Musical interlude

Hemingway Corner - Watch Over You

Nothing changed

Shorter Brad Wall:

It's unfair to say there was never any consultation about the contents of the WEPA back when it was called the TILMA. We've just chosen to ignore what that consultation actually said.

On high-priced credit

Shorter Murray Mandryk:

Sure, Rob Norris' stay in cabinet has generally been a slow motion train wreck. But it's theoretically possible that one letter he wrote could be linked to desirable action if another level of government which has ignored similar requests before decides to change its tune. And under CanWest policy, that entitles any Sask Party minister to a column singing his praises.

Suddenly it all makes sense

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

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

On lessons learned

The UK's election yesterday obviously has fallen short of the shift in the balance of party power that some commentators may have anticipated. But the Liberal Democrats' failure to gain any ground serves primarily as an example of how not to capitalize on an opening to pursue real systemic change, rather than a statement that it's futile to try.

At the outset, it's worth noting that the Lib Dems' momentary strength was itself based in part on the actions of its opponents. With both Labour and the Conservatives spending much of the campaign anticipating the possibility of a minority government where the Libs Dems' support could prove crucial, the two historical governing parties managed to turn "I agree with Nick" into the catchphrase of the UK's first-ever leaders' debate. And it's not surprising that with all three leaders effectively boosting the Lib Dems and their leader, public opinion followed suit - though even that represented only a shift of a few points from the 2005 reults.

But while the Lib Dems were happy to ride the wave of hype coming out of the debate, there doesn't seem to be any indication that their political machine had much of a strategy even to maintain their new level of public support, let alone to translate it into the improvements in their seat count. Which means that when the other parties inevitably shifted their message to cut into the Lib Dems' momentum, the Lib Dems ended up right back where they started - except with the burden of having fallen short of temporarily heightened expectations.

Now, the Lib Dems' difficulties are hardly unusual for a third party seeking to rise up to the level of a historical two-party race. And that's probably worth keeping in mind when we'd otherwise be tempted to point to the Lib Dems, or the ADQ, or any other third-party gains as evidence of a public appetite to overturn a longstanding two-party structure.

But while there are plenty of examples of how a momentary increase in third-party support based on a popular leader and dissatisfaction with the two main parties can prove fleeting, that's not the end of the story.

Instead, it's when a third party is able to back up those factors with a sound base of principled support and effective party-level planning that it's actually possible to produce lasting change in party positioning - with the Nova Scotia NDP serving as a prime recent example of how the right conditions can come together. And the fact that the federal NDP has developed an effective inoculation strategy over the past few elections to maintain its support against the Libs' predictable attacks should signal that it's also on the right track.

Ultimately, then, the lesson which any party should draw from the Lib Dems' failings is to keep focusing on those fundamentals which it can largely control, rather than banking on bubbles of support which are sure to burst sooner or later. And hopefully the reminder should serve to ensure a better result in Canada's next election than seems to have arisen in the UK.

The reviews are in

Murray Mandryk tears into the Wall government for combining a stubborn refusal to do its job of listening to the province with an arrogant sense of entitlement:

This is more than a government having the occasional bad day, which Thursday truly was. This is a government that's become so arrogantly unaccountable that it can't see right now what it's doing wrong.

On Thursday, we saw Environment Minister Nancy Heppner sashay into the legislature at her own leisure. (After all, why should a minister bother to show up on time for question period?) She then blew off reporters' requests for interviews afterwards as if she was back in Ottawa working for Stephen Harper. She's recently demonstrated less understanding and has been less of an advocate for her department than any other minister.

We then saw a petulant Health Minister Don McMorris -- obviously still stinging from the previous day's apology in the assembly -- trying to justify why a Prince Albert man should have to pay for dental surgery after the removal of a matchbook-sized tumour in his jaw. Isn't this the "accountable" government that promised us a health ombudsman and a "patient-first review" so such patients wouldn't fall between the cracks? But in fairness, the Sask. Party government has been distracted by more pressing issues of the day, like removing the plaque in the legislature commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Tommy Douglas government election.
...
Contrary to Wall's sanctimonious notion Wednesday, this government isn't darn near perfect when it comes to accountability and transparency. It has a hell of a long way to go.

Accountability and transparency should be more than bygone campaign rhetoric. They should be the foundation of government culture.

Right now, that culture does not exist in the Sask. Party government.

The silver lining

It's true enough that the Sask Party's refusal to allow NDP MLAs to introduce Terry Parker in the Legislature makes for a rather glaring breach of the usual procedures in the assembly. But I have to wonder whether it also raises a major filibustering opportunity for the NDP: wouldn't a rotating system of MLAs requesting and being denied leave to introduce guests make for an entirely appropriate means of running out the clock on Bill 80 in particular?

A call for transparency

Stefani Langenegger reports on some good news from the Saskatchewan legislature, as the NDP's motion calling for the release of the RCMP's secret files on Tommy Douglas has passed (as expected). We'll find out in time whether the unanimous agreement among Saskatchewan's MLAs can help to push CSIS to release the documents - but the NDP and Sask Party alike deserve credit for the motion's success.

That said, it's worth noting that the motion also seems to signal that both parties in the Legislature can agree on the value of public disclosure about how government has operated in the past. And that may make it difficult for the Sask Party in particular to keep arguing against transparency (or changing the subject from their own secrecy) in the present.

On misplaced appeals

Shorter Helena Guergis:

If the Conservative Party stands for anything, surely it's letting the "you people" decide who should rule them.

(Not to say that I particularly agree with the Cons' decision to nix Guergis as a candidate. But Guergis has to rank near the bottom of the list of people who should be making arguments based on respect for "grassroots electors".)

Edit: fixed wording.

Pressure time

And speaking of policy choices that seem to be based largely on protecting monopolies at public expense, Michael Geist reports that the Harper Cons plan to introduce yet another copyright bill that attacks consumers for the benefit of corporate distributors.

I'm less surprised than some that the Cons' "consultations" have led them back to exactly where they started: if anything, the time period since the consultations ended probably gave them a reprieve from the pressure that forced them to back off in the first place. And the fact that the Cons have gone back to the anti-consumer model should send a strong signal as to whose interests they'd most like to favour.

But it's worth remembering that it was the Cons themselves who chose not to push their first DMCA clone due to the resulting public outcry. So in addition to the entirely reasonable prospect that the opposition parties could team up to kill the bill, it shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that the Cons themselves will at least seek to buy time again in the face of another backlash.

On partial treatment

In the wake of Ontario's move to eliminate "professional allowances" paid to pharmacies by drug manufacturers, the Globe and Mail reports on possible interprovincial cooperation to reduce the cost of generic drugs across the country. And it's certainly a plus if cooperative efforts can make needed medications more affordable for consumers and provinces alike.

