On false branding

Pop quiz time. Which is the first Canadian political party that comes to mind based on the following description?

...consumed by internal obsessions and bogged down with endless scandal and mismanagement...

Send your answer to Andrew Steele for his information.

Mind you, Steele's utterly bizarre theory about the NDP's current position goes a bit further than that phrase alone. But it doesn't make his take any more plausible:

The other, bigger issue is the toxic legacy of past NDP governments. Few would choose to return to profligate regimes consumed by internal obsessions and bogged down with endless scandal and mismanagement.

A vigourous debate about how to govern would be in the NDP's best interest. The time has come to move past some of the discredited shibboleths clogging up the NDP's policy cupboard - rent control and nationalized energy spring to mind - and find more effective policies to ennunciate the NDP's values.

Starting with the painfully obvious, the next party which actually has an internal debate about what level of "internal obsession,...scandal and mismanagement" it should seek to pursue while in office would be the first. (Even if I'd have to acknowledge that it would make for a highly entertaining conversation.) So Steele's supposed advice is obviously based more in an attempt to falsely brand the NDP than in any idea about what the party should actually be discussing.

But what about that attempted brand? There, the question is one of evidence rather than statements which fall apart even on their own internal absurdity. But Steele's case doesn't come out any better in his first description of the NDP as "profligate" based on the historical record:

NDP governments have balanced the books 46 per cent of the time. Manitoba’s NDP government has posed surpluses every year it has been in office and Saskatchewan’s NDP government posted 11 consecutive balanced budgets after ending a decade of Conservative mismanagement and corruption.

Despite Paul Martin’s frequent pronouncements on fiscal responsibility, Liberals have the worst fiscal record overall. Liberal federal, provincial and territorial governments have posted year-over-year budget deficits an astonishing 79 per cent of the time.

Conservative governments have only a slightly better record than the Liberals, logging deficits 65 per cent of the years in which they’ve been in power.

The report issued today by the Liberal government’s Department of Finance looks at federal, provincial and territorial accounts over the past 22 years.

In other words, NDP = fiscally responsible. Steele's Liberals = profligate. And dishonest about that fact.

But one might say, what if Steele were referring only to the federal NDP as compared to the provincial governments who have consistently been more responsible than their Lib or Con counterparts? I'd think that's more than ruled out by the feigned concern over the "legacy of past NDP governments", but just for kicks let's see how that assumption works with the rest of Steele's thesis.

So let's have another pop quiz - this a two-parter.

1. Never mind Steele's descriptor "endless", name a single scandal involving the federal NDP.

Go ahead, take your time.

2. If you've come up with anything at all, compare it to Steele's party's sponsorship scandal in scope, breadth, and damage to the party and/or the wider political system.

Now which federal party can possibly be considered as one associated with "endless scandal"? And I won't even get started on a Liberal criticizing another party for "internal obsessions" getting in the way of effective political action.

In sum, Steele seems to be putting up nothing more than a cynical effort to try to tar the NDP with his own party's obvious weaknesses. And while there are some honest points to be made about areas where the NDP can look to improve, it's fairly clear that Steele's are something else entirely.

Could have been avoided

One of the more interesting developments on the federal political scene last week was the first wave of public discussion about the fact that the Cons went out of their way to avoid actually passing their much-promoted home renovation tax credit - presumably (as noted by Paul Wells) as a means of ensuring that the Libs roll over on a fall confidence vote. But it's particularly remarkable in retrospect how thoroughly the strategy was telegraphed.

Here's an exchange between Lib MP Massimo Pacetti and Deficit Jim Flaherty all the way back in February:

Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
...
The home renovation credit doesn't seem to be anywhere in the budget, it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the ways and means. And the third quick question is, has anybody calculated how much money the Government of Canada is guaranteeing via EDC loans, BDC loans, CMHC, swapping bad assets for good assets? Has anybody made a calculation as to how much money the Government of Canada is on the hook for?

