the ball into Edmonton territory - getting stopped only by a questionable spot on a line plunge, then a questionable incompletion call on a pass which would have kept their last drive going.

Of course, close doesn't count in football. But it does at least serve as a useful indication of whether a team is on the right track. And while the offence plainly needs to work on its consistency over the course of a game, its methodical demolition of Edmonton's defence on the two long drives in particular should offer a strong indication of what the 'Riders are capable of accomplishing at their best.

On the downside, the 'Riders' defence had a rough game by all accounts. Granted, there's never much likelihood of outright stopping an offence led by Ricky Ray - but it's at least possible to make his life difficult with pressure and creative looks, and the 'Riders disappointingly didn't manage to do much of that after the first quarter (when it seemed like they might be able to frustrate Ray the way they did Buck Pierce in the season's first game). And the 'Riders' tackling took another turn for the worse, with both Calvin McCarty and Arkee Whitlock scoring on long touchdown runs where multiple defenders made contact but didn't finish the job.

Unfortunately, the schedule gets tougher for the 'Riders from here on in, with a couple of road games coming up against West rivals who will be eager to bury the team at the bottom of the division. And with the defence getting exposed over the last couple of weeks while the offence is still getting in gear, fans may have to brace themselves for an ugly-looking record in the near future.

But at this point in the season, I'd be less concerned with the immediate record than with whether the 'Riders are developing a complete team capable of holding its own with the CFL's elite when it counts. And if the 'Riders can build on their positives from yesterday's game, then there's plenty of reason for hope that they won't need close calls to finish off key drives once the games matter most.

The reviews are in

Sean Bruyea:

Conservatives and Liberals alike have been calling to muzzle Page and his office. Parties of both sides have been attacking his efforts to inform all Canadians how government spends our money.

Unbelievably, opposition MP Liberal Carolyn Bennett said that Page has behaved as if the reports were his property. What a curious accusation since most level-headed Canadians would likely come to the opposite conclusion.

Is it not the politicians and bureaucrats who have been acting like our money is theirs to spend as they wish? Is it not government which all too frequently has been avoiding accountability and keeping truth from the public they ostensibly serve?

Yes politics and government bureaucracy are far too dirty for most Canadians. We don't know who or what to believe. Canadians are losing interest in democracy precisely because of this. All the more reason for Canada to protect the likes of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which makes government spending more transparent for Canadians and parliamentarians, should they be willing to listen.

Unworthy of promotion

In case we were lacking for reminders of the Cons' tendency to put self-promotion ahead of any interest in actually accomplishing anything useful while in office, CanWest reports that their latest consists of three cabinet ministers using public funds to unveil two new forms of Con cheerleading on Arctic issues:

At a press conference on Sunday, three federal ministers will unveil a slickly produced, 44-page report - Canada's Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future - and announce the creation of an official website dedicated to tracking the government's Arctic investments and policy initiatives.

The publicity blitz follows a similar spotlighting of the Conservative government's Arctic agenda last summer, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and several top ministers made visits to the North and announced a series of projects to strengthen northern military capability, improve social and scientific infrastructure, expand mineral exploration and prevent pollution in Arctic waters.

The government's continued, high-profile promotion of its Arctic file suggests Harper and his cabinet colleagues see polar politics as a key part of a winning election strategy, despite concerns among some critics about delays in delivering on promises, the government's commitment to environmental protection in the North and its handling of occasional clashes with Russia over jurisdictional issues.

Of course, for any government concerned with actually getting anything accomplished, it should be a source of embarrassment that the best even a Con-friendly media chain can say about the report to be unveiled is that it's "slickly produced" rather than actually containing any significant ideas. And it should be all the more shameful that multiple departments apparently have nothing better to do than to unveil self-promotional materials. But the Cons long ago made it clear that they're only concerned with appearances rather than accomplishing anything of substance - making this just one more step down the road they've been travelling all along.

The reviews are in

Bruce Johnstone points out that as little information has been released about the options for Regina stadium development, we can tell fairly easily that some important possibilities haven't been taken into account:

Other much larger cities, like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, and Montreal, are planning modifications or replacing their open-air stadiums. Are they all masochists who like freezing in the fall and boiling in the summer?

I'm not saying a domed stadium is a terrible idea. I'm saying there may be other, more cost-effective, options that haven't been addressed.

For example, what about renovating Mosaic Stadium and expanding and/or replacing Brandt Centre? You could do both for significantly less than $350 million-plus and achieve many of the benefits of a domed stadium, such as attracting major concerts, conventions and events.

That option might not represent a "generational opportunity," but it probably won't be a "white elephant" either.

The race is on

I mentioned yesterday that Ward 3 looked to be one of the Regina city council races to watch. But I hadn't expected the race to get this interesting this early, as John Conway has announced that he'll be running for the seat while highlighting the need for more progressive discussion at the municipal level:

John Conway announced on Friday that he will be running for the position of city councillor for Regina’s Ward 3 in October’s municipal election.
...
Conway suggested Clipsham hasn’t been “aggressive enough in presenting debates on fundamental issues.” Conway wants to focus on taxation, the environment, affordable housing, unions, heritage properties and affordable opportunities for culture and recreation.

“I think I share with many people a perception that the current council basically is carrying out an agenda that’s set forward by the business lobby,” he said.

“I think council has not been a forum for public debate of the big issues facing the city … in a whole variety of areas.”

Doomed

Shorter EI posturing between the Libs and Cons:

Libs: A 360-hour national threshold is supported by a majority in Parliament and might be worth studying. But we're more than willing to move from it!
Cons: How dare you so much as mention a proposal which we don't like? This proves that you're stuck on an unreasonable position!
Libs: (stunned silence)
Cons: Now start offering us exactly what we want, or this negotiation is over!

In fairness, though, let's acknowledge that the Libs have at least accomplished something by staking any changes on the Cons' willingness to make them look good. After all, they've managed to push the parties who generally agree with their position away from the table to ensure a worse outcome.

Musical interlude

Paul Weller & Portishead - Wild Wood

Not much of a debate at all

Shorter Kevin Blevins:

Spare me your talk about what policy choices might actually do the most good for citizens - what this city needs is more cheap pandering.

On your marks...

While talk about this fall's municipal elections probably won't start up in earnest until the end of the summer, let's note a couple of interesting storylines brewing in Regina's council races.

In Ward 6, Brenda Mercer, the former president of the North Central Community Association, looks to be putting together a well-organized challenge to incumbent councillor Wade Murray. But it's not clear that Mercer will have the field to herself, as 2006 CCFR candidate Jim Elliott is turning up in the media as one of a few voices taking a strong line against stadium construction.

Meanwhile, the race in Ward 3 looks to be hotly contested once again. Councillor Fred Clipsham is already facing criticism from the Leader-Post over his choice of priorities this summer - and a combination of bad press and a strong left-labour challenger could make Clipsham's re-election effort a difficult one.

(Edit: added labels.)

The reviews are in

Carol Goar:

Economists foresaw this possibility last winter. They warned the government that infrastructure spending is a slow-acting remedy for a moribund economy.

Social activists were wary, too. They argued there were faster and more effective ways to stimulate economic activity, such as extending employment insurance benefits to the 955,000 jobless Canadians who have no coverage, investing in health care, increasing the national child benefit or increasing the GST tax credit.

Any of these measures would have spurred consumer spending and got employers hiring.

But using federal dollars for infrastructure has two powerful political advantages. It gives taxpayers something tangible for their money. And it allows cabinet ministers and government backbenchers to fan out across the country, announcing local projects.

So Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made infrastructure building the centrepiece of his 2009 budget, promising "massive investments" in shovel-ready projects, ranging from municipal sewers and water lines to high-speed trains.