But at last notice, the cost of generic drugs made for less than a quarter of all Canadian drug expenses - and of course the market for generics is based entirely on their being a cheaper alternative once a branded drug loses its patent protection. So is there any particular reason why the talk about cost reduction seems to be aimed solely at generic drugs?

On invitations

From Kady's liveblog of the Government Operations committee today:

(Con MP Chris) Warkentin delivers an impassioned monologue on the power and importance of this particular committee during the estimates process; he would hate the committee to become nothing more than a rubber stamp for the estimates.

So are the Cons actually inviting the opposition parties to use Parliament's authority to limit government expenditures - implicitly suggesting that they'd see that action as constructive rather than grounds for an election? And if so, is it about time for some do-overs?

Now comes the hard part

Needless to say, it's great news that notwithstanding the earlier Lib roadblocks, the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act has passed in the democratically-elected chamber of Parliament. But does anybody want to bet against the Cons using their unelected, unaccountable Senators to prevent the bill from ever becoming law?

On misleadership

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

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

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

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

Well said

Brian Topp on the all-too-obvious consequences of an economy based on corporate greed, as well as the best way to avoid them:

What British Petroleum has done in the Gulf of Mexico is what Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and the rest of the rogue's gallery have done to the global economy. This latest tragedy is therefore a perfect symbol of our times – and also a reminder that the consequences of limitless greed and mindless deregulation have been socialized with amazing speed. There being no more committed Marxists than corporate boards seeking to pawn the costs of their decisions onto the public sphere, which they otherwise do everything they can to tear down.

Who will pay to clean up the Gulf of Mexico? Don't bet it will be the shareholders of British Petroleum.

Who will pay for the same cleanup required in the broader economy? The bill for that cleanup has already been slipped to our children and grandchildren, in the form of bailouts and stimulus funded by suddenly limitless public debt.

In the United States, Republicans are smacking their lips, saying the Gulf tragedy is Barrack Obama's fault. In reality, it is just another reminder of the central message of these times. People like that can't be trusted to run anything, anywhere.

Meanwhile, the Harper Cons continue to cling to the argument that the banks at the centre of any possible financial meltdown shouldn't bear any responsibility for fixing any resulting mess. And it remains to be seen whether Canada's Republican-style government will singlehandedly manage to torpedo a global effort to at least limit the damage from the next inevitable collapse.

On developing ideas

For those wondering what's going on with the Saskatchewan NDP policy development process, the answer is plenty. The latest meeting was held last week in Swift Current, featuring Greg Marchildon and Daniel Glaeske presenting on rural health care issues; you can see their presentations either on video or in point form here.

But perhaps more importantly, the first publicly-available member-generated content has also been posted (warning: PDF). While the scope for discussion at the provincial convention was limited to two questions related to young people and education, there's no lack of ideas worth discussing, including a few suggestions on linking education to employment that strike me as both novel and worthwhile:

- Promote labour force attachment which would include job coaches for employing people with multiple barriers to employment.
...
- Start with K‐12 providing comprehensive orientation to help choose a future career. We need to engage young people at the early part of their K‐12 education. Start the discussion in elementary/middle school. Have presentations done by people in the trades/professions. Promote this in the curriculum and all throughout the K‐12 system.
...
- Increase pre‐hiring practices – where the student is hired at the beginning of their post secondary education and work with them throughout their education. Upon completion fully integrate them into their work places.

Those are just a few of the points raised at this year's convention - and hopefully they'll be only the beginning of the ideas generated by the policy review process and presented for public discussion.

For those interested in getting involved, the schedule for upcoming events is here, including discussions of northern issues in La Ronge on May 8 (this weekend) and youth issues in North Battleford on May 15. Or for those who prefer to offer their suggestions online, you'll find an e-mail link as well.

On past consultations

Shorter Wall government:

The previous NDP government did such a good job consulting Saskatchewan citizens about everything under the sun that we see no reason to bother with public input on anything.

On missed opportunities

It shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons are eager to distract from their open-door policy for Rahim Jaffer by trying to impose a full lobbying reporting regime for all MP contact even when the underlying concern is with influence on government decision-making.

But based on the Cons' eagerness to impose costs on the opposition in this and other cases, I'd think it's Harper - not any of the opposition leaders as argued by some - who's missed a significant opportunity to grandstand on the issue of auditing MP expenses. What better way to take advantage of the government's greater resources - and to deflect attention from what the government has done with far larger amounts of public money - than to saddle every opposition MP with nagging questions about meal expenses?

Tuesday Morning Links

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

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

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

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

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

On trial balloons

As Leftdog has noted, the Saskatchewan NDP has released a second new ad ("Balloon"), focusing on the Wall government's woeful fiscal track record and its consequences for the province:


On the plus side, the ad is definitely eye-catching, as the cartoon effect and motion of the balloon on screen figure to attract more viewers than a cookie-cutter ad would. And more importantly, it follows up its attention-grabbing effect by packing loads of information (in both visual and audio form) into its 30-second run time.

Of course, the sheer volume of information may have some drawbacks as well, since a substantial part of the message may end up getting lost in the shuffle for the moment. But while that would be a serious problem in election advertising, I'd have to think the NDP's main focus needs to be on planting seeds which will bear fruit in terms of more concrete impressions around the 2011 election date. And the two ads so far look to make for an important start toward that goal.

Edit: fixed formatting.

On new realities

This weekend, I noted that one of the more important choices facing the federal Libs is whether to paint themselves as all things to all people in pursuit of the remote prospect of a majority, or accept a smaller niche which will make it easier for a combined opposition effort to oust the Harper government. But wouldn't have expected even the most rabid of Lib partisans to be entirely willing to acknowledge that the latter is probably all the Libs can plan for in the foreseeable future:

Liberal Party strategist Warren Kinsella, one of the architects of the Chrétien majority victories of 1993, 1997, and 2000, said he's told members of the current Liberal leadership to forget about winning a majority.

"It may be those of us who were privileged to work for Chrétien worked for the last majority prime minister," he said. "I can see a situation where there will never again be a majority government for the rest of my life."
...
Mr. Kinsella said the entrenchment of the Bloc and the lack of enthusiasm that voters, and particularly young people, have for the two main parties means minority governments are "the way things are going to be."

Declared Mr. Kinsella: "There hasn't been a majority government in this country since 2003 and I've computed it and added it up and so has everybody else and I don't see how you get your way back to that."

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the recognition that a majority simply isn't in the cards anytime soon will lead the Libs to make any meaningful effort to work with the other opposition parties. And in the wake of the Harper precedent of a minority government acting like it has a majority, the Libs may well figure they can attempt the same rather than modifying their usual strategy of pretending that only two parties exist.

But at the very least, the seeming consensus that the Libs can't plausibly expect to win a majority anytime soon would figure to raise questions about how they interact with the elected MPs who will determine who forms the government of Canada in minority Parliaments to come. And if the Libs choose not to look for cooperative solutions to the problems with continued Con government, they may only open the door for another party to successfully take up that mantle.

