On definitions

Shorter Con reaction to the 20th anniversary of Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty within 11 years:

Poverty can be made to go away if we simply redefine the terms involved. For example, if one defines "child poverty" as "Canada's employment rate", then we've accomplished wonders in reducing it since taking office.

Well said

Ed Broadbent:

First, we should have no illusions about where our poor children are to be found. Most are in families with two adults. Most poor adults work. Most of them have incomes so low that they can't afford housing and can't adequately feed or clothe their kids. If kids are members of aboriginal or immigrant Canadian families, the odds are even much greater that they will be poor.

Second, this poverty was not inevitable. Mostly it is the product of governments that have neither shared nor cared. As a Unicef report last Friday pointed out, Canadian politicians have failed our children. During the 1990s, the federal government abandoned a leadership role for Canada's poor. It unilaterally cancelled the Canada Assistance Plan with the provinces, eliminated all low-cost housing programs, ceased to set the pattern for minimum wages and failed to bring in a national child-care program. Perhaps most serious and unbelievable of all, it exacerbated the inequality that was emerging in the marketplace by changing the income-tax system to the advantage of the richest Canadians.

On the 20th anniversary of a noble parliamentary resolution, let's acknowledge our failure. And then reverse course. Instead of an income-tax policy favouring the rich, let's do the opposite. For a start, let's get our poor, hard-working families what they need immediately: more money.

For more than a decade, it is upper-income Canadians – not the poor or middle class – who have disproportionately benefited from globalization and deregulation. Therefore, I say that increasing their share of income taxes would be based on neither greed nor class envy. It should be called justice.

On conduits

With yesterday's whiff out of the way, let's move on to the more important issues surrounding ten-per-centers. In this post, I'll take a look at the strategic implications of the Libs or any other opposition party seeking an end to them, and follow up with another post on the principle of the matter.

At the outset, let's draw a distinction between three types of communication which are used by federal politicians to get their message out to the public. The first is government-based communication, which takes up by far the largest share of cost - and which, while theoretically neutral and limited to informing the public about federal programs, is bound to at least somewhat support the interests of the party in power. Of course, under the Cons this type of advertising has tilted as far toward partisan messaging as Harper and his party can get away with.

On the opposite extreme is party-based communication, which is at least nominally privately funded (though of course publicly-funded tax credits, rebates and subsidies play a significant role in their distribution) and by definition intended solely for the purpose of partisan advantage. There too the Cons are largely able to dominate the field due to their historical fund-raising advantage.

The third type is then MP-based communication, consisting of householders and ten-per-centers. In theory, this type of communication lies on the middle ground between the other two in terms of content and focus: it's naturally more partisan than government-purchased messaging, but in theory shouldn't be as much so as the material that parties purchase for themselves. (The "middle ground" theory does break down in terms of cost, but only because there's almost certainly less money spent on MP-based communication than the other extremes - which hardly seems like reason to focus on it as the most deserving of limitation.)

And most importantly, MP-based communication is also the type where the Cons have the least relative advantage in getting their message out: one could assume in theory that it should roughly reflect the proportion of seats each party holds in the House of Commons, but in fact the ten-per-center system as it stands is probably best seen as a potential equalizer between all of the parties in Parliament.

Mind you, it's probably true that the Libs have failed to maximize their use of the medium. But surely that can be seen as a problem worth fixing rather than an inevitability.

Indeed, it would seem obvious that the Libs and the other opposition parties are in fact best served defending the type of communication which theoretically allows them the best chance of countering the Cons' control over the federal government and their party-level fund-raising strength. But that fact likely hasn't been lost on the Cons as well - which may be one of the main reasons why the Cons have effectively turned the medium into a purely partisan one featuring their most odious attacks and lies.

For the Libs to attack the medium rather than the Cons' misuse of it then completely misses the point. Particularly with another reorganization in the books, the Libs should be eager to look for ways of spreading their message - not publicly demanding that they be silenced in one of the few formats they currently have available to make their case to voters in Con-held ridings. If anything, the Cons are probably doing Ignatieff a favour by not taking up his invitation, as any restriction on MP-based communication only means that the material available to Canadians will include more from the categories where the Cons are able to completely dominate the field.