Six months have passed. Fewer than 1,000 infrastructure projects are underway. (Toronto alone submitted 500 proposals.) And the funding runs out in 20 months.

Deep thought

Michael Ignatieff's outrage over a few weeks of time for his EI appearance-of-working group might sound a lot more plausible if he hadn't personally ensured that nothing would pass until the fall.

On downgrades

There's been plenty of well-deserved fire directed at the role of credit rating agencies in their failure to look behind the U.S. housing bubble. But when an industry noted for operating under extreme incentives to offer positive ratings starts pointing out what it considers to be a bad investment, it's probably worth paying attention:

Building new nuclear plants could prove hazardous (to) the credit ratings of power companies.

Moody’s Investors Services warns in its new report — “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing” — that it may view nuclear construction plans as a negative.

Moody’s worries that investment in new nuclear is so costly that it amounts to a “bet the farm” strategy. It increases business risk and operating risk.

Not that Saskatchewan as a province (or Wall and his political mentors) might have any potentially relevant experience as to what can happen when a government doesn't pay attention to how its zeal to slap together ill-advised megaprojects might affect the province's finances:

Saskatchewan, unable to sell its bonds in New York and facing fiscal meltdown, acted out of dire necessity...(A) debt-free province in 1982 turned into a $14.8-billion debt-ridden basket case in the ’90s. This, plus a $1-billion deficit,... meant Saskatchewan led all of Canada in debt per capita.

Under notice from the credit rating agencies and with an imminent downgrade to BBB category by Standard & Poor’s, Saskatchewan’s ability to borrow diminished precipitously.

Still on course to nowhere

Steve V, still holding out inexplicable hope that the Libs will suddenly turn into a different party than the one which has rolled over on 79 consecutive confidence votes, points out the obvious fact that a refusal to stand for anything probably isn't doing the party any favours:

The fact the government still sits tied in the polls, having come through this maelstorm isn't easily fluffed off, it gives reason for some optimism on their side. Not great optimism, problems still abound and the Liberals have plenty in our quiver as well, but much better placed than anytime this year. This reality necessitates that we bring more to the table than simply opposing. Harper isn't popular, but we're not a compelling alternative either, which might explain why we've lacked maximum capitalization. Timing is another consideration, but beyond that, I now think there is no doubt of one thing, which again speaks to a nimble approach- we have to give them a reason to turf the government, the benefit of friendly headlines no longer a given.

And naturally, the Libs...aren't interested in hearing it:

There is concern the Liberal leader is risk-averse. Mr. Ignatieff, some worry, is still thinking things through - something intellectual types are inclined to do. In their wisdom, these leaders see the complexities of the issues, the grey zones, the competing shades and they hedge. Vague imagery results.

What to do? Get out some bold policy initiatives, many in the party say. Give the leader definition. Give Canadians a vision. Roll the dice.

But it's not about to happen. Instead, the Grits are gambling that no change of tack before an election campaign is necessary. “The plan,” a senior Ignatieff strategist said yesterday, “is steady as she goes.”

On windows of opportunity

Audrey has already posted about the Saskatchewan NDP's call for the Wall government to take advantage of a buyer's market for wind turbines to boost the province's wind generation capacity. But let's look a little more closely at the story, and particularly why the problem faced in T. Boone Pickens' effort at building a wind farm wouldn't figure to apply in Saskatchewan:

Lingenfelter noted that SaskPower built the Centennial Wind Power Facility for approximately $270 million, a fraction of the cost per kilowatt that the Sask Party’s multi-billion dollar nuclear reactor plans would cost. He said it is well past time that Brad Wall expanded on the NDP’s common sense approach to renewable energy production through wind power.

“Wind power expansion might never be more cost effective than right now as the global recession has driven down the price of wind turbines and overall construction costs.” Lingenfelter said. “I know that American billionaire T. Boone Pickens, for example, is looking to sell up to 687 General Electric turbines to power utilities in the United States and Canada because transmission line problems have stalled construction of the world’s largest wind farm in the state of Texas. Why isn’t the Wall government jumping on this and other opportunities to expand our wind power production at lower costs?”

Lingenfelter pointed to commitments made by the Obama administration that would see 20% of US electricity generated by wind power by 2030. He said there is no reason why Saskatchewan couldn’t reach the same target even sooner.

The transmission line issue is described in more detail here - and there isn't much room for doubt that whatever concerns there are about transmission costs can't be used as an excuse to delay renewable energy in Saskatchewan. After all, the Wall government has made clear that it's entirely prepared to pour billions of dollars into additional transmission capacity for the benefit of Bruce Power.

So with some work on our transmission lines looking to be an inevitable step in any event, the choice is fairly clear between taking advantage of an obvious opportunity to move toward renewable energy at the best possible time, or tethering Saskatchewan's future to nuclear power alone with no regard for the costs involved. And it's a truly sad commentary on the Sask Party government how little likelihood there seems to be that the former will even be seriously considered.

And someday, we dream of a blanket of smog

I don't doubt that the bulk of the development over the past decade and a half discussed by the Leader-Post in its editorial can be classified as a plus. But this part strikes me as an utterly bizarre rallying point:

Those driving in from the east marvel at the number of big-box stores lining Victoria Avenue and the adjoining neighbourhoods of new homes. Perhaps they also notice the traffic. People no longer joke about Regina's "rush 10-minutes" -- these days there really are rush hours morning and night.

I'd hope we can take it as a given that few residents actually enjoy being stuck in traffic. From that starting point, wouldn't it be far better if some of the development had been planned well enough (i.e. with sufficient thought to transit and traffic flows) to avoid the problem of growing rush hours? And will it really be a point of pride if ten years down the road, we have our own "If you lived in Brandon, you'd be home by now!" billboards due to ever-increasing congestion?

On scam artists

Of the three types of NDP views on the push for a new stadium in Regina pointed out by LRT, I'd count myself in the first group which sees the idea as a general plus - assuming the concept was well-planned and effectively implemented.

Unfortunately, there's little reason for confidence on that point from the Wall government. And indeed there seems to be a disturbing connection between the stadium plan and the Sask Party's push for nuclear power based on the Wall government's determination to make sure that the real costs of any of their preferred developments are artificially hidden from the provincial government's books.

Here's Stephen Larose:

One of the strangest things I'm hearing in the entire Saskadome debate (Leader-Post) is the Sask. Party government getting on about how no taxpayers' money will be used to construct the $350 million (estimate? Guesstimate?) cost to build the thing. A lot of those proposals for paying for it involve funds from the Crown corporations or the Saskatchewan Gaming Commission (the people who run Casio Regina and Casino Moose Jaw). Well, they're supposed to be turning over their profits to the provincial government's revenue stream. And if they don't, then the money's going to come from somewhere – either higher taxes or cuts to government programs. Taxpayers will still pay the cost, directly or indirectly.

And Kevin Yates:

Yates questioned why the government is drawing a distinction between general revenue funds and other money available to the government, noting Crown corporations typically pay a dividend that helps add to government coffers.

“If those funds are diverted either before or after, it means there’s less money ... for much needed other services,” said Yates, who maintained the Opposition doesn’t have enough information to say whether a domed stadium is a good idea.

Needless to say, the story is similar when it comes to nuclear power. While the Sask Party insists that it won't spend public money to build a reactor, that claim runs face-first into the reality that their chosen developer is demanding that a "government-backed entity" guarantee its profits. Which would seem to send an obvious signal that Saskatchewan's citizens will ultimately bear the cost - whether through SaskPower or through another entity which gets locked into a long-term deal to drain public dollars toward Bruce Power.