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre - NDP Nomination Race Shaping Up

In the wake of its strong effort to raise money at the constituency level to make sure Tom Lukiwski faces a well-funded opponent, the Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre NDP now looks to have an interesting nomination battle on its hands. Two candidates are in the field so far, with minister Don Hansen boasting a Facebook page and website, while musician Brian Sklar has a Facebook presence.

No nomination date has yet been set, and it may be that there will be more candidates joining the race. But with two strong candidates already stepping forward, Lukiwski figures to face a tough NDP challenge whenever the next election comes around.

Burning question

Sure, one could interpret Michael Chong's motion on Question Period reform as mavericky. Or one could look at the wording of his statement - featuring a "we" which seems to signal approval from on high - and hold out some ill-placed hope that something will come of it. But isn't the more likely conclusion that the Cons want to be seen pretending to be constructive before an election which will cut short whatever work gets started?

The reviews are in

A couple of columns today nicely criticize the Cons' reckless crime policies for their massive public costs - making for a particularly apt message on a day when the Cons are feigning responsibility when it comes to Canada's finances.

Here's the Ottawa Citizen:

By the time Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page is through putting a price tag on the federal government's tough-on-crime agenda, even those who support the concept in principle might well be asking: "Why are we doing this?"

That could turn into a $10 billion question, or more, before all the costs are tallied, according to some estimates. Page is expected to release a report this week on ongoing and future costs of the government's crime bills, something the federal government has failed to do and may not have even calculated for its own benefit, considering the difficulty both Page's office, MPs, and senators have had gathering financial data. Early indications are that provinces will be on the hook for the bulk of the costs associated with one of those crime bills, the Truth in Sentencing legislation, also known as the two-for-one sentencing law.
...
The enormous drain on the public purse that the government's law-and-order agenda represents is, however, not the only reason to question its value. As criminologists, lawyers and other justice experts have repeatedly noted, the policies championed by the Harper government are not likely to make Canadians safer...

It's bad enough that Conservative operatives and politicians decline to set the record straight and disabuse Canadians of their misguided fears about unsafe streets. Worse, the Harper Conservatives have helped stoke these fears in the cynical belief that doing so is to their political benefit.
...
(M)ndatory minimums encourage those who can afford good lawyers to reach plea bargains to avoid harsh mandatory sentences. More importantly, the research makes clear that 40 years of study indicates they do not deter crime.

What these policies will do is substantially increase prison populations across the country, which is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. Thanks to parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, we may be getting some sense of exactly how exorbitant this will be. The question the government must answer is: What are we getting for our money?

And Dave Breakenridge:

The cost of the so-called Truth-in-Sentencing law, just one of several pieces of Tory tough-on-crime legislation, is in dispute, with Toews suggesting it’s a scant $2 billion, while reports indicate the parliamentary budget officer has it pegged at five times that amount.

Somewhere in that gap lies the real cost, and when it’s added to the several other measures in the hopper, including minimum jail time for drug crimes, we’re left with a large expense to the taxpayer without any real indication our streets will be any safer.
...
(I)t’s time this government realizes that streets can be made safer, and money saved, by not throwing every anti-social type under lock and key.

Drug court funding hikes would be a good start, as would stepping away from some mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes.

Because the more people we keep out of jail who don’t belong there, the more room we have for the worst of the worst.

On influence peddling

Joe at Owls and Roosters has a highly informative post on the Wall government's award of a major contract to former Enterprise Saskatchewan CEO Dale Botting. But Joe seems to me to have only scratched the surface of the glaring problems with the arrangement.

For the most part, Joe focuses in on two major problems: the exorbitant amounts being paid to Botting (more in raw dollars than he's received as CEO, plus public sector-level expenses, plus explicit permission for him to do additional consulting), and the direct link between Botting and the Premier's office.

But there's much more to the deal than that which makes the arrangement look highly questionable. Take for example...

The Sask Party's focus on a "visible culmination" of its corporate-first ideology rather than, say, a mix of development that's actually in the public interest. In effect, Botting's contract explicitly instructs him to use whatever means necessary to give the Sask Party some ribbon cuttings to attend in advance of the 2011 election - reflecting a glaring misuse of public money for political purposes, and a prioritization of glitzy one-time projects over actual economic fundamentals.

And of course, Botting's contract is hardly the only area where public money figures to be funneled into the Wall government's staging. Indeed, the effect of putting a full-court press on the corporations involved in the listed projects seems to be a deliberate attempt to use government influence and resources to alter corporate decision-making.

But what if one recognizes that government has a role in shaping economic development? That brings us to the province's weakened bargaining position. Having been named on a list of projects that the provincial government has a public stake in seeing completed, all of the businesses involved will be able to drive a hard bargain with the province. And the Sask Party doesn't figure to have much choice but to pony up whatever the corporations involved can think to ask for, since it's publicly named a specific list of projects it wants to have finalized as symbolizing economic development (even if they go ahead only because of provincial inducements).

And that in turn leads to the fact that the Wall government has contradicted its constant admonitions against picking winners and losers. The list of 14 projects which they want to be able to point to come election time obviously reflects the "winners" list of corporate interests who can count on provincial support. Meanwhile, the "losers" include both everybody else looking at investment in Saskatchewan - and of course the public which will be stuck with the bill for the Wall government's Potemkin economy.

In sum, Saskatchewan taxpayers are paying a Sask Party crony to peddle his widely-advertised influence with the provincial government, funneling money into politically-motivated "development" intended to provide Brad Wall and company with photo ops in advance of the 2011 election with no regard for the province's longer-term economic interests. And while Saskatchewan voters probably shouldn't be surprised that this is Wall's idea of a market economy, they don't figure to be happy with the knowledge that the province's resources are being so blatantly misused.

Edit: fixed wording.

Dumbing down

A belated shorter John Doyle:

A conscience. An interest in accuracy. A sense of shame. These are the weaknesses which the Cons have long since eliminated in order to better posture on behalf of their party and ideology. And I salute them for it.

On premeditation

It's certainly worth raising the alarm over the Cons' passage of crucial attacks on Parliamentary accountability through lines buried in their omnibus budget bills. But let's also keep in mind what the move says about their supposed commitment to fiscal discipline.

In the spring of 2007, there wasn't much immediate reason for anybody to be concerned about federal borrowing in the wake of large surpluses. And indeed the Cons were a year and a half away from a campaign where they continued to pretend that Canada would never run a deficit on their watch.

But apparently, even while nobody else was expecting Canada to face a sea of red ink, Deficit Jim and Recession Stephen were already scheming to put the public on the hook for borrowed money without Parliamentary oversight. Which in turn suggests that the Cons have always planned to drive Canada into the red, and engaged in plenty of work in advance to avoid public scrutiny when they did so.