Even if the Libs have no idea what they want to say for now, they surely can't believe that they'll ever get back to power without someday coming up with a message which they'll need to put in front of Canadians. And the more the Libs do now to limit their means of spreading any consistent theme later on, the more likely they'll make it that the Cons' message will continue to win out for far too long to come.

On zombie numbers

Apparently Andrew Steele was right about one thing, as Jack Mintz' inflated and misleading job number has been parroted nonstop by HST backers from the moment it was first released (even by those who should know better). So let's quickly recap the main problems with Mintz' report, as well as pointing out how it's completely incompatible with one of the main pro-HST talking points.

The much-bandied-about "591,000 jobs" number:
- incorporates other tax changes along with the HST. On this ground alone, anybody saying "the HST will create 591,000 jobs" can be dismissed as either not knowing what they're talking about or lying through their teeth;
- doesn't take into account negative job impacts from the increased taxes on individuals;
- relies on assumptions about marginal tax rates which completely ignore the reality that reductions in one jurisdiction such as Ontario may simply result in a corporation paying more tax elsewhere;
- ignores existing policies such as research tax incentives and municipal tax benefits which affect the amount of investment made by the private sector; and
- ignores the fact that a focus on capital investment may actually reduce employment in some cases (by encouraging the relative use of capital as opposed to labour).

But let's add another major problem to the mix. Mintz' numbers assume that all of the benefit of tax harmonization will flow directly to businesses, counting every dollar of PST elimination as applying to a reduction in corporate marginal effective tax rates. That would appear to be completely incompatible with the oft-cited claim that businesses will in fact pass along any amount of their PST savings to consumers, as money which doesn't stay in corporate hands surely wouldn't figure to alter investment decisions.

In sum, there's no reason to let pro-HST voices double-count the supposed benefits of harmonization. If they want to claim that any corporate tax reductions will be passed along to consumers, then that has to be taken into account in any wishcasting as to how much money corporations will have at their disposal to invest; or conversely, anybody trumpeting Mintz' jobs number can be assumed to believe that not a red cent of any tax savings will actually be passed along to consumers. And the fact that the pro-HST side has thus far been based on so many utterly inconsistent claims would tend to signal that they'll be reluctant to face up to the realities once that choice is put in front of them.

The reviews are in

Norman Spector (!):

Perusing reports of Janine Krieber’s anti-Ignatieff missile, er missive, this morning, I notice a discrepancy in the English- and French-language coverage.

In La Presse, we read that Stéphane Dion’s wife may be thinking about joining the NDP — a point that Chantal Hébert also makes on her L'actualité blog . In English, there’s no mention of what would be a rather startling development should it come to pass.
...
The more likely explanation for the discrepancy in the coverage is the longstanding tendency of the media to give short shrift to the NDP — a tendency that is less and less evident in Québec.
...
Let’s be frank: Whether you agree with them or not, the NDP has been consistent in its opposition to the Afghanistan war — even after the 9/11 attacks, when it was not easy to take this position. And it was also noticeable, last week, that the NDP was the first party in Ottawa to call for a public hearing into Mr. Colvin’s allegations — a bandwagon that the other opposition parties quickly jumped on to.

One of the NDP spokespersons, Paul Dewar, radiates sincerity on the issue — as opposed to the faux outrage one normally sees on our television screens coming from Ottawa. And, in Jack Harris, the Dippers appear to have an MP who can match Bob Rae in competence.

So let’s give credit where credit is due. And, with the NDP riding high in the polls and even outscoring the Liberals in the Hochelaga by-election, isn’t it also time for the media to take the party more seriously and give them a bit more coverage?

On misinterpretations

Note: See update below.