Hon. Jim Flaherty:
The home renovation tax credit is not in the bill; it was in the ways and means. It's a tax measure, yes, and it has been approved by the House. I had this discussion recently with your colleague from Markham--Unionville. This is not easy to design. The design is complex. So the home renovation tax credit will be in the usual second budget bill this year.

Let's start by dispensing with the excuse that some complex design was required which would take months upon months for the Cons to work out compared to the rest of the budget. Remember that the bill which the Cons put forward was the same 551-page behemoth which gutted the federal pay equity structure, rewrote rules about competition and foreign investment and created new, accountability-free rules for federally-run "bridge institutions" in the case of a financial meltdown. From that starting point, it shouldn't have been all that difficult to make the case that the Cons should have been able to get their act together to include a single tax credit which supposedly formed the centrepiece of their stimulus package.

But failing that, the Cons would have had a few months in which to pass the home renovation tax credit as a standalone bill before the summer break - which presumably would have made for a reasonable request for cooperation over the balance of the spring session. Instead, the Libs were happy to ignore an obvious trap which seems set to close on them over the next couple of months.

Now, would it have been obvious at the time that the trap wouldn't be sprung until the fall? Let's note that the concept of a "usual" second budget bill is somewhat misleading given that only once have the Cons actually allowed a session of Parliament to last through an entire calendar year beginning with a budget. But for anybody checking their history, it should have been a fairly simple matter to note that their second budget implementation bill in 2006 wasn't even introduced until October of that year.

So from the time of Flaherty's response to Pacetti nearly six months ago, it should have been clear what was afoot. And indeed the Libs' current position is that they saw the problem coming:

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said he asked Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to put the credit in the spring budget implementation bill so consumers would have certainty, but Flaherty apparently declined.

"I still think it will go through at the end of the day because we will certainly honour it, but people might still have a nagging doubt until it is passed and this could have been avoided," said McCallum.

But the reality is that it's the Libs who chose to support Deficit Jim's budget on the Cons' terms. Which means that if and when the Libs get strong-armed into backing the Cons once again based on an inevitable set of threats about the home renovation tax credit, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

Deep thought

It doesn't strike me as a good sign when a party's top example of fresh talent supposedly attracted by its new leader is somebody who lost the same riding under the old one.

On separation

The NDP's upcoming convention is starting to get plenty of mainstream coverage. But while most of the reporting about a party name change and election readiness sounds familiar, there does appear to be one new development in the topics up for discussion:

In related resolutions, delegates will be asked whether to separate the NDP's provincial and federal memberships, which total about 70,000.

"As the caucus gets larger, as we build our infrastructure and get our party into more of a breakthrough mode, these issues are taking on a greater significance," says NDP national director Brad Lavigne.

Now, I'll be curious to see what rationale there is for splitting off provincial and federal memberships. But for now, I'd have to be skeptical of the proposal.

After all, a common membership list effectively allows the two levels of NDP organization to complement each other: where one recruits a new member, the other both benefits from the new arrival within the party, and can avoid putting its own resources into pursuing the same individual. In contrast, a membership split would seem to me to require each level of the party to go through its own registration process for each individual member - creating double the workload just to administer the current level of membership even if the numbers stay the same.

So even leaving aside the question of whether a split membership process would make it more difficult to share information or otherwise coordinate between the federal and provincial wings, there would seem to be an obvious cost to the plan.

Meanwhile, the apparent benefit of splitting the two types of membership would be the potential to add new members at one level of government who prefer not to be affiliated at the other. But it's hard to see how the federal party would stand to gain much on that front either.

Of the provinces where there's any arguable gap in political orientation between the NDP's federal and provincial wings, it's uniformly the provincial wing which has expanded its reach somewhat further toward the political centre than the federal wing. Which means that by separating the lists, the federal NDP would seem to be undercutting its own apparent efforts to work with an expanded base of potential support. Yet it's not clear that the provincial wings would seem to benefit much from a split either, as the dual membership requirement may well keep more activists inside the party's tent than would be the case otherwise.

