Kevin Yates

It appears that the NDP leadership is quickly turning into a one-person race. While this isn't entirely true, Mandryk wants you to believe that Lingenfelter is the only choice to beat Brad Wall, and that his only obstacle is an unforgiving membership.

And so enters Kevin Yates. Kevin's always been kind of a buffoon: he's loud, self-important, and tends to exaggerate. A lot. But he's well-liked in his constituency, and his head's usually in the right place, so he's been tolerable. Now we hear Mr. Yates piping up about his involvement in Link's campaign: he talks about what Link's requirements were before he'd come back to the province, speculates on how many caucus members support Lingenfelter's leadership bid, and suggests that other potential candidates will bow out now that a concensus is forming.

But the best bit in this article is how Kevin comes clean about an attempted coup he organized in 2006, to try and oust Calvert as leader. And how 14 members of caucus supported a leadership change, but in the end, he was the only one with the balls to demand it. And how unrepentant he is about it all.

Kevin Yates: have you lost your tiny little mind? Session starts today, you ass, and nothing says "effective opposition" like a splintered caucus. In case you were too dumb to realize this, Link hasn't been elected and you still have to work with Calvert. This wasn't an act of principle, Kevin -- it was mutiny. In one act you've shown everyone that you're not only a liar, but you can't be trusted. If it were me I'd kick you out of caucus immediately and make you sit as an independent.

And if I were Link, I'd distance myself from your sorry ass as soon as possible.

Return of the Blog

Hi folks. Please forgive the hiatus. This poor blog has grown as cold as the attitude of the government toward its people.

I've been pursuing other projects for the last little while, but it's time to get things back into gear. There's just shy of three weeks left in the federal election, and that's more than enough time to do some damage.

Naomi Klein was in Regina on Tuesday, and her talk was peppered with cries for the progressives to take this country back. One of the websites she mentioned was VotePair.ca, which pairs voters in two ridings in the hopes of making more votes count. Until we get a form of proportional representation federally, voters will be forced to jump through hoops like this.

FWIW, the NDP has lead the charge in the House of Commons for electoral reform. I know the Greens have been yapping about this for some time, but until they actually end up with some seats, the NDP remains your best hope for progressive policies in Canada.

Don't let them tell you it can't be done.

Raw Adoration

If this picture looks like anything other than Brad's fawning idolization of Stephen Harper, I'll eat every scrap of the equalization court challenge Wall so kindly tore up.

He also looks just about the right size in the picture to fit in Harper's pocket. Which is good, because he seems to have already made himself a home there.

How Soon We Forget

Let's jump in the Way-Back Machine to a glorious time when the SP, then in opposition, gave a fuck about the province:

First, I want to state in the strongest terms the Saskatchewan Party, Saskatchewan’s Official Opposition, stands in full support and agreement with the Premier and the government of Saskatchewan [emphasis mine] on the solution:

The federal government should immediately agree to a Saskatchewan Energy Accord that allows Saskatchewan to retain 100% of our non-renewable resource revenues
beginning in the 2005-06 fiscal year and continuing through 2012.
(Equalization Debate Speaking Notes for Brad Wall, March 15/05)

While we're back in 2005, let's visit Stephen Harper of the federal Conservatives, then in Opposition, to see what he had to say:

The Prime Minister [Paul Martin] is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue.

When will the Prime Minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so Saskatchewan does not lose this money?
(Hansard, November 16, 2005)

But now we see what the trappings of power do to people. When the Conservatives took power, they gave Saskatchewan $225 million -- less than a third of what Harper himself is on record saying Saskatchewan deserved from the Liberals. But Harper definitely should not be challenged on this: he was pissed off by the NDP and their stance that the Conservatives should honour their 2006 election promise to Saskatchewan, and when the SP took power, Wall said Harper "made it clear" in a January meeting that the NDP's lawsuit should be dropped (Prince George Citizen, March 17/08).

Let us now return to the dismal present, when we find Mr. Harper's lapdog has told Saskatchewan's people they may as well piss up a rope as expect that money.

At stake is about $800 million in federal transfers annually, according to provincial calculations.

But [Justice Minister Don] Morgan said Saskatchewan is on an economic roll and does not want to go "cap in hand" to Ottawa looking for a handout.

The federal government is also doing its share for Saskatchewan, said Morgan, pointing to $240 million allotted in the budget to help the province build a carbon-capture system for coal plants.