I'll go into more detail later about the strategic mistake behind Michael Ignatieff's demands on 10-per-centers. But before going down that road, it's worth noting that Ignatieff seems to have completely lost track of the issue he's supposed to be dealing with.

At the start of his letter, he alludes to the difference between householders and 10-per-centers, with the former presumably consisting of mailings from an MP to his or her riding, and the latter of mailings from an MP to another riding. Which seems to me to be entirely consistent with how the terms are normally used.

But how does one then make sense of Ignatieff's demands?

For that reason, I am urging you and the other members of the Board, to take the following steps:

1. Ten percenters should be limited to a Member's own riding;
2. The practice of ten percenter "regroupings" must be abolished; and
3. The name of the leader of the sending member's party must be included in any ten percenter and the leader must explicitly endorse the content of the product.

From what I can tell, if #1 was actually carried out as the parties actually understand the term "ten percenter", then the effect would be to abolish ten-per-centers entirely. Which would of course make the other two recommendations entirely moot.

More charitably, one can interpret "ten percenter" in the recommendations to actually refer to "householders". Of course, there's a reason why those terms are different: the "ten percent" wording itself is a reference to the proportion of a riding outside an MP's own which can be targeted with a mailing, such that it can't sensibly be applied to mailings within an MP's own riding. But at least one can then make sense of Ignatieff's demands if that's what his wording reflects: #1 would serve to abolish ten-per-centers as normally understood, while the latter two demands would place limits on the use of householders within an MP's own riding.

That would still raise serious questions as to whether we really want even more political communication to be focused on leaders rather than the connection between MPs and constituents. But it's particularly odd that one can't even get to that substantive issue without overlooking the fact that Ignatieff's letter utterly mangles the terminology used for MP mailings. And that might be taken as a sign that Ignatieff and his inner circle really don't understand just what it is that they're calling for.

Update: In comments, anonymous notes that while the controversy around ten-per-centers has generally involved their being sent into ridings other than the one held by an MP, there's no reason in principle why they can't similarly be sent into an MP's own riding. Which does mean that Ignatieff's set of demands makes at least some sense referring to ten-per-centers alone - though concerns about the content which might potentially go into an MP's own riding if ten-per-centers are limited to that audience seem rather far afield from the problems being raised now.

So, my mistake on that front. But as Ian notes in comments, there's still the substantive issue of the disconnect between MPs and constituents to be dealt with.

Update II: Should I be more or less embarrassed now that the National Post editorial board has made the same error? Yes, I'm thinking "more" too.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Monday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Most of the discussion before and after yesterday's win over Calgary has surrounded the starting quarterbacks. And Darien Durant certainly deserves the credit he's received for his performance in the game. But let's leave no room for doubt: the most important factor in the 'Riders' win was a defensive scheme which did more to bottle up Henry Burris than any I've seen in the CFL.

Under normal circumstances, Burris is largely able to dictate the outcome one way or another. Most defences facing Burris spend the entire time on their heels, facing an impossible choice between focusing on coverage and letting him run wild, or spying the quarterback at the expense of receivers getting open deep. And even when Burris' passing isn't up to par, he normally manages to makes some plays with his legs. Which means that opponents mostly have to hope for Burris to miss open receivers and make bad decisions in order to stay in the game.

But not yesterday. Burris managed one long run on the Stamps' first drive - then by my count had a grand total of zero plays the rest of the game where he threatened the 'Riders in the open field. For the most part, that's because Saskatchewan kept him hemmed into a perpetually-collapsing pocket, with different rushers coming at different times to prevent him from waiting for a receiver to get open. And the few times the Stamps designed plays to give Burris more room to operate, Saskatchewan consistently had two waves of defenders coming for him, with the second (hello, Rey Williams!) arriving to drop Burris before he could look downfield after dodging the first (hello, Stevie Baggs!).

In the end, Burris was completely stymied on the ground and couldn't find much weakness in the 'Riders' secondary. And the 'Riders had to be ecstatic with that combination, even if it meant another fairly big game for Joffrey Reynolds.