Mind you, there's an important exception to the rule in Quebec, where one can make the case that there might be a wave of potential recruits into the federal NDP who wouldn't want to bind themselves to any provincial party in the process. Indeed, I'm not sure for the moment how the dual membership requirement even applies in a province where the NDP doesn't run candidates provincially.

That said, it would seem to make more sense to establish an exception for provinces where there isn't a substantial NDP presence at the provincial level than to make a change which would radically overhaul the party's membership structure across the country. And hopefully the convention will agree that the last thing that either the federal or provincial wings should want to do is to limit the NDP's cooperation and party unity across jurisdictional divides.

On repeated patterns

Sure, it might seem like Robert has caught the CP's Joan Bryden and her sources for an article on EI distorting easily-checked facts about the impact of an eight-week eligibility standard. But don't we know by now that truth is no object when it comes to keeping the uppity working folk from benefiting from government action?

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Needless to say, it's a pleasant surprise to be able to write about an hard-fought victory over the defending Grey Cup champtions rather than looking for bright spots in a third consecutive loss. But what's most impressive about the 'Riders' result yesterday is that they won in a way which hadn't yet worked this season.

Again, the two previous 'Rider victories followed a fairly predictable pattern: the defence and special teams forced a ton of turnovers early on, the offence capitalized with a good number of points on a short field, and then the team clung to a lead the rest of the way despite some rough patches on both sides of the ball. But when a similar start resulted instead in a gut-wrenching defeat last week, it figured to be time for the team to go back to the drawing board.

So rather than counting on stripping the ball from opponents at every available opportunity, the 'Riders played more of a bend-but-don't-break defence - generating enough pressure to keep Henry Burris from getting too comfortable, but not forcing a single turnover until two failed third-down plays in the game's closing minutes.

Granted, Calgary managed to churn up more yardage than would have been ideal, and the 'Riders gave up another 100-yard game on the ground. And indeed the defence seldom seemed in control of the game until the Stamps' final three possessions where they had clearly abandoned one part of their offence (a two-and-out when Joffrey Reynolds was handed the ball in hopes of running out the clock and staying in field-goal range, and two three-and-outs when Burris had little choice but to go to the air.)

But the overall result was to hold the Stamps' point total to a level where the offence had a reasonable chance to win the game. Which they did, despite a few missed opportunities for points earlier in the game. And it may have been one of Darian Durant's perceived weaknesses that actually allowed Saskatchewan to generate the decisive play.

After all, a team facing a quarterback with a reputation for a stronger arm almost certainly would have had some better deep support in the secondary while clinging to a 6-point lead. But the Stamps instead left enough room in their defensive backfield for Chris Getzlaf to both get open, and find a relatively uncontested path to the end zone.

Meanwhile, credit also has to go to Steven Jyles for his second-quarter performance. If there was any point where the defence looked like it was about to snap, it would have been after the Stamps had controlled the ball for most of the quarter, settling for two fairly short field goals with the wind at their back but having plenty of time on the field to wear out Saskatchewan's defence. Rather than letting them get the ball back, Jyles and the offence ran the five-plus minutes left in the half off the clock - never generating any huge plays, but getting into field goal range with a gritty ground game and a few well-placed passes. That kept the 'Riders within striking distance going into the second half, where their first third-quarter points of the season kept the game within reach the rest of the way.

So what should the team be looking to improve going into B.C.? Once again, punt returning looks to be a serious issue, as Gerran Walker may have been the least effective returner yet with his unfortunate habit of running backwards or in circles. The rest of the special teams also had some issues throughout the game, with Luca Congi missing two field goals (one on a tip) and Jamie Boreham's punting also looking subpar in both gross and net results. And while the tackling was somewhat better, there's still ample room for improvement there.