Of course, there's never been much room for dispute how ridiculous it is that right-wing, slash-and-burn parties like the Harper Cons claim any reputation as remotely competent fiscal managers. But the Cons' advance planning for unaccountable borrowing looks like thoroughly compelling evidence against their claim to having any interest in managing the country responsibly - and the opposition parties should be eager to reverse the change by pointing out the premeditation involved.

On ad sense

Kent has already provided his review of the Saskatchewan NDP's new TV ad. But I'll go into a bit more detail with my take on what seems like it could be improved, as well as part of the ad which is open to some potentially useful interpretation as the 2011 election draws nearer.

Here's the ad:

In general, I agree with Kent's take that the ad serves as a useful summary of the damage inflicted on Saskatchewan's provincial finances by the Wall government. But that doesn't mean there aren't some areas which I'd hope will be tightened up in future ads - if only as a matter of nitpicking rather than fundamental disagreement with the campaign.

The first issue I'll raise with the ad is the choice of colour cues attached to the "draining" image.

While the effect itself is reasonably eye-catching and generally effective, I'm not sure that it's sufficiently tied to anything that will be easily recalled around election time. Nothing in the ad tries to chip away at Brad Wall or the Sask Party as anything but a word on the screen, which seems like a wasted opportunity to more closely attach visual identifiers to the government's failings. And even the choice of colours doesn't help matters much: the green of the NDP surplus as portrayed in the ad is a far brighter shade than anything that figures to appear as part of the NDP's materials, while the red of the deficit doesn't have any obvious connection to the Sask Party (and nothing in the ad mentions "red ink" or some other explanation).

So the choice of colours and lack of other obvious identifiers will require the NDP to put in extra work to explain the connection.

In addition, the inclusion of the "draining" behind text about the NDP's surplus might create a confusing visual for those who don't pay close attention. It would seem to have been a simple enough matter to show a steady pool of water linked to the NDP's name and surplus, then show the draining happening only as Wall and the Sask Party are mentioned within that part of the screen - ensuring a connection between the NDP and steady government, then a separate link between the Sask Party and the draining effect. But instead, the actual ad leaves some room for viewers paying only partial attention to associate the draining effect with the NDP as well.

Again, that makes for only minor criticism of what's generally a useful ad. And on the bright side, the tag line at the end looks to leave a couple of especially important options open for future messaging.

The question "who knew they'd cost us so much so fast?" might appear on its face to be entirely rhetorical. And in making a pitch to voters who may have supported Wall in 2007, the NDP will surely be happy to leave it at that, effectively offering an out for those who can claim they didn't anticipate the Sask Party's fiscal mess.

But for more active NDP supporters, there's another answer to the question: we did, which is why we've been raising concerns about the Sask Party from the beginning.

As a result, the ad raises separate lines of conversation among less committed voters and the NDP base, with each serving to position the party nicely. So despite the apparent room for improvement, the NDP figures to be well served in putting the ad in front of the public to help frame the 2011 election campaign.

Edit: fixed formatting.

An instant classic

I fully expect the CBC ombudsman to be on the receiving end of more than one genuinely outraged e-mail in the wake of Calgary Grit's latest. But the rest of us should enjoy the due mockery.

(Edit: fixed label.)

On battle plans

Alongside the Speaker's ruling on Parliament's right to hold the Harper government to account, the other major story in Canadian politics during my absence involved the Cons' attempt to change the subject by heaping truckloads of ill-placed accusations on EKOS' Frank Graves as part of their quarterly CBC-bashing efforts. And the fact that the Cons seem so scared of Graves' advice to the Libs suggests that there's reason why they're not happy to see it made public.

But let's take a closer look at what Graves' suggestion would likely produce. Here's the summary of what he had to say:

(Graves) was reported as saying that the Liberal party "should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitan versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy," to unseat the ruling Conservatives.

Presumably the Cons' desperate counterattack is based on their agreement that their socon underbelly makes for the most obvious source of electoral weakness - particularly when Harper is trying (for example) to declare any abortion debate closed in favour of refusing to fund reproductive health or abortion around the globe.

But while the advice may focus in on the Cons' greatest weakness, that isn't to say that it necessarily reflects the greatest theoretical potential for Lib gains either. Instead, it would figure to result in the Libs focusing on preserving their current urban base in a fiery battle over hot-button social issues, while mostly abandoning any focus on Canada's struggling working class to the NDP.

That would figure to be entirely counterproductive for the Libs if their hope is to maximize their chances of a majority or even a clear single-party plurality anytime soon. At least part of any Lib majority coalition surely has to include pocketbook voters who would be turned off by a cultural debate. And what's more, some of the Cons' inroads into suburban areas have been based on making socon appeals to apparently receptive groups - so playing up those issues would present an obvious cap to the Libs' immediate upside.

But while Graves' advice doesn't seem to be oriented toward maximizing the Libs' seat potential in the near future, it might well be the best strategy to ensure a change of government after the next federal election. That is, so long as the Libs and the NDP stick mostly to their complementary lines of attack, and are willing to work together afterward.

After all, the opposition parties need only hold their current seats to revisit the possibility of taking down the Harper Cons now that Ignatieff has learned what happens to those foolish enough to cooperate with Harper. And an all-out "culture war" would figure to allow the Libs to at least maintain their current urban seats and maybe push back into Con territory, while leaving enough political terrain for the NDP to be able to make gains as well.

In other words, Graves' advice makes sense primarily as a means of ensuring that the Libs and NDP are able to work in the same ultimate direction while conveying distinct and effective messages, rather than being locked in a zero-sum contest to own a common set of issues. And there's every reason for the Cons to be scared of that possibility.

Finding labour's voice

In case there was any doubt that the Sask Party is only interested in listening to corporate voices, it should be put to rest by the fact that the Wall government won't even consider the idea of maintaining SCN for its value to the province, but will keep the lights on at public expense only when told to do so by possible bidders.

But there's a highly intriguing possibility among the groups interested in taking over:

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour also expressed interest Friday in bringing together various groups that could take over the station.

Of course, the Wall government would burn SCN to the ground and salt the land it's built on before allowing the SFL to get its hands on a media outlet. But it would be entirely fitting if the Sask Party's ideological distaste for public services ended up facilitating the creation of a network to counterbalance the province's corporate media. And while the Sask Party may be able to gum up the works when it comes to SCN in particular, hopefully the SFL's efforts will lead to far better media balance developing over time.

The reviews are in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musical interlude

Andy Moor & Ashley Wallbridge feat. Meighan Nealon - Faces


Edit: fixed formatting.

On rulings

For all the attention paid to Peter Milliken's ruling this week, I haven't yet seen any commentary pointing out the contrast between the unequivocal statement of the supremacy of Parliament that has been rightly praised, and the rather weak remedy linked to the finding that the Cons have breached their obligations to Parliament. And it's worth pointing out not only that the disconnect exists, but also why it seems to have come about.