Of course, the problem for the 'Riders' defence is that the game plan that worked so well against the Stamps will have to be discarded for the Grey Cup - as a scheme designed to frustrate a quarterback who loves to wait for plays to develop would be suicidal against Anthony Calvillo's quick trigger. But the 'Riders' defence has proven extremely versatile this season, and should be able to get back into bend-but-don't-break mode for next week's game.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' offence played roughly in the upper end of its normal range. As usual it showed some inconsistency throughout the game, but it avoided any turnovers other than Steven Jyles' third-down fumble, and converted on most of its opportunities to score to stake the 'Riders to the lead.

The one major concern for the offence has to be a running game which was almost completely ineffective until the team was in prevent mode. But Durant can make up for that in part with his own scrambling, and one has to expect that a game against the Als will be enough of a shootout for the team's passing attack to the be the top priority anyway.

Now, the 'Riders get a chance to win the Grey Cup on fairly friendly turf - and hopefully the crowd will once again be a major factor in Saskatchewan's favour as it has been in the last two home triumphs. But even leaving that advantage aside, the 'Riders have showed throughout the season that they're one of the CFL's top teams on merit - and it'll only take one more great performance to put that title in the history books.

On politicization

Shorter National Post:

We have grave concerns that some new types of toys might carry value-laden messages, and demand a return to the completely depoliticized tradition of GI Joe figurines for boys and E-Z Bake Ovens for girls.

(Edit: fixed labels.)

Real reason to smile

There's understandably been plenty of discussion about Janine Krieber's Facebook post. But it's worth highlighting what sets Krieber's message apart from most of the Libs' recent internal disputes - as instead of using her concerns to try to change the balance of power within the Libs themselves, Krieber is one of far too few to recognize that progressive Canadians already have a better option:

I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real.

Maybe I'm not dreaming.

Of course, Krieber has already been pressured into removing her initial post - which serves as about the most compelling rebuttal available for those looking to spin it as a sign of Lib willingness to tolerate dissent. And we'll have to see whether Krieber or anybody else around her ends up following through on the obvious implications of her message.

But at the very least, Krieber has given every Lib who disagreed with Michael Ignatieff's conclusion that Stephen Harper deserved to be left in power at the start of this year some reason to question whether there's a better alternative available than trying to turn the Libs into something they're not. And the more individual members start thinking about that possibility, the better the chances that Krieber's optimistic vision of a united effort to reverse Harper's direction through a party unencumbered by the Libs' and Ignatieff's baggage will ultimately come to pass.

On insider trading

Cathie was the first to point out the connection between Brad Wall's decision to throw away the $800 million per year once promised by Stephen Harper in order to accomplish nothing on more friendly terms with the federal Cons and the Sask Party's subsequent fiscal meltdown.

But the reminder is particularly striking given how Wall spent the week when his government was officially called out for blowing a billion-dollar hole in the province's budget. While the province was coming to terms with his government's gross incompetence in abandoning money promised by his federal counterpart, Wall was using Saskatchewan's public funds to buy access to U.S. politicians in hopes of pushing them to invest a fraction of that amount in a carbon-capture project - and picking up utterly undeserved national attention in the process.

Now, for those who see politics as nothing more than a way to further one's personal interests, the tradeoff of giving away billions of dollars which might otherwise flow to one's province in exchange for an excuse to seek photo ops south of the border might seem like a brilliant move. But Saskatchewan citizens have to be seriously wondering how much the province has already lost in the exchange - and how long it can afford to be run by a politician who's far more interested in boosting his own profile in Washington than in what's going on back at home.

Not taken on faith

Gerald Caplan pipes up on the long gun registry weeks after the most recent vote in Parliament actually made the issue relevant. But someone who's still presented as an NDP insider falls into one of the same glaring mistakes as others who dealt with the topic at the time:

hich leaves the NDP, where a full third of MPs broke ranks with party policy and voted to abolish the long-gun registry. It's clear that many NDP loyalists and many others sympathetic to the party were bitterly disappointed both by the number of breakaways and the failure of Layton to rein them in.