Ultimately, the 'Riders probably can't count on getting a few of the breaks they got against the Stamps in most games. But they found a way to win a game decided on field position and offensive production against the best team on paper in the West. And while the game probably would have been a reasonably successful one in that respect even if Getzlaf's second TD hadn't happened, the fact that the 'Riders managed to put another notch in the win column should relieve plenty of the pressure previously facing the team.

In solidarity

Angelo Persichilli's fact-free rant about unions positively cried out for a thorough debunking. And Dr. Dawg has delivered so the rest of us don't have to.

On common experiences

Even the National Post can't help pointing out the problems encountered by a large number of governments relying on nuclear power:

Globally, half of the 45 reactors currently under construction have encountered construction delays and many are over-budget, according to an analysis recently tabled to the German government. These delays and hefty cost overruns, together with the recession's decreased energy demand, have prompted a closer look at what was just years ago considered the world's favourite energy source.

The Point Lepreau station in New Brunswick -- Atlantic Canada's only nuclear facility and the first CANDU-6 reactor to undergo a complete rebuild -- has been under refurbishment since March 2008 and is now seven months behind schedule. The province is on the hook for roughly $150-million in additional replacement fuel costs, and will rack up another $20 million for every month the project is delayed.

In Finland, a massive power plant touted as the poster child of the nuclear renaissance has been under construction for four years. While the reactor was scheduled for completion this summer, Areva, the French company building it and one of three bidders on Ontario's Darlington project, is now unwilling to predict when it will go online. The reactor, slated to be the biggest in the world with an excavation site the size of 55 football fields, is today roughly 50% over budget.

Russia announced last week that it will rein in construction of new reactors because of the financial downturn and a decline in electricity consumption. Though the government planned to build two units each year over the next several years, it has "corrected" that plan by halving production to one unit per year.

Officials in the U.S. announced in April it would suspend construction of a $6-billion nuclear project in Missouri. Two months later, the country's largest nuclear power generator, Exelon, said it was "ramping back" plans to build a proposed nuclear plant in Texas.

"The industry has predicted that new cheap reactors, in a world searching for silver-bullet solutions to climate change, would revive an industry moribund since Chernobyl," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, spokesman for Greenpeace Canada, referring to the 1986 nuclear disaster that left an entire Ukraine city uninhabitable. "Ontario's delay shows the industry is failing to deliver on cheap reactors."

Patently ridiculous

David Akin's post on prescription drug research and development is definitely worth a read. But it's worth filling in a few pieces of background information to demonstrate the appalling demands being made by Big Pharma - and the unfortunate likelihood that the Cons would be receptive to them.

Here's Akin:

(T)he lobby group for the big pharmaceuticals had been pushing for an extension on their patent protections, promising, in return, to spend 10 per cent of Canadian sales on R&D in Canada. The Industry Canada policy officers note that: "... after peaking in 1997 at 12.9% [of sales], [Big Pharma spending on R&D] has declined to 8.5% in 2006. The dollar value of their R&D has been flat at about $1.2 billion while sales have continued to grow.

Now, the first point worth noting is that the Cons had already given Big Pharma a freebie on exclusive sales of brand-name prescription drugs which aren't covered by normal patent rules. For those drugs - estimated to cover roughly a quarter of the prescription drug market - the Cons increased the window for exclusive sales from five years to eight without apparently getting anything in return other than the industry's gratitude.

So what was the cost of that giveaway? Estimates at the time pegged the cost at approximately $120 million per year, based on three extra years of exclusive rights to a quarter of Canada's prescription drug market.

Let's use that number as a rough guide and set the cost of a year's exclusive right related to a set of drugs covering a quarter of the prescription drug market at $40 million. Since patented drugs involve the other three-quarters of the brand-name drug market, that would put the cost of a year's extra protection for them at $120 million.