So I'll offer a reminder that Milliken's ruling results in a shorter timeline and more apparent pressure on the government than any of the opposition parties has ever been willing to demand. And it's not reasonable to expect a decision-maker to grant an outcome substantially better than the winning side of a dispute has bothered to ask for.

Once again, the opposition parties' willingness to compromise has resulted in their being in a worse position than if they'd actually stuck to the principle of genuine governmental accountability - both to Parliament and to the public. And the absolute certainty that Harper will play them against each other during Milliken's 14-day period (secure in the knowledge that agreement with one eliminates any risk of a finding of contempt) only makes it all the more likely that the result will be less of the truth coming out than should be expected.

Smiling while lying to you

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

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

Predictably, the answer is: pretty much nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burning question

So what on earth has the Sask Party been doing behind closed doors all these months if it was just going to lock Saskatchewan into the TILMA all along?

Blogging break ahead

I'm off to an undisclosed location until next weekend, with little or no blogging in the meantime. But if you're looking for a way to pass some time and do some good in the interim, why not help one of your friendly neighbourhood Saskatchewan NDP riding associations meet its goals for the Local Victories Challenge?

Battlefords-Lloydminster
Blackstrap (Darien Moore)
Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River (Lawrence Joseph)
Palliser (Noah Evanchuk)
Prince Albert (Valerie Mushinski)
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre
Regina-Qu'Appelle
Saskatoon-Humboldt (Denise Kouri)
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (Nettie Wiebe)
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin (John Parry)
Souris-Moose Mountain
Wascana
Yorkton-Melville

Musical interlude

A day earlier than usual - because who can wait?

Cary Brothers - Ride (Tiesto Remix)


Edit: fixed formatting.

Worth watching

By way of follow-up to this morning's post, the one area where there's serious reason for concern about the abuse of letters to the editor and other expressions of opinion is where they're submitted by individuals paid to support a particular position, particularly out of public funds. And Kent offers up reason for concern that it's NDP Watch itself that's resulting in public money being misused for partisan purposes.

On delay and distraction

Not to pick on Susan Delacourt too much in the wake of yesterday's post. But she goes astray again in not only drawing the questionable analogy between Peter Milliken's function as speaker and Michaelle Jean's as Governor General, but now suggesting that it's somehow a "compromise" to drag the Supreme Court of Canada into the mix as well:

Governor General Michaëlle Jean granted Harper a request to prorogue Parliament, but reportedly made clear, in a two-hour discussion with the Prime Minister, that the government was being granted the stay of execution on condition that it co-operate better with the majority opposition in the Commons.

Now, a little more than a year later, Harper’s refusal to co-operate with this parliamentary order could be viewed as defiance of the governor general’s instructions. In that case, if this dispute lands in front of Jean again, she may have no choice but to dissolve Parliament, recognizing that it has become dysfunctional.

The Supreme Court, however, could represent a compromise of sorts. If Milliken sides with the argument that Parliament prevails over government, the Justice Department may well draft a formal reference to the Supreme Court – in the form of a constitutional, not a political question – about which laws have precedence in the case of a dispute.

In other words, rather than going to the governor general, and almost certainly an election, the problem would head to the Supreme Court, where everyone could buy some time.

Now, the most basic problem is that "buying time" isn't a compromise position at all. When the dispute revolves around the government using every delay tactic at its disposal to avoid allowing the opposition to do its job even in the wake of an explicit order of the House of Commons, anything that merely pushes matters back even further is a full win for the Cons and a loss for Canada.

Leaving that aside, though, I'm at a loss to figure out the supposed relevance of Jean's rumoured conversation with Harper during the coalition showdown. It would seem obvious enough that whatever Jean may have said during their December 2008 meeting falls short of setting any binding obligations on Harper. (Though if she thought the conversation important, one would think Delacourt would be particularly suspicious about the delay involved given that Jean likely wouldn't be in the GG position by the time the Supreme Court reached any decision.)

But more importantly, the only way a "dispute would land in front of Jean" again would be if Harper demanded either prorogation or dissolution - the former of which she's apparently decided to allow as a matter of course, the latter of which would put an election squarely on Harper's shoulders rather than Jean's. So ultimately, Delacourt's effort to shift responsibility to Jean and/or the Supreme Court serves only to distract from where it properly belongs.

All of which is to say that Delacourt seems to be trying to be too cute by half at every turn in seeking compromises where none exist. We've long since reached the point where conflict avoidance means allowing a secretive government to abuse its power by preventing either elected representatives or responsible tribunals from holding it to account. And it does nobody but the Cons any good to portray their position of "give Harper what he wants or the country gets it" as justifying an effort to meet halfway.

"So absurd as to defy comprehension"

The Star Phoenix editorial board weighs in on the Sask Party's negligence in handling the province's kidney transplant program:

The "Patient First" recommendation by its health care consultant Tony Dagnone apparently forgotten, the government is doing only now what it should have done months ago if it's objective was to recruit transplant specialists whose skillsets would replace urologists and vascular surgeons.

That this direction was taken without apparent consultation with Dr. Ahmed Shoker, head of the transplant program, is so absurd as to defy comprehension.

No wonder that he says he's "frustrated and losing hope." As Dr. Shoker points out, even a continued and prolonged delay in restarting the transplant program has potentially damaging consequences, with the skills of all team members eroding over time.

Even when it comes to the issue of dollars and cents, to keep each transplant patient on dialysis costs about $40,000 a year while the first year costs of a transplant are about $25,000. There should be every incentive in the world for budget-conscious politicians and bureaucrats to obtain the required transplants as soon as possible, without having people languish on dialysis for months or years.
...
(Don) McMorris says the government will bend its rules about paying only for the procedure itself when patients are sent out of province for treatment, and pay for the cost of travel and accommodation for each kidney transplant patient and a caregiver.

This only further adds to the cost of the out-of-province transplants paid for by the government, which has deemed the remuneration demands of vascular surgeons as too excessive.

Some public explanation of the cost-benefit considerations in this issue would be highly welcome, given the high personal price being paid by Saskatchewan patients and a once-renowned kidney transplant program that's slowly being eroded through neglect.

On concerned citizens

I'm not a huge fan of the all-negative, all-the-time concept behind the Sask Party Watch and NDP Watch blogs. But on the balance, a couple more sources of information and discussion on the province's political scene figure to be a plus.

That is, to the extent they actually focus on anything of relevance to the parties involved. But NDP Watch looks to be going much further in trying to pretend that any letter to the editor originating with a worker in Saskatchewan must be part of some grand commie conspiracy, rather than reflecting the viewpoint of an "average citizen" worth listening to.

So let's set the record straight.