"We're getting very large amounts of money from the federal government and we don't want a litigation to be an impediment," said Morgan.

"If we get the money, that's all my concern is. The label that's on it to me doesn't make a lot of difference. As a province we want to maximize the amount of money that's coming here — it's coming, let's just take it."
(CBC, July 10/08)

And this here seems to be the crux of it all. Thanks to climbing resource prices, we are rolling in money right now. So how can we go to Ottawa and quibble about a few paltry million? It'd be different if we didn't have $2 billion sitting in the bank right now, and if Ottawa weren't kicking us some scraps of the equalization money we're owed. If we don't get money from the feds, can't we just turn on the money tap?

No, we can't. We can't just assume money is going to magically appear. What matters is stewardship.

This entire time, Wall has stuck very closely to the line of turning Saskatchewan's current boom into a lasting prosperity. But with all the money coming in, Wall and his buddies are being lazy. They've forgotten -- or, more likely, never knew -- that they need to be good stewards of the province's income as well as the expenses. They can't just continue to pretend a debt of $800 million doesn't exist year after year and expect things to magically work themselves out.

Saskatchewan's money should be staying in Saskatchewan, not going to Ontario so the Conservatives can secure more votes. We gave you a majority government, Mr. Wall. The least you can do in return is fairly steward this prosperity you seem so enamoured with.

Mandryk Sees the Light

Murray -- God bless him -- is less than kind in his assessment of Wall's decision to drop the equalization challenge:

Simply put, Wall and his government have allowed themselves to be bullied by Harper. The big brother has taken the little brother's allowance, threatening him bodily harm if he dares tell mom.

And Wall's determination to keep big brother happy instead of looking out for Saskatchewan people's interests is deplorable on several counts.

First, it simply rewards bad behaviour. It might not be the Saskatchewan Party's role to enforce political ethics, but make no mistake that Wall is not only allowing the federal Conservatives to get away with a broken promise. Far worse, the Saskatchewan Party is not only shilling for its federal big brother, but also engaging in a little deceit of its own.
(Leader-Post, July 12/08)

Murray goes on to say that we're owed $3 billion since the Conservatives originally made this promise in 2004, and that we'd fools if we believe anything other than Saskatchewan's equalization money -- promised to us by the feds -- is going to flow into Ontario and Quebec so the Conservatives can shore up more seats in the next election.

This is our payment for electing 13 Conservative MPs: use our money to buy votes where it matters.

How does this differ from the Liberals and their "Green Shift"? Or, right: it doesn't. Saskatchewan has lots of money but few votes, so now both the Liberals and the Conservatives are going to suck one away from us and put it where they can get the other. We've been sold out by two parties, neither of whom cares how many seats they get from this backwater landfill, so long as they get our money.

This is sickening and deplorable -- politics at its worst. My province deserves better than this.

Dave Batters

On July 1, Palliser MP Dave Batters was admitted to hospital for undisclosed reasons (Regina Leader-Post, July 9/08). No one really found out anything until July 9, when the story was published. Even Andrew Scheer, when interviewed, was unaware Dave was having a problem.

Everything's been very hush-hush, which smacks of a cover-up. Even Dave's press release is vague, suggesting this is something serious. Normally, thought would run toward cancer, or an equally serious health problem. But this time, the rumours are a little different.

Word on the street is, Dave tried to commit suicide.

I've known quite a few people who struggled with depression and suicide. It's wrongly stigmatized, and it can be a difficult place for anyone. I'm not at all interested in giving Dave a hard time over this. I think the people in his riding derserve to know what's taking place, and, when the time is right, I hope Dave can find the wherewithall to tell them. More importantly, if this is true, I hope Dave can rely on his friends and family to help him through this. It can be a difficult struggle, but he doesn't have to do it alone.

No one wants you to suffer, Dave. Good luck, I hope it all works out for you.

Lukiwski: Still an "A"

I deeply regret and I have deep remorse for my words of 17 years ago. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues in this House that I will spend the rest of my career and my life trying to make up for those shameful comments.
(Hansard, April 4/08)

Okay.