But then, most of the mooted extensions of patent protection would involve adding five years to the current 20-year term. So the actual annual cost of meeting what figures to be Big Pharma's demand would be in the range of $600 million.

What would the federal government expect to receive in exchange for its agreement to hand that much money from patients and provinces to Big Pharma? Based on the percentages listed in Akin's article, the current sales included in the calculation are in the range of $14 billion. From there, the promised increase in research would amount to 1.5% of the current sales amount (since research would go from 8.5% to 10%) - resulting in an extra $210 million being spent annually on research.

In sum, then, the deal proposed by Big Pharma would involve it taking $600 million in free money, in exchange for its putting barely a third of that into Canadian research which would itself lead to future profits. Needless to say, it's not hard to see why the brand-name drug industry would love that outcome - but the result would be an obvious disaster for the Canadian public.

But wait, there's more!

After all, it's not as if the drug companies themselves are likely to want to stop doing research anytime soon. And Akin provides another piece of information from the report cited as to the relative costs of carrying out R & D in Canada and elsewhere:

Costs of research and Development R&D costs per drug in 2005 averaged US$605 million for chemical pharmaceuticals and US$559 million for bio-pharmaceuticals and took 12-13 years to reach market approval by health authorities (source: Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development).
...
There is variability between firms depending on the drug, number of failures and government R&D funding. In Canada, drug R&D costs are lower due to lower R&D and clinical trial costs (KPMG).

So Canada already enjoys a competitive advantage over other countries in terms of the actual cost of prescription drug R & D. Which means that Big Pharma is effectively asking for a massive subsidy to do what's already in its best interest - namely, carrying out research in the country where that can be done most efficiently for distribution around the world.

All of which is to say that there's no reason why the federal government should be doing anything other than laughing off the demands of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry. But unfortunately, the Cons' track record doesn't reflect any apparent interest in doing anything but taking the industry's orders. Which means that it's far too likely that Canada's health care system and patients will once again end up paying for the Cons' tendency to put Big Pharma first.

Musical interlude

Armin Van Buuren feat. Nadia Ali - Who is Watching? (DJ Remy Remix)

Alone in the world

The Globe and Mail's article on Canada's effective support for the coup against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras is worth a read generally. But the most important part of the story seems to me to be buried beneath discussion of a relatively small military training program:

The U.S., which has major military operations in Honduras, announced a week after the coup that it was suspending $17.9-million in military aid and an estimated $195-million in development aid. The EU also suspended development aid of about $100-million.

“We're focusing our support on President Arias's attempts to find a non-violent, mediated solution, and the earliest possible return of President Zelaya and Honduras to democratic practice and principle,” said Mr. Kent, who has spoken directly to the key players.

He added Canada is not cutting the $16.4-million in development aid it provides each year to Honduras.

So while the world's other developed countries have put up a united stand against the coup by declining to use public money to support the overthrow of the democratically-elected Zelaya, Canada alone is continuing to funnel money into the country. And presumably the money which the Cons are choosing to send is allowing those involved in the coup to paper over the loss of funding from elsewhere - helping to undermine exactly the effort toward reinstating Zelaya which Kent claims to support.

Of course, there's some problem as well with the Canadian military helping to train troops who may be used to suppress the citizens of Honduras in support of the usurpers. But the bigger issue would seem to be not a single troop exchange program, but the need to pressure the Cons not to spend Canadian development money to prop up an illegitimate government. And the longer the Cons stick out as the only government willing to provide resources for the use of the Honduran junta, the more of a beating Canada's reputation is bound to take when it comes to promoting democracy around the world.

On costly choices

Susan Riley:

The much-heralded nuclear "renaissance" appears to have stalled this summer, at least temporarily -- not because of unsettled questions over the disposal of radioactive waste, or fear of nuclear accidents, but because the costs of building new reactors is proving prohibitive.