Of course, it's particularly remarkable that the Sask Party is showing this consistent pattern of Enron-style public accounting at a time when there's enough money in provincial coffers to actually have a meaningful conversation about what investments deserve to be on the receiving end of public funding. Thanks to the Calvert government's legacy, the books are already in good enough shape that there shouldn't be even a perceived need to invent new ways to hide the cost of any project worth carrying out.

But rather than trying to defend its plans on the merits, the Wall government is firmly committed to portraying its megaprojects as free lunches which don't require any cost-benefit analysis. And those of us who don't plan to be long gone by the time the bill comes due have every reason for skepticism.

Burning question

Is it all that shocking that the Cons were indifferent to the prospect that Abousfian Abdelrazik might be killed by a foreign government when they're publicly giving the go-ahead to the deaths of other Canadians abroad?

(Edit: added label.)

Your copyright options

For anybody concerned about copyright issues who thinks there's any chance that the voices of Canadians in general will be heard in the Cons' supposed consultation process, Saskboy's suggested responses offer a good place to start.

Or for those who hold out some hope that the Libs might actually work with the NDP and the Bloc on copyright rather than rubber-stamping the Cons' agenda as they have on every other issue, you could do worse than to contact your friendly neighbourhood opposition MP about Adam's suggestion:

The opposition parties need to draft alternative copyright legislation; screw this dishonest Con BS.

But if you don't fall into either of the above categories, then the best advice seems to be to enjoy relatively free access to content while you still can.

On moving over

Douglas Bell nicely diagnoses the problem with Libs' continuous shift to the right. But if one needed more evidence that he's anything but an NDP voice, it's obvious from his choice of solutions (italics in original):

(H)ere's a thought: what if progressive conservatives never really lost a party political platform from which to exercise their franchise? What if they simply moved over to the Liberals? A red tory by any other name... That of course is Michael Ignatieffs argument for the revival of Liberal fortunes across the country. Here's Mike making this very point during the last election campaign:

"This is a Conservative party that's pretending to be in the centre but is actually to the right of any progressive conservatism we knew through the 1980s. Everything I know tells me that there are more progressive conservative voters that could come to us than there are voters to the left of us by a factor of two to one. [Harper's speaking] this strange new language and they don't recognize themselves."

Only thing is the numbers didn't and dont (sic) add up. The NDP splits the vote in such a way as to allow the Tories to maintain minority government after minority government. Unless and until Ig realizes that the radical center is the road to political nowhere Canada will continue to elect Conservative governments, and progressives of whatever strip (sic) can get stuffed.

Now, there isn't much room for doubt that the Libs now occupy the territory once held by Red Tories. Just ask Joe Clark, or Kim Campbell, or David Orchard, or any number of other one-time PCs who have already offered their support to Libs and/or major parts of their platform in recent election campaigns.

But while that should indeed signal a problem with the party for actual progressive members, the solution isn't to simply put a slightly more leftish face on the same basic structure. And indeed, the newfound presence of Red Tories and other elements moving the Libs to the right may only serve to ensure that progressive voices aren't going to be able to influence the direction of a party which had already showed a clear pattern of putting progressive concerns last before that shift.

Rather than looking at Ignatieff's attempt to run as the candidate of the "radical center" as a problem, the better reaction would seem to me to be viewing that situation as an opportunity. If the Libs are indeed determined to seek the ideological territory of the Mulroney Conservatives despite the lack of a viable path to power in that direction, that creates an ideal chance to bring together progressives currently under both the NDP and Lib banners to break the impasse. And the further Ignatieff manages to lead the Libs toward nowhere, the better the chances of replacing Harper with a government which will actually change Canada's current right-wing direction - which should be a result which all progressives can get behind.

On amounts owing

Larry Hubich is keeping up his good work on the story of 135+ former Poverino's workers who lost upward of $62,000 in wages when their employer shut down. But while his prescription of more private-sector union organization would seem to be a plus, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the position that a theft complaint to the RCMP would figure to accomplish much even if it stood much prospect of success.

Instead, wouldn't the more obvious policy fix be to get the money owed to the employees into their hands through a wage bank to ensure that verified claims are paid out immediately, with the province then taking on the task of recovering amounts owing from the employer and directors later? And wouldn't that likely provide for more effective relief for the employees affected than merely seeing the employer punished?

By the numbers

Blogging Horse has already pointed out some of the problems with the Libs' "Twenty-Three" theme for their summer fund-raising and membership drive. But I'd think it's worth pointing out another area of concern.

To start off with, I don't see any particular issue where a party or candidate builds a message or initiative around a number whose importance may be purely symbolic. Indeed, the concept of a money bomb tends to include an appeal for donations based on just that - whether it be based on Ryan Meili's age or the Dollar a Day initiative in support of Al Franken's Senate victory. (For that matter, the NDP may want to take a closer look at choosing a theme number for itself to present a suggested baseline for support.)

But it does matter which number gets chosen and why. And that's where the Libs run into a serious issue:

Starting July 23rd, follow me as I paddle from Kingston to Ottawa, raising funds to help make Michael Ignatieff Canada's 23rd prime minister.

Remember that it was just eight months ago that Canada was plunged into a constitutional crisis. At that point, the Libs were one of three parties properly on the side of parliamentary democracy, while the Cons clung to power based on an attempt to pretend that Canada's political system is a presidential one where the executive could not be legitimately replaced even if it lost a vote in the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, thanks to Ignatieff the Cons managed to hold onto power through that showdown. And the Libs' latest gambit suggests that they've decided to work with the Cons' image of a system where what matters most is who holds executive authority.

After all, there would have been plenty of other options for numbers which fit better into the parliamentary system as it stands. Think 34 as the net number of seats which the Libs would need to take from the Cons to have a plurality in Parliament. Or somewhere from 33 to 35 as the likely share of the vote needed to do so.

But instead, the Libs are looking to frame Ignatieff as "23". Which to my recollection makes for a rather unusual development in Canadian politics: on Stephen Harper's rise to power, I don't recall too many commentators asking whether 22's results in office would more resemble those of 19 or those of 17 in contrast to discussing leaders by name and party. (Of course, I'm open to correction on that point.)

In contrast, the use of numbers to designate political leaders is entirely common...as a feature of the U.S.' presidential system. (Of course it's become more common over the past decade based on the need to distinguish between two George Bushes.)

The end result is that whether consciously or not, the Libs' choice of numbers serves to reinforce the idea that our political system should be seen in the same terms as that of the U.S. regardless of the important structural differences. And by playing into a strategy which the Cons have already used once to fool far too many Canadians about the nature of their own parliamentary democracy, that choice may only be laying the groundwork for the Libs to hold the weaker hand in another confidence test to come.

On the municipal front...

There have been murmurings for quite some time that former NDP MLA Glenn Hagel was considering a run for mayor of Moose Jaw. But I hadn't realized that Hagel himself has publicly confirmed his interest in the position:

Today, the questions surrounding our next mayor are already being asked and we've been able to get in touch with the man that appears to be at the centre of most conversations. Former Moose Jaw North MLA Glenn Hagel.

"Its something that we're giving some thought to. I've had some encouragement and I'm definitely considering running for mayor. What I want to do is take the summer and talk to people about what they see the future of Moose Jaw being and also to decide if I can bring the kind of leadership that Moose Jaw wants."

Hagel served Moose Jaw in the legislature for 21 years before losing to the Saskatchewan Party's Warren Michelson in the last provincial election. Hagel says he plans to have a decision made by Labour Day.