"Our committee is very troubled by Mr. Lukiwski's apparent unwillingness to communicate or even respond to mailed invitations from our community to join us in our annual celebration," said Nathan Markwart, an organizer of the B-Team and member of the Regina Gay and Lesbian Community. "There was a letter that was mailed and e-mailed to his Regina office dated April 11, which specifically requested two things. One was a meeting at his earliest convenience. No response. The second was an invitation to join us in the pride parade. No response whatsoever, but to the best of my knowledge he's in Regina today ... I see this as nothing but a snub."
(Leader-Post, June 2/08)

Hmph. Imagine Lukiwski not showing up for the gay pride parade. I never, in a million years, thought this lying, bigoted, homophobe would miss an opportunity to stand behind the words he spoke with "sincerity" in the House of Commons. I guess you showed me, Tom.

So, why is this news?

Tom Lukiwski, Meet Mike Chisholm

In another example of highbrow, totally appropriate behaviour from the Conservatives, SP MLA Mike Chisholm called NDP MLA Deb Higgins a "dumb bitch". Not at some coffee shop or a bar, or even a closed-door backroom party where SP members were drinking to celebrate their disparagement of women and homosexuals, but in an intergovernmental affairs and justice committee meeting. Classy.

Michael Chisholm, a Saskatchewan Party MLA for Cut Knife-Turtleford, has resigned as a legislative secretary after calling the NDP's Deb Higgins "a dumb bitch."

Chisholm apologized for the comments that he made towards Higgins on Wednesday in a legislative committee.

"I have no excuse for this remark," he said Thursday in the legislature. "I was wrong and it shouldn't have been thought or said."
(Saskatoon StarPhoenix, May 8/2008)

And yet, it was. So much for a man known for his reputation for professional conduct. He even mentions Wall's lip-service to not letting people hear you saying stupid shit like this, but so often in these cases we see how a wolf in lamb's clothing is still a wolf. The only thing we're missing here is a statement that he'll work for the rest of his career to redeem himself for these remarks.

I know Deb Higgins. She's hardly a dumb bitch. She's polite and intelligent, and Saskatchewan people of all political stripes ought to be proud to have someone like her representing them. Which is more than I can say for you, Mike.

Deb would never reduce herself to your level. But I'm not Deb Higgins, you stupid sack of shit. Every time the topic of women in politics gets raised, I'm going to make sure your remarks are held up high as an example of the barriers, difficulties, and double-standards that exist.

At least Wall did the right thing by firing your sorry ass.

Edit: The Regina Mom has a similar perspective, though she tends to rag more on the NDP than I do.

Edit: Giant Political Mouse has the text from Hansard and a video. But unlike me, he refrains from swearing at Mr. Chisholm.

Edit: Fixed formatting.

Gee Lorne, Government is Hard!

In another surprising move, the SP pulled the Humboldt Court of Queen's Bench when they learned that being the government is harder than just shouting a whole bunch of crazy shit every day from opposition benches:

The Saskatchewan Party government is cutting Court of Queen's Bench services in Humboldt, a move the party decried as an attack on rural Saskatchewan when it was proposed under the previous NDP government eight years ago.
(Saskatoon StarPhoenix, May 1/08)

The article goes on to say that when the NDP tried to do this, the SP claimed there was no consultation and that it was an attack on rural Saskatchewan.

So, surely, now that the SP is pulling the governmental strings, they set things right. Right?

[Don Morgan] acknowledged there was no consultation with the municipality or local legal community before the decision was made in this year's budget.

Oops.

We'll see if Wall will be reaching out to rural Saskatchewan as much as he's reaching out to labour.

More Arrogance Than Action

In last Saturday's column, Mandryk writes about the current animosity in the legislature. Now to be fair, he does give a pretty solid assessment of the current state of affairs:

The source of this problem at the Saskatchewan legislature appears to be the perfect cross-section of arrogance and entitlement from each side. We're witnessing a daily orgy of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority that's accomplishing nothing other than a lot of bad Opposition scrutiny and a lot of bad governance.

I haven't really complained here too much about the NDP's lack of direction in opposition, but they do need to get their act together. Where are the questions about equalization? Where are the questions about Privatize Saskatchewan? Or the environment? Or housing? Or Station 20? Does anyone remember "patient of the day"? It's time for our Opposition to feed the government some of its own medicine.

As for the bad governance, well, I think I've made opinion pretty clear about that. It's as though the Saskies have no idea about what governing means. Even so far as day-to-day legislative procedure -- do they have any clue? Have they been involved in this process at all in the last four years? Are they going to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of 16-year-olds whose parents are out of town and have left the lock off the liquor cabinet? This is a party that existed only to seize government, and the evidence is plain: they knew how to run a campaign, but they don't know what to do now that they're in the big chairs.