That, at least, was Premier Dalton McGuinty's explanation for his government's recent decision not to proceed with two new reactors for Ontario's Darlington facility. They were expected to cost $6 billion; the final tally from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the winning bidder, was rumoured to be closer to $26 billion.

Shortly after, Bruce Power, the private company that operates two nuclear facilities for the McGuinty government, announced that it was pulling the plug on new installations at Nanticoke on Lake Erie and Port Elgin on Lake Huron. It has decided to refurbish existing reactors rather than buy new ones.
...
Elsewhere, while European governments move to embrace nuclear power and memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl fade, the nuclear revival is also running into practical roadblocks. Finland's attempt to create a new reactor is three years behind schedule and 50 per cent over budget. Plans to build two reactors in Texas have been postponed. An accident at a German reactor days (sic) has revived apprehensions.

On advancement

A couple of notes worth mentioning in Saskatchewan's NDP circles...

First, the Saskatchewan NDP's provincial caucus has named Stephen Moore as its new chief of staff. And aside from congratulating Stephen on the hiring, I'll note that the move has some interesting ramifications both provincially and federally.

On the provincial level, the hiring looks to be an astute one, as Moore's party commitment, progressive bona fides and base of knowledge and skills figure to be major assets for the provincial caucus as it charts its next course. But of course, that comes at the apparent cost of someone who I'd hoped would continue to carry the party banner in my home riding of Wascana - opening up another Regina-area seat for potential new contenders.

Speaking of which, one prospective campaign in the most promising of those ridings looks to be off to a good start. Noah Evanchuk hasn't yet unveiled an official website, but he's already working on fund-raising in advance of a formal launch.

Of course, Evanchuk was already doing well in his Facebook support at over 300 and counting. But it's the more the merrier for both public endorsements and fund-raising to support his campaign as it develops - so feel free to stop by and show some support for what looks to be the best chance of pulling Palliser out of Con hands and into those of the NDP.

Truly shocking

Apparently some political parties still allow their members to vote their preference among qualified candidates for party president, rather than pushing everybody but the leader's choice out of the race. Who knew?

Fish Time

Shorter Lawrence Martin:

Achievement in the arena of business lobbying does not come without hardship—sometimes, it can even be as difficult to obtain as is the cloaca of a female river trout. This is why only the most loyal, brave, and commercially intuitive business leader John Manley is overseeing the Canadian Council of Chief Executives empire, always cautious not to act in ways unbefitting the continued harmony of the CCCE. There can be no dispute of this claim.

(See here for background.)

Someday, this could all be ours

The latest from Chalk River:

Radioactive water has stopped leaking from the nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ont., ending two months of low-level radiation seeping into the atmosphere near Ottawa.

Workers with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. recently completed draining the reactor's 65,000-litre vessel and are now preparing to dispatch a remote-controlled ultra-sonic probe deep into the disabled machine to inspect the site of a pinhole leak of tritium-laced heavy water that began May 14.

What it reveals will help determine what is expected to be a delicate, complex and potentially costly repair strategy.

Most of the leaking water was slowly captured and stored in special drums and is to be reused when the National Research Universal reactor restarts. But about 20% evaporated and was drawn into the building's ventilation system. To prevent a dangerous buildup of tritium inside the NRU building, the airborne tritium was steadily released into the atmosphere as the leak progressed.

The quantity going into the surrounding air, some of which then fell on land and into the Ottawa River, was well within current maximum health limits. Still, those limits were publicly questioned in June by the federal nuclear safety commissioner, echoing a long-running debate over what constitutes safe exposure to cancer-causing tritium, especially in drinking water.

Then and now

Then:

"The contents of the EI working group are confidential," Ryan Sparrow, the newly installed spokesman for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, said in a brief interview.

"We hope the Liberal party maintains that confidentiality as well."

Now:

The blue-ribbon panel on employment insurance reform that saved Canadians from a summer election is not going well.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley emerged from a summer Conservative caucus meeting on Parliament Hill today and went straight to the waiting microphone.