Of course, anybody looking at the municipal political scene primarily as a jumping-off point for other levels of politics might prefer to see younger names in the mix. But there's also plenty of value in ensuring that our cities are run by solid and strong progressive voices - and there shouldn't be any lack of longtime NDP supporters eager to throw their support behind Hagel's run if he does enter the race.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

After yesterday's bludgeoning at the hands of Montreal, there isn't too much room for doubt that the 'Riders have a long way to go this season. But while some of the weaknesses exposed by the Alouettes are ones which figure to be fixed only with time and practice (Durant's decision-making) or better health (the offensive line in particular), there are a few areas where the solutions might be a lot less complicated.

To start with, the main issue on the defensive side of the ball continued to be a problem finishing off tackles. And once again, as pointed out last week by non sequitur in comments, the main culprit was Tad Kornegay - who seems to combine excellent instincts to sniff out the ball on running plays with a fundamental weakness in bringing down the ball carrier. And with the same problem surfacing in consecutive games against a power back in Jamal Robertson and a small but elusive runner in Avon Cobourne, there doesn't even seem to be much prospect of avoiding the problem by spotting Kornegay against particular types of players.

Which isn't to say that Kornegay's cover skills and versatility can't make him a useful part of the team. But his current starting linebacker role doesn't seem to be the right one - and it remains to be seen how many more big rushing games the 'Riders will give up before deciding to put another more sure tackler in the linebacking corps.

Otherwise, the defence played roughly to expectations. Granted, there were a couple of breakdowns on the Als' two passing touchdowns, but it's probably inevitable that a scheme built on confusion and misdirection will sometimes backfire. And against the Montreal in particular, the exchange of big plays resulting from the 'Riders' risk-taking probably kept the team in the game about a quarter longer than would have been possible if Calvillo had been allowed to pick apart a vanilla defence from the game's first drive.

Unfortunately, the offence looked to be generally unprepared either to strike when the Als were vulnerable, or to get Saskatchewan back in the game once Montreal started piling up points in the second half. And much of the problem seemed to revolve around Durant, who seemed hesitant to commit to running the ball even when that was the one apparent opening left by a well-balanced Montreal defence.

That said, replacing Durant with another quarterback wouldn't figure to improve matters any: in his case, better to let him play through the rough spots and hopefully learn for future games. But there was one position where the 'Riders' choice to stick with a starter seemed like a curious one.

For all his strengths as a running back, Wes Cates is seldom one to makes plays on his own. While he's a star-calibre player thanks to his blocking, pass-catching and ability to make use of blocks in front of him, he doesn't have either the speed or the shiftiness to make plays on the ground when his offensive line isn't up to par. And in a game where Cates was bound to be facing some rust and the 'Riders' line was overmatched from the start, it might have made sense to give Hugh Charles some opportunities to try to change the pace of the running game.

In fairness, though, one of the major issues for the offence in the first half was a problem with field position. But there too, I'd think there's a fairly obvious internal fix to be made.

In evaluating punt and kick returners, I'd tend to see three main issues: ball control, raw speed, and instincts to turn that speed in the right direction. And most of the 'Riders' returners this season have had trouble in at least one of those areas: Casey McGahee fumbled away the job in the preseason, Eric Morris has shown a tendency to start off returns effectively but then spin himself into the ground without reaching top speed, and Johnny Quinn's first game was marked by ill-fated attempts to run sideways or backwards which failed to generate him any space to turn upfield.

Of course, Weston Dressler showed plenty of ability in all three areas last year. But I'd agree with Ken Miller's decision that Dressler is best off focusing on his duties as a receiver - and indeed I'm not sure that it does either Dressler or the team much good to put him back on special teams when the team is struggling as seems to have been the plan so far.

Fortunately, there's another option who ranks near the top of the CFL in the few kickoff return opportunities he's received as the second returner back. And particularly given that an opportunity for Stu Foord to work on reading blocks on special teams would seem to serve him well in his development as a ratio-busting running back, I'd have to wonder if the 'Riders would be better off in both the short term and the long term giving him the role of primary returner.

Now, a few yards of field position or a couple of more sure tackles may not have made a huge amount of difference in yesterday's game. And indeed it may be that the 'Riders' best strategy for next week is to avoid overreacting and work with the lineup they have. But after a game where the team seemed to lose far too many of the small battles, I'd have to think there's reason to look for any possible source of improvement - particularly given the danger that the team might get pushed to far bigger changes if it can't make the adjustments needed to win with Durant at the helm.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

The reviews are in

Gerald Caplan picks up on what looks to be an important connection between Stephen Harper and the U.S. Republicans' resentment-based philosophy and detachment from reality - and as a matter of personal judgment rather than merely political calculation:

Richard Nixon was perhaps the politician whose personal devils ate away at him most conspicuously, but like Harris he finally figured out how to win with them. In his day the enemy was New York liberals, opponents of the American invasion of Vietnam, blacks, university students, the pinko mainstream media and other enemies of the Silent Majority, now Palin's Real Americans.

It seems evident that some comparable resentment drives Stephen Harper, but in a very mysterious way...

Harper's attack on Ignatieff was another indication of the extremism of his partisanship. As we soon learned, it was based on an accurate report that Gordon Smith, a former deputy minister in Foreign Affairs, had speculated that the G8 could be replaced by a new body that didn't include Canada. That's an interesting issue and a potential problem for Canada. But that's not what Harper accused Ignatieff of saying. He accused him of wishing Canada was excluded from such a new body, of even recommending that it should be so excluded, which is an entirely different and dirty kettle of fish.

Now it seems to me that only partisanship of the most visceral kind could have interpreted the Gordon Smith comment (as attributed to Ignatieff) that way. Surely all normal folks would read the statement and understand that Smith was simply noting the need for Canadians to be aware that new players were becoming significant on the international scene. And it would be perfectly legitimate for Ignatieff to make a similar point.

No one who wasn't blinded by his own furies could believe a Canadian politician would ever say what Harper accused Ignatieff of saying. It would be simply suicidal. Yet Harper then used this ludicrous misinterpretation to introduce his favourite bogeyman – whether Ignatieff was a real Canadian anyway (shades of Sarah Palin). If I were a Conservative, I would seriously worry about the judgment of someone who could twist things in that way.

The Battle Hymn of the Republicans North

(With apologies to inspirational songs from times past.)

Mine eyes have seen the glory of our presidential Lord
He is trampling all who claim it matters what we can afford
He hath loosed the fateful chequebook for political reward
His red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

I have seen him spending constantly to buy votes in Quebec
And he is not deterred if the results have been a wreck
So onward to the next site, snap his picture with a cheque
And the red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

He is sifting out the PR value from his judgment-seat
He has given marching orders, and shall never call retreat
With the force of pork be strong, and to the camera be fleet
His red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

I have read his fiery gospel writ in ever-shifting sands
That he and he alone can keep recession from our lands
On our journey to destruction he’s the steadiest of hands
His red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

He hacks away at revenues unbothered by regret
To concern about expenses, pay no heed; his course is set
As our parents built our assets, let our children pay our debt
The red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

His constancy of purpose leaves us no room for surprise
He is antidote to reason, and corrective to the wise
In fighting for a Canada that we won’t recognize
And his red ink marches on.

(Chorus)
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
Budget deficit forever!
To fix it would be dumb.

The reviews are in: Con Fantasy World Edition

James Travers:

Just last fall, fooling enough of the people, enough of the time was pretty easy. With an assist from political rivals, Stephen Harper kept economic reality at bay until after federal ballots were counted.

Now the Prime Minister is engaged in the much more difficult project of persuading history to repeat. He wants voters in the next election to believe the ballooning deficit, the one a recession-proof Canadian economy was so certain to evade, will fix itself.