But I do think Mandryk dropped the ball by suggesting only the NDP believes the voters got it wrong last fall.

Well I hate to break it to you, Murray, but the voters did get it wrong last fall. I think we saw pretty clearly that Saskatchewan voters wanted a change of government -- for whatever reason -- but they weren't entirely convinced that the Saskies deserved a majority. I had people ask me how minority governments work last fall -- people who ought to know better. So I don't think a lot of voters knew that you couldn't have a minority government in a two-party system, and with the Liberals pretty much a non-issue, that meant a Saskie majority.

If anything, this should point to the need for civics classes in every Saskatchewan high school, as well as public forums prior to elections that explain how government works. And with their apparent ignorance about governing, it would probably help to put the Saskie MLAs through these classes too.

Edit: Fixed formatting and a typo.

National Day of Mourning

April 28 is the National Day of Mourning, a day set aside by the Canadian Labour Congress to recognize workers injured, disabled, or killed on the job, and to bring awareness to the issue of occupational health and safety. This year marks the 24th annual observance of the National Day of Mourning. It was made official by the Workers Mourning Day Act in 1990.

In 2002 more than 900 people died in Canada as a result of work-related accidents or illnesses. This means that, on average, close to four workers are killed every working day. Close to 360,000 others were injured seriously enough to prevent them from reporting to work for at least one day. It is estimated that over one million work-related injuries and illnesses are reported each year in Canada.

In 2002 workers in all age groups under 50 years were equally likely to be injured while on the job. For the same year, the number of time-loss work-related injuries for men was also more than twice that for women.

Work-related accidents are very expensive. The total of compensation paid to work accident victims or their families and of other economic costs of work-related injuries each year are estimated at more than $12 billion. These figures do not take into account the pain and suffering of the victims and their families, which are incalculable.

More at the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference website. Also, here's a link to CLC President Ken Georgetti's Day of Mourning statement.

Edit: It's been pointed out to me that the Workers Mourning Day Act was moved by NDP MP Rod Murphy (Churchill). And since I'm so darn partisan, I figured I might as well tip the ol' hat.

Edit: Fixed formatting.

Bill C-484

I don't have a lot of interest in federal politics. I've said it before in this blog, and as much as I try to keep my nose out of it, I'll likely say it again. It's not that I'm trying to get involved, it's that the clowns at the federal level try to pull the same shit as their provincial counterparts.

So this time, I'd like to take a moment to rail against Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act". It's a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park), and it's just passed Second Reading on March 5. While ostensibly a bill to amend the Criminal Code to allow separate homicide charges in attacks on pregnant women resulting in the death of a foetus, it's really a backdoor to criminalize abortion and subvert a woman's right to choose.

The bill is constructed specifically to grant a kind of personhood to a foetus, in spite of the conflict this causes with the current provisions in the Criminal Code (Section 223[1]). The bill uses anti-choice language, specifically "unborn child", and continually refers to the foetus as a "child". The kicker is Section 238.1[5], which reads "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has an excellent page of talking points for this bill, along with a number of links to news sources discussing similar laws in the US and their consequences:

14. We can impose harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women: Double homicide convictions result in concurrent sentences in Canada, so this bill will not mete out any greater punishment for perpetrators, making it rather pointless. Measures to achieve better justice in these tragic cases already exist. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder or aggravated assault. Judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators. We could even pass a law mandating greater penalties for attacks on pregnant women, as has been done in 13 U.S. states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873). Alternatively, harsher penalties are already mandated under the Criminal Code's hate crime law, which would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant. Any of these measures would provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women.

If you care at all about a woman's continued right to choose, please take some action. Send your MP a letter opposing this bill (a sample letter can be found here). You can also sign the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's online petition.

A Rocky Path

Mandryk's column today dumps a number of Sask Party skeletons from their closets. Or more appropriately, from the "Hidden Agenda" vault they left when vacating their offices:

After all, if labour money can buy off the NDP, why wouldn't we assume that the Saskatchewan Party's $668,016 in corporate donations has influenced its policies? Wouldn't we also assume that the tens of thousands of dollars the Saskatchewan Party has received over the years from implement manufacturers (who demanded changes to the union certification laws) or from former media baron Conrad Black (who loved to crush unions) is the driving force behind Bills 5 and 6?
(Leader-Post - April 18, 2008)

Good questions, Murray. Thanks for pointing this out. And thanks for going further and speculating about oil royalty rates and Big Mouth Billy Bass. Your dig at the CFIB falls a little flat, though, because while the budget doesn't really address property taxes, Wall's one-eighty on municipal funding could be tied to this very issue. His change of mind was so abrupt that it even took Hutch, the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, by surprise. The CFIB, meanwhile, are too busy swooning not over the budget, but over the Premier they have in their pocket.