The minister responsible for EI suggested the six member panel is at loggerheads and blamed Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

“Over the summer we've been conducting meetings on EI and Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal members have publicly stated they are not willing to move off their 360 hour entry point for Employment Insurance,” she said, describing the position as “academic fantasy land.”

She said the Liberals must come forward with specific, detailed proposals that won't require a raise in taxes.

Of course, a major part of the problem has to do with the fact that the Libs chose to put themselves in a position where they have to rely on the Cons' goodwill to accomplish anything - with results that were obvious from day one. But in case anybody was operating under the misplaced belief that the Cons were suddenly going to take the EI panel as an opportunity to try being reasonable for the first time, the answer is no such luck.

On diverging interests

Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:

The Harper Cons stand to benefit massively if they can avoid an election this fall and run on a wave of Olympic patriotism in 2010. But I'd like the Liberals to prop up the government this fall as if they had no idea about those consequences.


(Mind you, it's all the more sad that the Libs are entirely likely to take MacDonald's concern-trolling advice and keep supporting Harper.)

Deep thought

Wouldn't it be nice to have a provincial government who pushed the province to discuss how to meet ambitious renewable energy targets, rather than how to get out of its previous environmental promises?

On slanted perspectives

If Simon's post on the Globe and Mail's Silver/Powers blog goes off course at all, it's in his apparent view that Tim Powers' relentless stream of Con talking points would suggest somebody one would want to "have a beer with". But he nicely hints at a point that I'd been thinking about myself as well.

On paper, the structure of Silver/Powers would seem to make sense as an attempt to facilitate a clash of points between the Libs and Cons. Of course that itself presents an unduly limited picture of the political scene, but in theory it at least offers some prospect of "balance" as defined by conventional corporate-media wisdom.

But with increasingly rare exceptions, the result has proven to be something else entirely. Both Powers and Silver seem to be spending most of their time launching attacks to their left: Silver has made a hobby out of bashing unions, David Miller and any policy which might be anything other than big business' first choice (secure in the knowledge that none of his targets enjoys a similar platform to respond), while Powers is able to rest assured that Silver is more interested in attacking anybody with NDP leanings than in addressing any but the most inflammatory of Harper-style cheap shots directed his way.

As a result, rather than even meeting the already-modest goal of presenting a clash over an artificial "centre", the Globe and Mail's excuse for a back-and-forth discussion is instead working consistently to move the boundaries of Canadian political discussion further to the right. But I suppose those of us who see politics as more than an argument about what colour should accompany a corporatist agenda should be taking solace in the fact that a blogger who "has at one time or another canvassed door to door for all parties save the Marxist Leninists" has meekly suggested that Michael Ignatieff should pretend to be progressive.

On icebreakers

Following up on the Star Phoenix' editorial which I linked to this morning, let's note one other development which speaks volumes about the gap between what the Cons have promised when it comes to the Arctic and what they have any apparent intention of delivering:

Defence analysts have complained that the Conservatives are forcing both the navy and coast guard to shoehorn their purchases into a pre-defined budget, rather building ships that make sense.

The most recent example is the Harper government's pet project to construct six Arctic patrols ships. In order to stay within budget, the navy recently watered down its expectations of what the light icebreakers, meant to enforce Canada's sovereignty in the North, can do.

Or, put in visual terms, the Cons are claiming credit for this:


But with the Cons having been too busy declaring their own greatness to actually get much done, the actual results are more like this:

The reviews are in

Adam Radwanski:

The general consensus seems to be that Teneycke is considerably easier to deal with, on a personal level, than Buckler. But if the government's communication style was any different with him in charge than it was with her, it was very difficult to notice. The flow of information was still abysmal; the attacks on opponents were still gratuitous; the suspicion of media was still apparent.

If any proof was needed of the extent to which Stephen Harper's personality overwhelms everyone in his employ, the Teneycke experience helped provide it...