Fantasy is the free lunch of politics. Eventually, this generation or another will have to pay the price of feasting at the groaning board of stimulus spending.
...
Realism wasn't central to Conservative strategy in the last election; it's apparently not what they have in mind for the next. Hoping voters will suspend their disbelief a second time, the ruling party is again dangling the prospect of a pain-free future.

Splendid if true, the Conservative chiaroscuro rings false.

But wait, there's more! Jeffrey Simpson:

Now the respected economist Dale Orr joins the Parliamentary Budget Officer and TD Economics showing the federal government's fiscal forecasts are off, way off.

So what? Almost nobody believes the government's fiscal forecasts anyway, and with good reason.
...
Make no mistake: When you incur steady deficits, you pay for them eventually. The political choice therefore is whether Canadians should start paying soon after the recession ends by raising taxes and/or cutting spending, or delay but pay a larger amount later.

The easy way out won't happen: that a resumption of normal economic growth will balance the budget by 2013-14. That had been the Conservatives' hope; that remains the government's spin. It is almost certainly wrong.

And as an added bonus, the Chronicle Herald editorial board:

Stephen Harper should have learned from December’s bumbled budget — which nearly brought down his government and had to be rewritten because it missed the gravity of the recession — that you don’t inspire confidence with numbers no one believes.

Yet here we go again. A warning from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page that the deficit won’t be cured by economic growth in the next five years, as the government’s January plan predicts, hit a stone wall of hostility and denial from Mr. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
...
This push-back is worrisome in a couple of ways. A set-in-concrete view of taxes and policy options is not an asset in managing an economic crisis marked by unpredictability and sudden shifts in business conditions and confidence. And it’s just intellectually lazy to say we know the deficit can be put on autopilot for some unknown period and will turn out all right.

Musical interlude

Black Box - Ride On Time

Bang for the buck

Alice at Pundits' Guide points out the surprising lack of voter turnout in a couple of the few Edmonton ridings which actually figure to offer competitive races:

One characteristic of these two ridings that really struck me just now in reviewing their history is their incredibly low turnout, both historically and in the last election. Turnout in Edmonton Centre was 51.6% last time, down from 59.8% and 62.5% in 2004-2006 and 54%-56% in its predecessor seat of Edmonton West. And this is in spite of the tight margins by which Ms. McLellan used to win her seat, defying one of the usual hypotheses for low turnout in Alberta (namely that the one party dominance has usually meant there's little to decide at the polls on election day). For more on turnout in Alberta provincial elections, see the excellent series of features last year from Jason Fekete and Renata D'Aliesio of the Calgary Herald.

Edmonton East next door chalked up just 45.4% turnout in 2008, consistent with the downward trend but overall low turnouts in this riding and its predecessors since 1988. It has consistently shown the lowest turnout of any riding in Edmonton, and perhaps not coincidentally also ranks the lowest on many census measures of income and employment. To put the 45.4% figure into perspective, it is the 13th worst turnout of the last election and 19th worst turnout of any riding in any general election since 1988.

The strategies to hold or win over low turnout ridings might look very different than those needed to win elsewhere, which undoubtedly the parties will be taking into account.

What looks most interesting to me is how the turnout level in Edmonton East actually got to its current position, and what it says about the respective chance of the opposition parties in the riding. Alice points out earlier in her post that NDP candidate Ray Martin's strong second-place finish in 2008 came despite his being significantly outspent by Con MP Peter Goldring (who in fact nearly doubled the spending of his three competitors combined). But it seems to me particularly noteworthy that Martin also managed to pick up more votes than the riding's Liberal contender Nicole Martel put up in 2006 - even though she far outspent Goldring in an election where turnout was at least somewhat higher.

And the NDP's comparative advantage against the Libs is borne out by the dollars-per-vote over the past two election cycles. In 2006, the the Libs' big-money flop naturally produced the worst result on record in the riding ($5.78), while the NDP ($2.33) finished just behind the Cons ($2.21). But that comparison on its face wouldn't seem like the end of the world for the Libs, as it's normally to be expected that parties which spend less will do somewhat better in the dollars-per-vote department based on a core level of support and the effects of national spending. (For evidence in Edmonton East, look no further than the Greens' results: consistent fourth-place finishes, but superficially impressive dollar-per-vote numbers due to the lack of spending.)

In theory, that should have allowed the Libs to appear relatively efficient once they pulled most of their investment out of the riding in 2008. And they did improve in that department, spending only $2.11 for each vote received.

But the NDP managed the impressive feat of increasing both its spending and its return on investment at $2.06 per vote in the 2008 election. That topped both the NDP's own 2006 number, and the 2008 totals for the Cons (who spent thousands more dollars to win thousands less votes than they managed in 2006) and Libs (despite their precipitous drop in spending).

Mind you, there's no guarantee that a fully-funded campaign would push the seat into NDP hands, as it's always questionable whether the next incremental dollar spent in a campaign will help a party as much as previous ones. But particularly in a riding such as Edmonton East with plenty of potential voters available to be pursued, there would seem to be obvious potential for the NDP to bridge its gap against the Cons by making full use of the spending limit next time the riding goes to the polls.

Healthy discussions

The battle within the medical profession as to the importance of preserving public health care (with Doctors for Medicare all too often having to counterbalance the pro-privatization musings of the Canadian Medical Association) will be coming to Saskatoon this August. And a couple of familiar faces will be leading the charge to preserve and improve the public health care system:

Doctors for Medicare is planning an event at the Broadway Theatre on Sunday, Aug. 16 -- the eve of the CMA meetings -- to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Canada Health Act and to emphasize its support for a publicly funded, single-payer system.
...
Martin and Saskatoon family physician Dr. Ryan Meili, who is the local representative for the pro-medicare group, say it's more important than ever to support a public system.

"There are limitations to any system. The answer is not to set up private clinics," Meili said.
...
Meili will emcee the Aug. 16 event at the Broadway Theatre. Speakers will include Martin and former premier Roy Romanow, who led a national health-care review.

Romanow said he's not participating to be for or against any group. Rather, he wants to show his support for the Canada Health Act.

In tough financial times, the calls for private solutions increase, he said. It happened in 1995 when he was premier, and he hopes it doesn't happen again.

"If history is any lesson, some will call for privatization," said Romanow.

Romanow said some of his recommended reforms have been implemented, but others have stalled. The most needed reform is "catastrophic" drug coverage for families hit with an illness requiring expensive medications.

Unfortunately, there's been far too little talk of actually trying to improve health care for Canadians (through catastrophic drug coverage or otherwise) over the past few years: the federal NDP's efforts to strengthen the system have fallen on deaf ears from both the Libs and Cons, while the provincial effort to make prescription drugs more affordable was rolled back by the Wall government.

But the more time high-profile figures like Meili and Romanow put into raising the issues currently facing health care in Canada and pointing out that there are in fact positive answers in contrast to privatization, the greater the chance of better outcomes in years and election cycles to come. And hopefully a high-profile Doctors for Medicare event will help to shape the discussion both inside and outside the medical profession in Saskatchewan.

Well said

Stephen Moore criticizes the anti-gay policies of both the federal Cons and the Sask Party, then puts it all in a bit of historical perspective:

A couple of years back, our family watched the excellent PBS documentary, Eyes on the Prize, the story of the US Civil Rights movement.

After seeing a clip of George "segregation forever" Wallace, my young daughter turned to me and said, "Dad, what's segregation?"

Trying to explain Wallace's logic, this father came up short.

That's not because racism and prejudice have become unthinkable here in Saskatchewan -- clearly they haven't.

I firmly believe, however, that one day, some future Regina father, perhaps after viewing a different video clip, will struggle to answer his child's question: "Dad, what's homophobia?"

Let's hurry that day along.