So let's see if Caplan can answer the question which seems to have been glaringly ignored by others:

Exactly what party policy requires the NDP to vote uniformly in favour of the long gun registry?

I've already pointed out that the historical position of the NDP was actually primarily against the registry. It surely hasn't escaped attention that some NDP MPs (notably John Rafferty) campaigned on a promise to vote against the registry, with the party offering at least tacit approval at the time. And as an added bonus, I've taken a quick run through the party's most recent set of policy pronouncements - and not only does the policy book presented at this year's convention not mention the gun registry, but the gun registry wasn't even so much brought up as a resolution (in contrast to, say, handgun smuggling, which was at least raised as a point of debate).

Mind you, it would be fair enough if Caplan wants to make the case that the NDP should change its longstanding position allowing MPs to vote their conscience on the gun registry (both as a government bill and a private members' bill) - and the fact that there is some frustration among some supporters is certainly a relevant data point on that question. But I'm not sure one can plausibly make the case that the NDP should rush that kind of decision before the next vote on the bill in any event. And that position would be a far cry from trying to pretend that there's some existing policy that's being violated by an entirely consistent position.

In sum, I'd invite Caplan to provide some of the currently-nonexistent evidence that the NDP's "party policy" is or has ever been what he claimed it to be. But if his main goal is to change the current path of Bill C-391 rather than taking inaccurate potshots at the party he's given column space to speak for, I'd argue that he's far better off pressuring the Cons to actually explain how their unanimously whipped bloc can be squared with a demand for a free vote - rather than criticizing the NDP for the fact that it hasn't whipped its votes in keeping with his every whim.

The reviews are in

Bruce Johnstone:

A nightmare is another way of describing the sickening feeling of seeing $1.9 billion in projected revenues plummet by two-thirds to $638 million in the first quarter, then plunge another 83 per cent to $109 million by mid-term.

A sickening slide also describes what happened to the finance ministry's projected potash production, which fell 62 per cent to 4.4 million tonnes, the lowest level in 37 years.

The ministry's miscalculation on potash shaved two percentage points off the province's projected economic growth of 2.1 per cent in the 2009-10 budget. Economic growth is now expected to come in at negative 2.9 per cent -- a full five-percentage-point drop from the budget projection.

For its part, the NDP Opposition called Gantefoer's gaffe "the biggest example of fiscal incompetence in the history of Saskatchewan." In absolute dollar terms, it may be.
...
At the time, then-NDP finance critic Harry Van Mulligen warned production cuts announced by potash companies could easily derail the budget's revenue and economic projections.

"Bottom line," Van Mulligen said, "shaky economic and revenue assumptions, plus runaway spending, equals a potential fiscal trainwreck."

As it turns out, Van Mulligen was remarkably prescient, unlike his counterpart in the government benches.

Musical interlude

Matthew Sweet - Sick of Myself

The reviews are in

Murray Mandryk:

What was most disturbing about Thursday's mid-year Saskatchewan budget update wasn't the bungled $1.8-billion miscalculation of potash revenue, nor was it necessarily the throw-caution-to-the-wind decision to wager the equivalent of 20 per cent of our annual spending on a volatile resource at its apex and likely to face some level of decline.

It wasn't the startlingly unwise decision to spend the one-time sale of Saskferco assets to cover off the day-to-day operations of a government, nor was it the lack of anything vaguely resembling an austerity plan to deal with what might be another year of decline.

What was most disturbing wasn't even Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer's view through his rose-coloured, half-full glass that we can't have another year like we just had -- despite warning signs in his own mid-term report that things could be as bad in 2010-11 as they now are in 2009-10.

What was truly most disturbing was the complete and total lack of humility we saw from this Saskatchewan Party government, which should damn well be embarrassed by its own incompetence right now, rather than celebrating. Yes, celebrating.