But for me, the best part about this column wasn't the blunt message to Tim McMillan that he should just shut the hell up and return to his job of warming the backbench, or Mandryk noting that the Sask Party took in two-and-a-half times the NDP's union donations from their corporate pals, or even the not-so-subtle reminder that the Kathy Youngs (and the Tom Lukiwskis) of the world don't change their stripes. Instead, it was the following:

Here's a simple solution to the Saskatchewan Party government's concerns over the undue influence union donations are having on the NDP: ban donations from all unions and corporations.

Indeed, some forward-thinking New Democrats raised this very issue at convention. It was voted down, of course, because people get stuck in their ways, and worried about cash flows, and can't see the big picture. But some of us -- Mandryk included, apparently -- want to see a democracy run by the people -- not by businesses, and not by organizations. The shift will be another rocky path, but with enough people on side it won't be too hard to clear the stones.

Edit: Fixed typos.

Regina Labour Forum

I've just been told that there will be a labour forum in Regina in discuss the impact and sweeping powers of Bills 5 and 6.

The forum is scheduled for April 21 at 7:30 p.m. at the Ramada Hotel (the corner of Broad and Victoria). No word yet on which Sask Party officials will ditch this time, but Premier Wall is kindly not even responding to his invitation, so that's a good start.

Tell your friends. Tell the people at your constituency associations. Tell your federal NDP candidates. Tell the Liberals and the Greens -- they don't have any love for the Conservatives either. The more people that show up, the stronger our voice becomes.

Reaching Out to Labour

However, Wall told reporters Friday that a Sask. Party government would "reach out" to labour. "We want them to join in the Enterprise Saskatchewan model," Wall said.
(Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Oct. 27, 2007)

In yet another example of how the Sask Party is reaching out to labour, officials listed only as "two high-ranking government bureaucrats" have pulled out of a public labour forum. Of course, they've done this on the day the forum is to take place, and after confirming their attendance.

This is no different from the antics of the Sask Party during the election, when candidates ducked public debates in Regina and Moose Jaw. So although it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the Sask Party is still pulling this bullshit, it's very disappointing that ducking public forums, public debates, and stakeholder consultations is how little Bradly Wall intends to honour his committment to "reach out".

The labour forum is still going to take place, even without government representation. Anyone interested in labour issues or how Bills 5 and 6 will affect the current labour climate should definitely be in attendance. The stronger labour's presence is, the less government can continue its tactic of avoidance and indifference.

They're Sayin' What We're All Thinkin'

I am, or at least I'm trying to be, the biggest NDP apologist of all time. But still, I have to agree with the editorial in the PA Daily Herald:

After all is said and done, the fact that the premier of Saskatchewan let his 14-year-old daughter drive on a back road is a non-story. In fact, as pointed out in a column Saturday, even those individuals politically pre-disposed to lob criticism at Wall acknowledge that the premier only did what just about everybody in rural Saskatchewan does: let a kid drive a vehicle. Oh sure, by the letter of the law, what Premier Brad Wall did was wrong - but in reality, many people do it, and there's little evidence of any harm being done through this practice: no blood, no foul and all that.
(PA Daily Herald, March 18/08)

When I first read this, I thought, you've got to be kidding me. This is the best we can do? Which was closely followed by, If we're trying to alienate the rural voters further, this is definitely the way to do it.

Everyone in Saskatchewan who's grown up on a farm or in a rural area, or knows someone who has, has driven underage. Yes, like it says in the Herald, that's breaking the letter of the law. But this tradition is based less on a coming-of-age ritual and more on practicality: all members of farm families work, and if that means you have to drive the truck at 13, then that's what happens. And more importantly, no one cares.

What really surprises me is the amount of traction this received in the media. But I think Wall managed to turn it around quite nicely and get some good press: he was contrite, showed respect for the office of Premier, and secured the province's urban/rural wedge a little tighter.

We have to remember that the gloves are off in opposition, and that the NDP is free to make whatever attacks they'd like on the government, no matter how silly. But this one smacked of something the Sask Party would have said when they sat on these benches, and that stinks. We're better than that. At least, we used to be.