Hyperwinguttization

I remember well the justified outcry when the Cons decreed that "equality" was no longer part of Status of Women Canada's mandate. But did we miss when they snuck in "subjugation and repression" instead?

Uneconomical

Following up on this morning's post, the Saskatchewan NDP is also raising questions about what the price quotes from Ontario's plan to build new reactors mean for the Sask Party's efforts to strongarm Saskatchewan into nuclear power, noting that even Bruce Power's low-balled cost estimates exceed the point where Ontario concluded that nuclear power isn't worth the price:

The Ontario Energy Board has indicated that any price higher than $3,600 per kilowatt of power capacity would be uneconomical when costed against alternatives such as natural gas and renewable energy options. Bruce Power has indicated its intention to build two 1,000 megawatt reactors in Saskatchewan at a cost of between $8 and $10 billion. Using Bruce Power’s conservative price estimate, its proposal works out to approximately $4,000 per kilowatt – a price that exceeds the Ontario Energy Board’s economical cutoff.

“When the evidence against the economics of a project of this size begins to mount so dramatically, we need to wonder whether indeed we are being told the whole story,” Higgins said. “Clearly there is an increasingly strong case to be made for research into natural gas and other alternative energy options if the cost of nuclear really is this much.”
...
“How is it that Bruce Power is able to build a similar reactor here that costs so much less than the proposals submitted to the Ontario government? Where exactly are the hidden costs?” Higgins asked. “Have we just been given the cost of the reactor without the plant? Like everything about this process from day one, the government has failed to answer some extremely important questions.”

Now, it still seems to me more likely that the biggest difference between the costs discussed in Bruce Power's study (which describes the cost as that of a "nuclear facility") and the prices now faced by Ontario involve the allocation of risk rather than the scope of the work included.

But either way, there's plenty of reason for concern that the numbers driving the Sask Party's support for nuclear are both high enough to make nuclear development a bad idea in the first place, and unrealistically low when compared to the actual cost of nuclear construction. And Higgins is entirely right in saying that fact should be driving the province to look toward alternatives rather than courting nuclear as its top priority.

Compare and contrast

Cost of a nuclear power plant based on the only bid for Ontario's Darlington contract which actually included the risk of cost overruns:

$13 billion

Estimated benefit from a nuclear power plant over the course of its life span in present dollars, according to the nuclear boosters involved in the UDP:

$11 billion

Based on these numbers, shouldn't we be considering whether it's easier to generate power by simply setting billions of dollars on fire?

Someday this could all be ours

Cherise Burda:

Already the province is paying companies on both sides of the border to consume surplus electricity because it cannot turn its nuclear reactors down fast enough. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator predicts that demand will continue to drop even after the economy recovers and warns that continued excess nuclear inflexibility will cause system instability.

Thus, the Ontario government made a wise decision when it suspended the purchase of two new nuclear reactors to be built at Darlington. Yet the province and the nuclear industry maintain that these new reactors are needed to keep the lights on and ensure the phase-out of coal, and the public is being cornered into two unpalatable choices – either the Ontario ratepayer or the Canadian taxpayer has to bail out the nuclear industry.

Inhuman

Most of the time, I try to avoid saying anything about Ezra Levant that can be avoided. But his latest column for Canadian Lawyer is one which otherwise seems far too likely to slip through the cracks - so I'll make an exception to point out just how eager Levant is to try to label somebody - anybody! - as less than human in order to attack the fundamental underpinnings of human rights:

In 1830, British ship HMS Falcon, with 30 crew, seized a pirate ship with 250 men. One report said: “the little crew was in no small difficulty, after the capture of their disproportioned antagonist, what to do with their prisoners, who, as soon as they had an opportunity, showed symptoms of an attempt to overpower them.”

When they reached Ascension Island, the pirates were hanged in batches of 20, with only the pirate captain and first mate spared, to be taken to Bermuda to be tried — all completely lawful, given the exigencies of the case.

Pirates are a special legal class: hostis humani generis, or enemies of all mankind. They are legally similar to terrorists under the Geneva Convention — literally outlaws. We tend to think of the word “outlaw” to mean someone who himself ignores the law. It actually means the opposite: someone who is beyond the pale so far that the law will provide him no protection, and vigilantes, mercenaries, and anyone else who hunts him will be unstopped by the law.
...
Canada shouldn’t be playing the pirates’ game. We should be taking a page from the old HMS Falcon.

Now, I'd like to think that most readers would recognize that the developed world has learned a thing or two about the dangers of putting the power of summary execution into anybody's hands over the past couple of centuries. And one would expect that to go doubly for somebody who apparently spends the vast majority of his waking hours shrieking "tyranny! jackbooted thugs! Nazis!" at an administrative tribunal for daring to do its democratically-assigned job of trying to protect human rights.

But naturally, Levant's concern about the dangers of unfettered government power seems to end at exactly the point where he ceases to perceive any potential for it to be directed against him personally. When it comes to somebody who he figures he can safely label as "other", Levant goes several steps further than the Cons' apparent desire to start moving back toward capital punishment. Indeed, he's ready to start lumping together a group of sub-people who in his view shouldn't be protected by any principle of law (including any due process to determine whether they actually fall into the categories to which Levant is so eager to assign them).

So summary execution? Unbridled mercenary vigilantism? All fine for Levant - as long as the victim can be labeled as a "pirate". Or, by Levant's own connection, a "terrorist".

Of course, those terms are already in the process of being extended to apply to a wide swath of the population - with the act of downloading artistic content routinely classified as piracy by corporate copyright holders, and concern about the fate of innocent civilians in several parts of the world regularly labeled as support for terrorism by the same movement which provides Levant with his financial backing. And indeed, in some cases there are even concerted efforts afoot to drive people into exactly the type of activities which Levant thinks should strip them of their humanity.

Which presumably suits Levant and his ilk just fine, as anybody who follows his advice figures to offer another example for his next column as to who else should be tossed on the pile for summary disposal. But anybody who thinks that humanity (with its associated human rights) is inherent rather than being defined based on the whims of a society's most reactionary elements should pay attention to the fact that Levant is actively trying to convince people otherwise - and devalue his assertions elsewhere accordingly.

Multiple choices

Take your pick as to the saddest part of the Cons' latest evidence that after three and a half years in power, they still don't have the faintest clue what they're doing. Is it that they're bothering to hold presentations to advise of the possible purchase of they don't know what at some unspecified point in the future?

A $3-billion project to buy new search-and-rescue aircraft kicked off Tuesday in Ottawa amid complaints from aerospace industry officials that government representatives can't even say how many planes will be purchased or when.

The industry day, signifying the start of the much-delayed program, left aerospace representatives puzzled and at times, frustrated.

Government representatives who called the meeting couldn't answer questions on how many planes would be bought, when they would be purchased, whether they would be equipped with sensors or how they would be maintained.

Is it the fact that the minister responsible for the prospective purchases has wasted his time publicly pleading for bidders to violate his government's own rules?

Secrecy around equipment programs and how the Defence Department spends tax dollars has grown significantly under the Conservatives.

In May, (Peter) MacKay pleaded with industry representatives to get out the word that military purchases were good for the Canadian economy.

But industry officials note that it is often MacKay's office and other government representatives, such as the Privy Council Office, who prevent firms from discussing projects.

Or is it the farcical way that the media who had originally been invited to the presentation was summarily ejected not only without an explanation, but with a concerted effort to avoid stating who (if anybody) made or enforced the order?

The Defence Department had approved a request from Canwest News Service to be allowed to listen to the search-and-rescue presentation by Brig.-Gen. Greg Matte, but at the last minute, that invitation was cancelled on orders from "higher up" in the Harper government, according to various officials.