We just witnessed Thursday a Saskatchewan finance minister present a mid-year budget update revealing that a surplus he forecast last March was now an overall $1.05-billion deficit. It's the biggest deficit since 1991-92 ($1.3 billion), when the provincial government was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and the second-biggest deficit ever.

And Gantefoer gets two standing ovations from his caucus colleagues in Thursday's question period? Are you kidding us? What is it about running government that you don't understand?

For more information...

Following up on my earlier post, here's the official information on the Saskatchewan NDP's policy renewal process (including tomorrow's meeting in Regina):

Renewal

On renewal opportunities

For those wondering when the Saskatchewan NDP's much-anticipated policy renewal process would officially get underway, the answer is: tomorrow. The first phase will consist of two public meetings to be held:

- in Regina from 1 PM to 5 PM November 21, at Tommy Douglas House (1122 Saskatchewan Drive); and
- in Saskatoon from 1 PM to 5 PM December 5, at UFCW Local 1400 Hall (1526 Fletcher Road).

These meetings will focus on finalizing terms of reference for the rest of the policy process to follow, as well as compiling ideas for topics and experts to be discussed. For now, the expectation is that a first round of reports and public input will be completed in time for the NDP's provincial convention in 2010, with a broader public engagement and consultation process to follow before final debate over the policies at the 2011 convention.

In other words, there will be plenty more chances to have your say as the process plays out. But for those eager to help develop the NDP's next wave of policy ideas (whether or not you're currently a party member), now is your chance to get started.

Someday, this could all be ours...

The Leader-Post:

Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be released on Friday.

The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which measured pollution coming from the plants.

Although Canadian guidelines have suggested that the existing levels of tritium in the water are safe, the report cites recent peer-reviewed studies, including a recent review by the UK’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, that suggest the opposite.
...
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has confirmed a “controlled release” of tritium into the Ottawa River from December 2008 to February 2009 but said this leak did not pose any risk to the environment because it respected the existing regulations. However, the Sierra Club said tests of the water done by a lab at the University of Waterloo revealed tritium levels that were five times higher than in water at other locations without any nearby nuclear plants.

Far off the mark

Most of the commentary on the Sask Party's mid-year declaration of failure has focused on the fact that the Sask Party has managed to rack up a billion-dollar deficit two years after taking over the strongest Saskatchewan economy ever. But if such a thing is possible, there's another part of today's announcement which looks even more disturbing:

The province has also downgraded its projections on the state of the provincial economy.

In the budget, it was projecting real growth in the economy this year would be 2.1 per cent.

Now, it's saying the Saskatchewan gross domestic product will decline by 2.9 per cent.

Keep in mind that the initial projection was made at a time when even the likes of the federal Cons had been forced to acknowledge that there was an international recession afoot. At that time, the Wall government stood alone in somehow pretending that its province would be immune from the effects of the global downturn. And the result is that by the end of the year, the Sask Party's projections now figure to be a full 5% off the mark in determining the size of Saskatchewan's GDP.

That means that the Wall government's incompetence goes beyond merely mismanaging Saskatchewan's books, and extends to having no clue what's actually going on in the province around it. And while either would be reason for a change ASAP, the combination of both makes it all the more clear why Wall can't be left in control any longer then can be avoided.

On standards of proof

Shorter Lawrence Cannon:

My main concern about the apparent reality that the Con government is complicit in torture is the quality of evidence supporting the accusation. And I've got self-serving hearsay to prove it.

The blame game

It's still not clear exactly what it will take to either put the brakes on the HST or turn it into a decisive issue in favour of the NDP as the lone party which has taken a consistent stand against it, But this kind of development would appear to be a major help on all counts:

The federal Tories pushed, prodded and ultimately paid Ontario to adopt the harmonized sales tax and any effort to disown those actions smells like a rodent, Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said yesterday.

"There are always rats in these debates," Duncan said, without naming any names.

"It's always funny to watch those individuals who are trying to deny the $4.3 billion their government is giving us. It's fun to watch."