The fact that somebody writing a letter is involved in a union or business, or has been a candidate at some time in the past, doesn't mean that they lose their right to express their personal opinion. And the more the Sask Party's backers try to portray community involvement as somehow disqualifying one as an "average citizen", the more important it'll be for people to buck that trend to build a system where their participation isn't seen as an unwelcome intrusion.

Regina Dewdney - Kaitlin Stocks Seeking NDP Nomination

LRT is once again ahead of the game on the NDP's Regina Dewdney nomination race, as Kaitlin Stocks has been confirmed as the challenger to incumbent Kevin Yates - and looks to be off to a strong start with 110 fans already.

As I noted in my earlier post, the road is never easy for a challenger to a sitting MLA. But I maintain that it's a plus to see the kind of enthusiasm involved in such a challenge (and I'm not alone in that assessment). So kudos to Kaitlin for throwing her hat in the ring, and I'll be looking forward to seeing how the nomination race plays out.

Deep thought and burning question

Judging from Kady's account of this afternoon's committee hearing, I'd be highly interested to see how Pat Martin would have handled Jaffer if he wasn't wimping out.

(And is anybody else wondering if Martin's reluctance to have Jaffer testify - never mentioned until after the motion summoning Jaffer was already passed - might have been intended to clear the way for his particularly strident questioning?)

On tourist opportunities

There's rightly been plenty of attention paid to how the Sask Party's negligence has put Saskatchewan's kidney transplant program on hold. But it's particularly worth noting what the Wall government's response has been - as it seems far more interested in building capacity elsewhere rather than using what's already available in Saskatchewan.

Here's Health Minister Don McMorris from yesterday's Hansard on what he's doing in the short term:

(I)n the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are working with Edmonton to try and increase their capacity. But, Mr. Speaker, more than that, I've instructed the Ministry of Health not only to look across into Alberta, but across Canada to see where we can find capacity so that our citizens will receive care. In fact if it's out of the country, Mr. Speaker, we'd entertain that thought too, Mr. Speaker. We want to ensure that our citizens receive the timely care that they receive. Mr. Speaker, we've just heard that one more patient will be accepted into Edmonton. As of today or yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we have five that are willing or able to receive treatment elsewhere. We're looking for those places.

Now, it's worth noting that the availability of transplants elsewhere makes for cold comfort for the 101 patients on the waiting list who aren't willing or able to go elsewhere. But for those few who are able to go out of province or country, those options are apparently on the table as McMorris sends our resources elsewhere to compensate for his falling asleep on the job.

In contrast, McMorris is apparently deliberately ignoring the possibility of getting the province's own program started back up. Here's McMorris in response to Judy Junor's observation that Saskatchewan now has as many specialists available as it did when the program was previously run successfully:

All three of those specialities are involved in the transplant program, Mr. Speaker. And they are saying that the way the program was run in the past is not the way that it can be run in the future.

That's why we're working with the Health ministry, the Saskatoon Health Region, and the three professional . . . the specialities that make up a transplant program to ensure that we have a transplant program that is secure into the future, that isn't reliant on one physician going sick and the program failing, Mr. Speaker. That isn't the program we want to see. In the short time, we're guaranteeing and ensuring and working as hard as we possibly can that citizens of Saskatchewan will get their care elsewhere.

Now, it's fair enough if one wants to make the point that the system as it existed ought to be changed for the future. And presumably all parties will want to make sure that improvements are made regardless of when Saskatchewan's program is started back up.

But given an obvious option between restarting a transplant system which relies on a suboptimal but workable complement of staff and continuing indefinitely with no transplant availability at all, the Sask Party has inexplicably chosen the latter. And the fact that the Sask Party is apparently perfectly happy sending patients elsewhere for care (or denying it altogether for those who can't travel) because it prefers total failure to an imperfect system should raise plenty of alarm bells for Saskatchewan's patients.

On Parliamentary knowledge

For all the accolades Susan Delacourt is receiving for her latest, I'd argue that her view that the current detainee document issue resembles the coalition showdown is completely off base - or at the very least that despite the common theme of the Harper Cons flouting whatever power they can get their hands on, the roles are actually reversed.

Of course, we don't know exactly how or why Michaelle Jean decided what she did. But all indications are that she saw her role as the delegate exercising the Crown's authority to mean generally taking the instructions of the Prime Minister, with no room for input from the opposition parties or anybody else aside from her own chosen advisers due to the limits of "constitutional knowledge".

If there's any analogy to be drawn, it's that Peter Milliken derives his authority entirely from the House of Commons, and is responsible for administrating the will of the House alone. And accordingly, any decision should be based primarily on the order passed by Parliament - with any representations from both sides serving only to assist in interpreting and applying it, rather than influencing the outcome based on political considerations.

Update: EFL reminds us of the historical context as to the Speaker's role.

On confidence

I've made the point before. But since it seems to need repeating, let's go over this again. There's no reason why any vote dealing with document disclosure should cause an election. And it's a sign of bad faith that the Cons are looking to pretend that's the only option if the opposition parties affirm the supremacy of Parliament.

To see why that's so, keep in mind just what it is that Parliament has voted on. The order giving rise to the current allegation of contempt isn't directed at non-confidence in the government, and indeed it implicitly rules out any intention to cause a change in government by ordering the government in power to deliver the listed documents to Parliament.

And any enforcement will be even more clearly aimed at accountability for the current government rather than an attempt to topple it. Of the two draft motions, Derek Lee's explicitly states that it "shall not be taken to be an expression of confidence or non-confidence in the Government by this House", while Jack Harris' is less direct but makes clear that "other business" will continue following the adoption of an anticipated declaration of contempt. And both are aimed solely at requiring the production of documents by two responsible individuals rather than disrupting the operations of the government.

Of course, it's true that Harper could decide to treat any given contempt motion as a matter of confidence if he's eager to provoke a needless election. But that's no less true for, say, an opposition day motion on prorogation. Or a bill on child care or climate change. And thankfully, we're not at the point where anybody is pretending that those offer Harper any reason to stomp his feet and demand a trip to the polls.

But for some obscure reason, far too many commentators seem eager to argue that Parliament's efforts to secure needed information somehow serve as a reason for Harper to force an election. And it's worth responding that it's Harper alone who should bear responsibility for doing so without justification - lest we otherwise face the mooted possibility that the Speaker will cut away at Parliamentary supremacy based on nothing more than the risk that Harper will abuse some of his other power in response to a correct ruling.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

The next challenge

The NDP has managed to get noticed for operating based on the apparently remarkable notion that Parliament should be a place to discuss serious issues. Though naturally even that hasn't happened without some furious pushback from the other federal parties.

With that in mind, how effectively can the NDP now pitch the position that it's possible for people to reasonably disagree on a hot-button issue, even as the Cons and Libs both crank their rhetoric level up to 11? Stay tuned.

Aim at foot. Fire.