A supervisor at the Government Teleconferencing Service, which was involved in broadcasting the meeting, said the order to ban the media "just came down" Tuesday morning. "We're doing what we're told," said the supervisor who declined to provide his name. "They've said to disclose nothing further."

He also declined to provide his name, confirm whether he was a public servant or discuss who "they" were.

Of course, one's preference may vary: for substantive impact the lack of a clue what the Defence Department actually wants would seem the most damning, while for sheer absurdity the unexplained, anonymous media ban likely takes the cake. But one way or another, all indications are that the Harper failing state is getting more dysfunctional by the day.

The paranoid-delusional style in Canadian politics

Memo to Stephen Harper: It doesn't help to try to deflect attention from a previous statement for which one is catching flak by saying something even more asinine.

On bare minimums

One has to give NDP labour critic Andy Iwanchuk some points for optimism in his response to the Sask Party's changes to the province's minimum wage board that he'd hoped for an announcement about indexation. But unfortunately, the problems with the Sask Party's strategy look to go far deeper than even the partisan nature of some of the appointments to the board:

Norris said he has encouraged the new board to consult with the members of the Enterprise Saskatchewan board, set up by the Sask. Party government to offer advice on furthering economic development in the province.

"I think by working more closely with Enterprise Saskatchewan the new board will actually be in a position to receive feedback from a wide variety of sectors and I look forward to hearing about the work as it gets underway and obviously as they complete it by the end of the year," Norris said.

In other words, Norris is explicitly telling the minimum wage board to focus what the businesses represented by Enterprise Saskatchewan want to pay - which is bound to produce a predictable response. In contrast, he doesn't see any need to suggest the board should even take into consideration the effect of minimum wage levels on the workers who have to live with them, let alone seek out anybody to present that side of the story.

That deliberately biased presentation figures to be even more important than the names of the new board members in predicting what the board is likely to end up doing. And at this rate, it would be less of a surprise for the newly-stacked board to follow the Sask Party's usual business-first-and-only philosophy by attempting to do away with the minimum wage entirely than for it to make any changes for the better.

The reviews are in

Jeffrey Simpson:

There is no “school,” to use Stephen Harper's word, anywhere in economics that says “no taxes are good taxes.” Not even Milton Friedman and the Chicago school think that. Nor do Mr. Harper's former mentors at the University of Calgary.

They, like right-wing politicians, might think taxes are too high, maybe way too high. They might think the private sector can do lots of things better than the public sector. They might believe taxes should be lower. But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically.
...
Maybe the Prime Minister misspoke. Maybe he was just using a figure of speech, although he could have said something like “all taxes are a necessary evil.” But even that “necessary evil” idea is different from saying all taxes are bad, because the “evil” of taxation is “necessary,” as indeed it is in any civilized society.

Presumably, there lurks inside the Prime Minister an anger about much of contemporary society that has been built with taxpayers' money, an anger contained by the political reality that the Prime Minister can't do much about this state of affairs.

No shock here

The Star reports on the "shockingly high" price which has forced Ontario to at least shelve for now the possibility of building new nuclear reactors: $26 billion for two reactors similar to the size which the Wall government is looking to push in Saskatchewan:

The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.
...
AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.

By comparison, in 2007 the Ontario Power Authority had assumed for planning purposes a price of $2,900 per kilowatt, which works out to about $7 billion for the Darlington expansion. During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas.
...
The bid from France's Areva NP also blew past expectations, sources said. Areva's bid came in at $23.6 billion, with two 1,600-megawatt reactors costing $7.8 billion and the rest of the plant costing $15.8 billion. It works out to $7,375 per kilowatt, and was based on a similar cost estimate Areva had submitted for a plant proposed in Maryland.

"These would be all-in costs, including building a new overpass and highway expansion to get the equipment in," said a source from one of the bidding teams, who asked to remain anonymous, citing confidentiality agreements signed with the province.

Stevens said Areva's lower price makes sense because the French company wasn't prepared to take on as much risk as the government had hoped. This made Areva's bid non-compliant in the end. Crown-owned AECL, however, complied with Ontario's risk-sharing requirement but was instructed by the federal government to price this risk into its bid. "Which is why it came out so high," said Stevens.

In fairness, there are plenty of reasons to think that the actual cost for Saskatchewan might be different. For example, with Bruce Power in the picture, there would be one more actor involved looking to skim off a layer of profits. In the absence of any experience with such projects in the region and need to import labour to get anything built, the contingencies involved might be even more severe. And of course, with Bruce Power looking to build on the old "Ontario model", the party in charge of building wouldn't be the one stuck with the tab, meaning that there would be more risk of overruns than would figure to have been built into AECL's bid.

All those factors aside, though, let's assume for the moment that the $13 billion per reactor cost presented by AECL roughly reflects what the price would be in Saskatchewan as well. That would mean that off the top, the cost of nuclear construction would shoot far past the range where it would compare to natural gas, wind or solar generation. Instead, the more pertinent comparison might be to purchasing an exercise bike for every Saskatchewan resident with the hope of powering the grid by pedaling.

Of course, Ontario is looking to get around the real cost by having the federal government pick up some of the risk to push the sticker price down. But that wouldn't do anything to actually reduce the expected costs, serving only to upload them to a different actor to try to hide the actual costs of nuclear construction. And when it's this glaringly obvious that the nuclear industry can't hold up without massive public giveaways, it should be equally clear that our resources are better put elsewhere.

On preferred outcomes

There's plenty to be skeptical about in Harris-Decima's poll (PDF) on Canadians' preferences for the next federal election outcome, including fairly obvious false limitations on respondents' choices on some questions and a lack of definition of the possible outcomes in others. But there are still a couple of points which look to be potentially significant.

First, there's the question of public attitudes toward a coalition. Over the past few months, the term has been treated far too often as a dirty word by all four parties in Parliament at times - with the Cons and Libs attacking the Lib/NDP coalition that nearly took power, and the NDP and Bloc in turn using the term pejoratively to refer to the Libs' choice to prop up the Cons.

Yet amazingly enough, even that rare unanimity in messaging against coalitions generally hasn't prevented the concept from picking up more supporters than opponents - by a margin of 15 to 38 points among supporters of parties other than the Cons. Which would seem to confirm my suspicion that one of the key areas where a party can set itself apart positively on the federal scene is by launching a meaningful defence of the concept of working in a coalition. And while the Cons and Libs probably each have reasons to avoid that strategy, I'd still consider the cause of promoting cooperative politics to be one which the NDP should be eager to take on.

Meanwhile, the answers to a flawed question limiting respondents to choosing a type of Con or Lib government does contain one fairly striking piece of information. After Lib supporters themselves, the voters most likely to prefer a majority Lib government compared to a minority one are...Bloc supporters, by a 33% to 21% margin. In contrast, Green supporters are at 34%-27%, while NDP supporters are the only group with a minority outcome as their plurality preferred result.

Of course, it isn't at all surprising that Bloc supporters would prefer a party which Gilles Duceppe was willing to back over the government they were seeking to vote down. But the striking result is in the relative preference for a majority as opposed to a minority. It's become an article of faith that any party's road to a majority government likely requires getting a substantial number of Bloc voters to shift their allegiance to change the current electoral calculus in Quebec - and while Harris/Decima's numbers suggest that while that effort is still an extreme long-shot, the Libs' road to that outcome may be far easier if Bloc supporters as a group would rather see that than a minority.

The reviews are in

Having criticized the Globe and Mail's Eric Reguly for failing to follow up on Stephen Harper's "no such thing as a good tax" position, I'm glad to see that Adam Radwanski has started to raise some questions (even if Harper isn't around to answer them):

Perhaps Harper was oversimplifying; maybe he didn't fully think through what he was saying. But this is the prime minister of the country, not some guy who's had one too many drinks at a cocktail party and begun railing against the evils of government. So it seems to me we're obliged to consider the fact that the person running the country, by his own account, thinks all taxes are bad.