Owen Sound-Bruce-Grey MP Larry Miller raised the ire of his provincial seatmate and fellow Tory Bill Murdoch earlier this year for disavowing his government's role in the tax, and Sarnia's Pat Davidson has been quoted as encouraging seniors to fight against the HST as well.

But Duncan said Ontario wouldn't, and couldn't, merge its retail sales tax with the federal GST for a 13% HST without plenty of encouragement and $4.3 billion of federal money.

"The feds certainly pushed us," Duncan said adding any doubt about where the federal Conservatives stand on the HST should be erased when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduces enabling legislation sometime before this coming March.

Of course, both the federal and provincial levels of government will have to try to justify the HST enough in order to pass legislation to implement it. But with both now engaged in finger-pointing as to who's to blame for tax harmonization (and at least some apparent concern within both governing parties), there's a significant possibility that Duncan and Flaherty will end up having far less attention to direct toward the task of convincing citizens to accept a tax hike for corporate benefit. And the more the ministers who signed onto the deal send the message that they don't want to take responsibility for the HST, the easier it'll be for HST opponents to convince the public that it's an indefensible choice.

On double standards

On Monday, the Sask Party "notified the media" that RCMP officers would be entering the NDP caucus office at the legislature - insinuating that the opposition as a whole was somehow under police investigation. And the RCMP did indeed turn up - to invite the opposition to participate in a fund-raiser. The media reaction: a verdict of "boys will be boys".

On Wednesday, the NDP raised questions about the effectiveness of legislation on criminal record checks by pointing out an actual incident involving a Sask Party cabinet minister which would have slipped through a crack set up by the government's bill. The media reaction: a sudden case of the vapours about the incivility of pointing out such matters.

So is the problem that such talk is a "low blow" only if it actually has a basis in reality? Or is the issue that in CanWest's world, such attacks are only allowed from the right?

Fixed.

About the only problem with Paul Wells' description of the bucket defence is that he only applies it to the Cons' handling of Afghan detainees rather than to...well, pretty much everything. So let's make the appropriate amendment:

The goal of (Stephen Harper's communications strategy) is not to suggest a single, coherent, (analysis or position on any point). It is to throw up such a fog of confusion and contradiction that the entire (political) process is discredited or spectators are discouraged from continuing to pay attention.

On unsustainability

Most of the discussion about this week's developments in Saskatchewan's legislature has focused on the question of whether the Wall government is actively looking to sell off Casinos Regina and Moose Jaw. But I haven't yet seen any pickup on the more important question of whether they generally see selling assets as part of their future budget plan - and there's reason to worry on that front:

Mr. Wotherspoon: — As an article said this weekend, Mr. Speaker, again that minister is being disingenuous. This opposition has been crystal clear from day one that this budget was tabled as it relates to our concerns around potash revenues.

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago the government sold its 49 per cent interest in Saskferco. The sale provided a net profit of $783 million for Crown Investments Corporation. That was money Crowns like SaskPower and SaskEnergy could have used to help maintain and build their provincial-wide networks while keeping rates low, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm that by the end of the current budget year virtually all of the $783 million profit will have been squandered to try to cover up the mistakes of his irresponsible budget?
...
Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Mr. Speaker, implied in the member’s question is that we have introduced a lot of spending that isn’t needed or wasn’t appropriate or wasn’t appreciated by the people of Saskatchewan. And I would like to know which kind of things would the opposition have suggested we not do. Would they suggest that we not raise taxes? Would they suggest that we shouldn’t have tax relief for our citizens . . .

In the past, the opposition’s answer to any of these challenges was to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, what we have done is important to the people of Saskatchewan. What we have done is the biggest property tax decrease in the history of the province. What we have done is $300 million of real savings for people who pay taxes in the province, mostly the most vulnerable. Which of those things would you suggest we not do in order to meet the budget targets?