Shorter Garry Breitkreuz:

I'm positively mortified that some of our closed-door violent rhetoric got let out in the open.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

- Alison and EFL have each offered their own takes on the Cons' maneuver to force through the Colombia free trade bill. But I'd raise another question: if it's that easy to dictate Parliament's agenda on a majority vote with no notice, why doesn't the opposition do so more often?

- This week's must-read is Rabble's series documenting Jason Kenney's office's interference in George Galloway's planned visit to Canada.

- Auditor General Sheila Fraser is rightly concerned that ancient technology will make it impossible for the federal government to collect taxes or deliver benefits in the near future. Fraser of course isn't to be confused with the Fraser Institute, which is presumably giddy about the prospect.

- But don't worry: it's not as if the federal government is paying the costs of its own policy anyway.

- Finally, while there's been no lack of attention to the Cons' refusal to say when they might get around to supplying documents to the Military Police Complaints Commission, isn't it even more striking that the government has the nerve to whine that the MPCC is bothering to ask for them?

Mr. Prefontaine said numerous requests from the commission are making life difficult for government record keepers because they have to keep screening more of them as new demands are made.

On perverse incentives

Lisa Austin highlights some of the inherent problems with how our access to information systems are currently designed (which the Cons are of course exploiting to their fullest) - but also notes that there's a straightforward solution:

One of the central problems with our access laws is that many important exemptions are discretionary. This means that the government “may” disclose the information that falls under such an exemption, but does not have to. In theory, this permits more disclosure than mandatory exemptions, but the problem lies with who exercises the discretion to disclose. The answer? The very government that might be embarrassed by disclosure.
...
Usually,...deference is highly appropriate, as the decision-making body that is granted discretion often has specialized knowledge and expertise. In this case, it is a perverse consequence of a poorly designed regime: Those who have the strongest conflict with the public interest are precisely those empowered to determine the public interest.
...
The problem of government discretion, built into the very structure of the law, is exacerbated by the numerous other ways in which the government can manipulate the processing of requests to avoid political embarrassment.

Many of these have been documented by the current interim information commissioner of Canada, past information commissioner reports and numerous media stories. They include creating administrative processes and pressures that interfere with the independence of access to information co-ordinators. They include not creating records in the first place if there is a worry that they might be subject to an access request. They include simply not providing the funding and leadership to make the access regime work.
...
(J)ust as the current political context has provided us with ample evidence of Canada’s lack of open government, it can also provide us with its political solution.

The government is outnumbered. Perhaps the other parties will join together and do the right thing: Reform the legislation.

On regressives

Shorter Fraser Institute:

And in the state of nature, without such concepts as an "economy" or "currency" to facilitate governing structures, humankind paid no taxes at all. How we long to return to those days!!!

Update: Not surprisingly, Progressive Economics Forum has a more thorough debunking.

I'm particularly impressed with the chutzpah involved in labelling deficits as "deferred taxes". But given the Fraser Institute's habit of labelling any government income as a "tax", doesn't that effectively mean that its label of "taxes" in fact means the amount spent by government, rather than the amount raised?

Just so we're clear...

...in trying to paper over its negligence in attacking Saskatchewan's film industry, the Sask Party is now not only scrambling to invent new programs to compensate, but announcing project-level funding out of a pool of money which didn't exist until this afternoon's press release.

I for one see absolutely no way in which that attitude toward public money could go horribly, horribly wrong.

Slash first, get asked questions later

Murray Mandryk digs into the question of whether the Wall government bothered to do anything to figure out the consequences of its decision to destroy the Saskatchewan Communications Network. And the answer as to just how clueless the Sask Party has chosen to be is rather stunning:

Gamracy (the chair of SCN) would have even been happy with the simple courtesy of either of the Sask. Party government's culture ministers meeting with her or the SCN board in two and half years of government.

Gamracy, who has served as SCN board chair since 2007, says she has not met with a government minister since the last NDP minister responsible for the film industry. "I can say unequivocally I've never been treated so disrespectfully," she said, adding that she certainly called and e-mailed to arrange meetings with Sask. Party government ministers and their officials.

And what might be most galling about what Gamracy calls the government's "draconian" move is that government decided to shut down SCN on what seems to be a lot of misinformation, without any appreciation of the consequences.
...
(W)hat seems lost on the government is how critical SCN was to that jigsaw of federal and provincial tax credits and facilities like the Regina soundstage that are needed to create a viable film and video industry in this province.

Also, there appears to be a total lack of understanding of how Canadian Radio Television-Telecommunication broadcasting licenses work and what will actually happen if SCN does fade to black at the end of the month. "What do you do with the broadcast licence?" Gamracy asked. "SaskTel is not a broadcaster.

"I don't know where they got their information, but they didn't get their information from us."

For the sake of SCN's relatively modest $5-million budget, it's possible the government will collapse the province's entire film and video industry worth several fold more, the financial investor said.

On corporate influence

At first glance, Andrew Coyne's latest might seem like just another anti-government rant. But it's worth noting that Coyne's criticism is much more specific than that, and in fact leaves open an important choice as to how to move away from the current spending model:

Jaffer, first. Whatever may be the truth of his relationship with Toronto financier Nazim Gillani, whose alleged business interests, besides blackmail, fraud and busty hookers, include “obtaining grants and loans from various government bodies,” we have it by Jaffer’s own account that he was no less successful, as advertised on his newly decommissioned website, at “securing support from the Canadian government.” And whether or not he actually enjoyed the kind of access of which he apparently boasted, what is certain is that he could have had no ability to siphon government funds into private pockets where none was available.

But of course the federal government has become a vast spigot of this kind of thing, providing billions of dollars every year in subsidies to businesses, trade associations and other private groups. Just to list the “grants and contributions” over $100,000 takes up more than 280 pages of the Public Accounts of Canada, at around 60 lines a page. With all this money sloshing about, it stands to reason you’d find fraud artists waiting to take their piece, and well-connected friends to help them, just as they did under previous governments. We might as well put up a sign: The Buffet is Open.

Now, I'm sure some will read the passage as focusing more on the money being spent than its destination - and that's probably Coyne's intention as well. But the second part of what makes the spending so problematic deserves to be highlighted.

After all, "into private pockets" element of Coyne's complaint is the one which raises the danger of significant fraud and influence peddling. To the extent government carries out its functions in-house, the stakes for any individual are generally no greater than the relatively reasonable amount of their public salary - which of course relies on their retaining enough trust to continue to be employed. And even for those looking for opportunities to exploit the system, there's seldom a lack of opposition or media interest in exposing that type of problem, resulting in a high probability of detection for any serious problems. Which means that while there's still obviously some danger of misfeasance in the public sector, the stakes are relatively low, the likelihood of fraud limited and the lines of enforcement direct.