If taken to its logical conclusion, that would also mean that all government spending is bad. Not just equalization and grants and other things that Harper would have taken offence to back in his National Citizens Coalition days. We're also talking about defence, and law enforcement, and any public infrastructure whatsoever - stuff that even the most libertarian members of Harper's party would concede that we need.

Now, it's probably fair to assume that the Prime Minister does not in fact favour anarchy, much as I like the possibilities for his next campaign song. But if he believes anything close to what he says he believes in, you have to wonder how he manages to get through each day on his current job - particularly at a time when the government has vastly increased spending in response to the recession. It's somewhat akin to the CEO of a $250-billion corporation presiding over its expansion, while simultaneously hinting that the corporation shouldn't exist.

In hiding

The Sasquatch's June/July issue is now complete, featuring plenty of great material on nuclear development, labour issues, P3s and other topics. But it's also worth noting what's missing, as the Sask Party government appears to be going out of its way to refuse to talk to the magazine:

(Advanced Education, Employment and Labour Minister Rob) Norris declined to comment for this article.

(Since-deposed) Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart declined to comment for this article.

So for those who recognize that a government running for cover has to be a good sign that a journalistic outlet is striking a nerve, consider this one more reason to give the Sasquatch a look. And hopefully as time goes by, the Wall government won't have much choice but to pay attention to what it has to say.

Burning questions

Which is a more scathing indictment of an actual or potential government: "(can't) find its ass with a map and a flashlight", or "wouldn’t know how to run a lemonade stand"? And more importantly, if those are supposed to be the two main choices for Canadian voters, isn't it long past time to start talking about some better ones?

Liberals Roll Over: The Environment

In working with the "Liberals Roll Over" theme, it's worth mentioning some reminders of the more glaring examples of how the Libs - under multiple leaders - have gone out of their way to give the Harper Cons what they've wanted. So let's get started with the key issue which the Libs have tried hardest to make their own during Harper's tenure in power - only to end up helping the Cons in making matters worse.

After Stephane Dion built his successful leadership bid around the environment, it was to be expected that there would be a few showdowns between a Lib party claiming to see the issue as one of the three "pillars" of its philosophy, and a Con government which has obviously gone out of its way to avoid doing anything meaningful on the issue.

And for at least one fleeting moment, it looked like the result might be for the Libs (in cooperation with the other opposition parties) to manage to get some positive changes passed despite Con recalcitrance. After spending months complaining about an NDP-demanded committee to rewrite the Cons' sad excuse for an environmental bill (C-30), the Libs eventually decided at the last minute to work with it - with the end result being an amended bill supported by all three opposition parties.

It may not be much of a surprise that the Cons' answer was to refuse to advance the bill any further - and of course in the summer of 2007 they prorogued Parliament to completely halt its progress. Which is where the Libs' rolling over comes in.

Dion publicly demanded that the Cons bring back the amended C-30 in their throne speech (and by implication as a government bill in the new session of Parliament) - failing which the Libs would vote down the Con government.

Of course, Harper's throne speech did nothing of the sort: not only did it promise to bring back only the elements of C-30 which had all-party agreement (i.e. the Cons would do what the Cons planned to do anyway), but it included a deliberate shot at the Kyoto process which the opposition parties were still looking to work under.

Did the Libs even consider sticking to their word? Not for a second: instead, their new line in the sand became only a weak statement that they wouldn't vote for Con legislation that would endanger the environment.

Having set a bar low enough to allow them to keep propping up the Cons despite continued inaction on climate change and even damaging regulations or other governmental functions which didn't go through Parliament or even back down on legislation by simply allowing it to pass, the Libs still miraculously managed to keep rolling over since - voting with the Cons on this year's budget with its attacks on environmental protection for Canada's waterways. And by stating that wringing every drop of oil out of Alberta's tar sands is a matter of "national unity" which overrides any apparent consideration of environmental costs, Michael Ignatieff has made clear that the Libs don't have any intention of improving matters anytime soon even if they do manage to stumble into a chance to do so.

So more than two years after a legislative plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions won majority approval in the House of Commons, and nearly two years after the Libs supposedly made that plan a condition of their support for the Con government, we're now in an even worse position than we were at the time. And all because when given the chance to stand up for what was supposed to be a core principle, the Libs have rolled over time and time again.



(Edit: fixed typo.)

Coincidental

A new State of the Future report with backing from a remarkable range of different groups is calling for an "effort on the scale of the Apollo mission" which landed man on the moon to combat global warming. (And it would seem reasonable to figure that saving our current planet is worth at least as much of a concentrated effort as exploring its satellite.)

But just in time, hoax theories about the moon landing are also getting new attention in the press. Which raises the question: if the next argument in favour of strong action against climate change is based on an analogy to, say, the industrial revolution, will we be treated to a corresponding argument that that too was a hoax?

Sunday Morning Rider Blogging

Yesterday's win over Toronto obviously made for another successful game for the Saskatchewan Roughriders. But it's worth noting that the game exposed a few weaknesses which the 'Riders overcame in large part due to avoidable errors by the Argos.

Starting with the defence, the game confirmed that while the 'Riders will keep up a ferocious pass rush, they'll be plenty vulnerable to the run as a result. The team's occasional difficulty in finishing tackles against B.C. became a regular problem against Toronto, as Jamal Robertson consistently shed the first tackler or two on his way to significant gains (particularly in the first quarter when the Argos went to a variety of confusing formations to counter Gary Etcheverry's defensive creativity).

Mind you, the defence did find an answer - not in actually stopping the run on a regular basis, but in going after the ball with a vengeance even if that meant risking a few extra yards against. That worked extremely well against an undisciplined Argos team, but may be far less successful as the season goes on.

The other main issue defensively was a perpetual inability to cover receiver Reggie McNeal, who had absolutely no trouble getting wide open downfield (with Omarr Morgan the apparent goat on a few of the plays) but minimized the damage by dropping a couple of seemingly easy catches. Of course Saskatchewan will take that outcome, but it definitely can't count on opponents giving away big plays like that.

On offence, the 'Riders performance was serviceable but not exceptional. Particularly on the series where the 'Riders scored their first touchdown, the team's plan seemed to be to keep the offence on the field with a dink-and-dunk possession scheme and let the Argonauts move the ball downfield for them with bad penalties. But that strategy - combined with another set of opportunistic reactions to turnovers (three touchdowns which came from a combined 34 yards of net offence) - put the game nearly out of reach by the end of the first half even if it didn't make for particularly impressive statistics.

And while Durant wasn't perfect in the ball-protection department, the Argos weren't anywhere near as prepared as the 'Riders to take advantage of their opportunities to take the ball back, missing out on two potential interceptions: one on Durant's whiff on a pass in the second quarter, one on an out that Jason Shivers dropped in the third. That may be more potential turnovers than would be ideal from Durant, but is probably a reasonable number for a game where an already-hurting offensive line had to add a new starter over the course of the last week (and all indications seemed to be that Matt O'Meara held his own).

While the good news for the 'Riders is that they've been able to capitalize on opponents' mistakes so far, the bad news is that their next opponent is the one team in the CFL which seems to be firing on all cylinders to start the season. So once again, the 'Riders will have to pivot from building a win largely on one weakness one week (the Lions' lack of a running game and the Argos' lack of discipline) to facing a team which can claim that same area as a major strength. And if the 'Riders can keep up their pattern of rising to the occasion against Montreal, then their surprising standing alone at the top of the West may last for quite some time to come.