Now, it would seem that Gantefoer had a fairly easy out if he wanted it. After all, he's already acknowledged having completely misread the potash market for the year - and while that's obviously problematic as an indicator of his judgment, it would seem to provide at least some basis to argue that this year might be considered an exceptional circumstance where some capital income might need to be redirected toward ongoing expenses.

But Gantefoer's answer suggests just the opposite. In effect, rather than making a case that a billion-dollar hole in Saskatchewan's budget is a single-year problem, Gantefoer is trying to make the case that it isn't a problem at all - such that he doesn't see any reason to bother meaningfully cutting costs or increasing revenue in order to balance the books.

At first glance, that might raise concerns about running a long-term deficit. And that too might be a serious problem as time goes by. But for now, it's equally clear that Gantefoer is perfectly happy to use Crown capital sales to try to keep budgets nominally in the black even as his party depletes Saskatchewan's public trusts.

As a result, the most important issue surrounding the Sask Party's budget management isn't so much that of what public bodies are next on the auction block. Instead, it's the fact that Gantefoer genuinely sees no problem with selling the fridge to keep caviar on the table - leaving only the question of how long Wall and his party can go on convincing Saskatchewan citizens to demand the unsustainable rather than seeking a government which is actually willing to make responsible decisions.

And there's the answer

In comments here, pogge notes that at least some of the Cons' publicly-funded ten-per-centers have served to drive traffic directly to partisan websites:

The last couple of ten percenters I've received from my Conservative MP have encouraged me to provide my feedback by filling out an online survey -- at the Conservative Party website. I checked one out and discovered that name, mailing address and email address were required in order to submit my answer to the single survey question. It's just another way of using a taxpayer funded mailing to build a Conservative Party database.

So while there's plenty more to be discovered about exactly what the Cons have done with the material they've received by mail, there doesn't seem to be any room for doubt that some information derived from Con MPs' publicly-funded mailers has been entirely for the benefit of the Conservative Party rather than having any pretense of trying to listen to constituents.

Meanwhile, burlivespipe has an excellent suggestion as to how to respond in order to thoroughly smoke out the Cons' misuse of public resources:

Next time I get one instead of recycling it, or as I've occasionally done, sent back with a snide comment, I am going to put down some faint praise and my info. It would be a privilege to see if this does 'track-back' in terms of a financial plea... That would make a pretty impressive post and possible legitimate news story.

On unreasonable collection

While impolitical has largely covered the Globe and Mail's report on the Cons' use of ten-per-centers, there's one piece of the story which cries out for followup:

The mailers serve a more sophisticated function than just spreading a political message. Many of them include mail-back coupons, which are used to compile vital mailing lists on which political parties depend to solicit votes, volunteers and money – and that's hard, expensive work.

The Tories typically ask recipients to choose which party leader they like, and mail the coupon back.

Now, one might remember a couple of weeks ago when the Cons tried to raise a stink over fund-raising links on Lib MPs' websites. And one might well be able to make the case that publicly-funded MP resources shouldn't be used for partisan purposes.

But the Cons' ten-per-center scheme would seem like a far more blatant abuse of MP resources for partisan purposes. It directly takes advantage of both MPs' free mailing privileges and constituents' ability to mail material free to MPs, but by all accounts turns the entire transaction into an information-gathering effort for the Conservative Party.

What we don't know for sure is how (if at all) information from the returned ten-per-centers crosses the line from MPs' offices to Con party databases. And that looks to me to be the area crying out for some more research: surely it's worth putting some pressure on the Cons to tell Canadians exactly what they're doing with their publicly-funded survey results (including whether they're finding their way into the Cons' partisan database). And even if they won't say there's bound to be somebody involved in the scheme in the past who can answer the question.

Garbage in, garbage out

Shorter Leader-Post editorial board:

Sure, polls may say that the vast majority of Reginans are entirely willing to pay for improved recycling programs. But we're positive that the city's residents will develop sticker shock if the city actually listens to its citizens. Please? Can we get some tax rage over here?

Update: For those interested in letting the city know their preferences on improved waste management, its questionnaire is still available here.