In contrast, it's when a government relies on sending money elsewhere to try to get public functions carried out that the concerns raised by Coyne become particularly glaring. And unfortunately, we are indeed at a point where billions of dollars are "sloshing around" to reflect government's supposed commitment to all kinds of industries and causes, with less reason than there should be to think there's much of a link between that funding and our ultimate policy goals. Which is a wonderful outcome for the corporate interests on the receiving end of the largesse (however they come to enjoy that status), but not such a great deal for those stuck with the bill.

Now, I'll grant Coyne that it's worth taking a close look at whether some of the industry-based subsidies and other current streams of funds actually merit public investment. But by the same token, if we do care enough about a particular issue to believe that public action is required, we should be spending a lot more time asking what means will work best: are we satisfied with a government that serves simply as a conduit to fund whatever private actors can best place themselves to receive our money, with all the increased risk of corruption that entails? Or should we consider placing more direct responsibility in the hands of the public sector?

Deep thought

I'm guessing the Harper government which has spent tens of millions of dollars announcing and taking credit for stimulus projects will be rather more circumspect when it comes to trumpeting their cancellation.

Three makes a trend

Susan Delacourt adds her name to the list of Ottawa observers who have managed to notice which opposition party actually spends its time in Parliament dealing with real policy concerns:

The New Democratic Party regularly uses Question Period to tackle policy issues. It's heartening to see, in fact, day to day. The reward, in poll numbers or media attention? Nil.

Fortunately, Delacourt's latter point is looking less and less accurate by the day. And the more commentators recognize the trend with favourable reviews, the more likely it is that the rest of the media and the public will follow.

Still digging

I'd wondered how it was that the Campbell government could ignore the funding rules under B.C.'s initiative legislation to plan a publicly-funded ad blitz trying to sell its much-despised HST to make up for the complete lack of anybody else willing to defend it. And it looks like the question is about to be investigated:

Organizers of the anti-HST campaign in British Columbia plan to complain to both the RCMP and Elections BC if the provincial government goes ahead with an advertising blitz aimed at their initiative.

Finance Minister Colin Hansen told reporters last week that the government plans to send out information to British Columbians defending its harmonized sales tax.

Chris Delaney of Fight HST says they believe the mailing campaign violates the Initiative Act, which requires that opponents or proponents register with Elections BC, either as an official opponent or advertising sponsor -- something the province hasn't done.

Now, it seems entirely possible that the ad campaign will backfire, both by raising public awareness of the petition drive at a time when it's HST opponents who face a barrier which requires massive public attention to the issue, and by adding a new reason for concern about the misuse of public resources. And the possibility of an investigation which might dog the B.C. Libs long after the petition drive is over should only add to the latter possibility.

Of course, yet another misstep shouldn't come as much surprise considering that virtually everything else about the Campbell government's decision to force the HST onto the province has similarly been made up of equal parts tone-deafness and contempt for B.C. citizens. And just as the B.C. Libs have seemed to be shocked at every turn as they've dug themselves into a deeper pit, it doesn't seem likely that they'll even consider the possibility that a woefully unpopular government might not want to keep using what little political capital its has left on a futile effort to sell a thoroughly-despised tax until they've damaged their reputation - and boosted the anti-HST cause - even further.

Well said

The Mound of Sound points out that while we may have been lucky enough to avoid the direct impact of Iceland's volcanic eruption, the widespread effects should serve as a warning as to just how vulnerable we may be to predictable disruptions:

There are invaluable lessons to be learned from what is going on in Europe today. One of them is that our civilization is not nearly as robust as we imagine. It is, in fact, quite fragile yet, despite the myriad of challenges we'll be facing this century, no one is in charge, we have no Plan "B". While our leaders natter on endlessly about trivialities, seeking to score points, nobody is leading.
...
Canadian society is facing great environmental, social and economic upheaval and this will probably land on your doorstep with a definite thud within a decade, two at the outside. When it does, you're going to wonder why nobody was doing anything about it years earlier. Why was nobody talking about it, why was nobody talking to us about these challenges? Why indeed.
...
"No one is in charge." Precisely. Yet despite the ecological devastation wreaked by the Tar Sands (leave greenhouse gases aside), the Conservative and Liberal parties are led by Tar Sands boosters. That is nothing short of astonishing and an indictment of both supposed leaders. It's one reason why I believe that Canada will be ill-served with either of them as prime minister. We're running out of time. Canada and the Canadian people cannot afford their sort of leadership any longer.

On savings plans

Andrew Jackson rightly points out that while the Cons and far too many of their provincial counterparts are resisting any move to ensure universal pension security through the CPP and public supplements, the position that it's enough to tinker with voluntary savings plans isn't shared by economists:

The third main argument against (CPP expansion) is the “nanny state” argument – individuals should bear responsibility for their own fate. In point of fact, many of the experts give short shrift to this one and agree that individuals left to their own devices tend to save far too little, and also invest very badly and at high cost. Kesselman argued that the state will have to pay in the final analysis and that an expanded CPP will reduce future GIS expenditures and create room for user fees on the elderly for their health care and other needs. There seems to be a lot of support for opt out schemes and larger pools of investment savings than RRSPs, on the basis that leaving individuals on their own just doesn’t work. It is unclear to say the least why mandatory inclusion is the acceptable basis of private employer pension plans but is unacceptable when it comes to expanding CPP.

As Jackson notes, the group of economists broadly agreeing that the "nanny state" argument is utter nonsense was organized by Jack Mintz - the same, conservative-friendly figure whose own report is being relied on as much of the excuse for doing nothing. So to the extent even Mintz' group of attendees sees no point in wasting time with half measures, it's probably safe to say that voluntary plans aren't much worth discussing.

With that in mind, the real public policy question to be decided seems to be less whether the CPP is the best vehicle to improve pension income compared to voluntary schemes or high-income-friendly deductions, and more whether we should simply do nothing at all on the assumption that there's no problem to be solved. And that debate looks to offer ideal ground for the position that Canadians should expect more security than they're currently offered.

On problems

Con MP Lois Brown offers the Harper government's reponse to a bill to undo the Con/Lib attack on pay equity:

I would like to draw to the attention of the House an article in today's paper, the headline of which is “Women grab reins of power in PS”, from which I would like to quote. I am very proud to be part of a government that has taken a look at this issue and realized that it needed to be addressed. We took stock of it and addressed it in budget 2009. The article states:

A married woman was forbidden from working in Canada's public service 55 years ago, but today women have the majority of jobs and a growing hold on the executive ranks.

They have outnumbered men since 1999, but the government's latest demographic snapshot shows 43 per cent of executives are now women...

I believe that is to the credit of what this government has done and what this government saw was a problem that needed to be addressed.

Which raises a couple of interesting points of interpretation. Has Brown accepted her party's rewriting of history such that the Cons have always been the government in order to take credit for what happened around 1999 (presumably excepting the few hobby-horse issues they still regularly complain about)?

Or do the Harper Cons consider the advancement of women in the public service to be a "problem that needed to be addressed", which they're proud to have changed through their budgets?