This may not let other staffers - notably Guy Giorno - off the hook for some of the miscalculations under their nominal watch. But it does remind us that there's no point trying to cast blame (or credit) too broadly for what happens in the PMO.

Burning question

So when can we expect Stephen Harper's apology for declaring that the communion wafer controversy reflected a deliberate attempt to foment religious strife rather than a matter of poor editing?

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board:

The commitment looks impressive on paper: The government will procure new Arctic patrol vessels, build the largest icebreaker in the Canadian fleet, set up a deep-sea port, establish military bases and bolster the historic -- and historically underfunded -- Canadian Rangers.

It is fortunate that it looks good on paper, in three official languages including English, French and Inuktitut -- because on paper is the only place where the commitment exists.
...
It is telling that the three ministers who made the announcement about the latest installment of Canada's Arctic sovereignty commitment did so at a museum in Gatineau rather than anywhere near the territory they so eloquently defended. Given that the Arctic still lacks adequate infrastructure, it presumably would have been extremely difficult for the ministers to get there with enough media in tow and return in time for the Conservatives' mid-summer caucus in Ottawa, where party members are being prepped for an imminent federal election.

On daunting frontiers

Susan Delacourt tries to talk seriously about a substantive issue in discussing the rural/urban gap in female representation in the House of Commons:

Rural areas are the daunting frontier for women with dreams of getting elected in Canada, according to new, in-depth research.

Louise Carbert, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, has been systematically analyzing how female politicians are faring in Canada's urban-rural divide. Carbert's work has been published in Sylvia Bashevkin's new book, Opening Doors Wider: Women's Political Engagement in Canada. Carbert's main – and sobering – finding is that women are twice as likely to get elected in Canada if they come from urban areas. In 2008, women were elected in 31 per cent of the most densely populated areas of Canada, compared to 14 per cent in rural districts.

"This ratio has persisted over several decades despite substantial increases in the number of women elected overall," Carbert's study says.

So if you're serious about upping the numbers of women in Canadian legislatures, she says, you have to get out of the cities, and into the country.
...
Some say women are under-represented in rural areas because Conservatives generally win in those ridings and Conservatives aren't that friendly to women politicians. The current Conservative caucus is made up of 16 per cent women.

But needless to say, the Cons will have none of it:

But a spokesperson from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office disputes that notion, pointing out that cabinet ministers such as Diane Finley, Leona Aglukkaq, Gail Shea and Helena Guergis all hail from rural areas, as do several strong Conservative women MPs.

"To suggest there are no strong women representing rural areas flies in the face of the facts and is, in fact, playing to a false stereotype," said PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall. "It is the Liberals and NDP who have real trouble electing anyone – man or woman – in rural areas because they are out of touch with rural Canada."

Now, seldom will one see such a concise example of the Cons' usual bag of PR tricks at work.

Gross misrepresentation of any position which could possibly operate against their interests, in this case turning an issue of systemic underrepresentation into a fictitious claim of "no strong women"? Check.

Gratuitous bashing of competing parties on issues which have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand? Check.

A complete failure to consider the logical consequences of their own arguments, since if the other two parties in fact "have real trouble electing anyone" in rural areas then the Cons could seemingly fix any underrepresentation issues on their own? Check.

Which raises the question: when that kind of slash-and-burn, reflexively-negative mindset has been rewarded with wins in the past two elections, isn't it a miracle that anybody's still bothering with politics at all?

Deep thought

Last I checked, neither idle election speculation nor an increase in blind partisanship was high on the list of things we need more of in Ottawa.

On consultations

For those waiting until the last minute to put together a submission in response to the UDP report on the nuclear industry, the deadline is coming up this Friday, July 31. Check out the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan's site for a handy list of materials.

Meanwhile, the federal copyright consultations are in full swing, with the first set of submissions going public this weekend. There's plenty of time left until the September deadline - but why wait when you can take action now?

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.