In His Back Pocket

In this breaking story, we learn that Wall is as useless as a third tit when it comes to speaking out against Ottawa. But I suppose it's kind of difficult to do that when the federal Conservatives graciously provided half the Sask Party's legislative staff after the election.

The comments came after the Saskatchewan Party government refused to allow debate in the legislature Monday on an emergency motion on equalization. The motion - which was originally unanimously passed in the assembly in March 2005 - called for fair treatment from Ottawa on equalization.

Calvert suggested something has intervened to change the mind of the SaskParty.

"They were willing to stand up against Liberals, but when it comes to standing up against Conservatives, not a chance. They'll sooner sell out the people of Saskatchewan than stand up against this Conservative prime minister," said Calvert.

"They have decided they're just going to roll over and take instruction from Ottawa."
(CNews - Canadian Press, March 17, 2008)

After rolling over, Wall sat up, begged, and played dead. Then he brought Harper his newspaper and slippers before curling up at his feet.

Dion, for his part, showed up shortly thereafter with Harper's pipe, bowl, and fiddlers three.

Campfire Permit Fee Removed

In the tradition of exemplary and totally unbiased reporting on behalf of the LP, we're told the Saskatchewan Party is keeping its promise of removing the much-maligned $3 campfire fee in Saskatchewan's provincial parks:

During the fall election campaign, Premier Brad Wall repeatedly promised that if elected a Saskatchewan Party government would eliminate what he called the "wiener roast tax."

The $3 per day fee to purchase firewood in Saskatchewan parks was put in place in 2004.

The government said the removal of the fee will save park visitors a combined total of about $375,000 a year.
(Leader-Post, March 17, 2008)

However:

• The article should tell us that the $375,000 saved by park visitors will be coming out of the GRF.
• An addition of $158,400 to the GRF would then leave us with a net loss of roughly $217,000. Isn't this a problem in such a stark fiscal period?
  
• There's no mention if the annual impact of $650,000 is to the plus or minus.

I suppose this is all well and good: no one really liked that stupid campfire fee in the first place. And all cutesie Sask Party nicknames aside, if the NDP were trying to upset the people who use provincial parks, mission accomplished.

Another promise kept. Congratulations, Mr. Wall and Ms. Tell. We're going to be seeing a lot more of these announcements the Sask Party. But watch carefully: the promises, like this one, will be the ones that are easy to keep. The harder ones -- the ones with more impact on Saskatchewan's people -- will be swept under the carpet or blamed on either the opposition or outside forces.

We saw it happen with Harper, and we'll see it happen with his lapdog, too.

Edit: added link to article

Bill 5: Essential Services Legislation

Larry Hubich points to a good article in Planet S magazine where he and Rosalee Longmoore talk about Bill 5 and its sweeping powers over unions.

COPE397 also sounds the alarm on their site, with links to the complete text of both Bill 5 (Essential Services) and Bill 6 (Amendment to the Trade Union Act), and a preliminary analysis of both Bills by the SFL.

(h/t Orgie, Larry)

On Irony

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation doesn't issue tax receipts for donations?

Of course, they do that so they won't have to release that their main funders are businesses and not the grassroots, private individuals they claim to speak for. But still, you'd think an organization with a mandate to reduce taxes would want to assist their donors in doing that.

Burying the STC Debate

Lee's been gnawing on this particular bone ever since he was appointed to MacLean's old position, and I'm surprised he's still able to find some meat on it. Let me try to put it back into the ground where it belongs.

Yes, STC loses money on almost every route they run. But to say this is a huge burden on the taxpayer is a complete falsehood. Using the CTF's own statistics (page 15), let's consider a $35 million loss to STC since 1999. That works out to a grand total of $4.4 million per year, or an average of $4.40 per person per year for Saskatchewan residents. A little more than a penny per day per person to keep STC running. People drop that much change in the 7-11 parking lot.

Of course, we know the Sask Party wants to privatize STC. Fortunately, they can't risk turfing it and alienating their rural base. They're going to have to do enough damage control over school and hospital closures alone, let alone highways and infrastructure, that this is a front they won't want to fight on. I know people in rural Saskatchewan who live in one centre and are forced to bank and do shopping in another. They would not be able to do this without the support of STC. And while one could argue that they ought not to live in these communities, what does that say toward the idea of rural development and sustainability? Privitization will result in the lowest standards for everyone -- and that means reducing service to the three profitable routes of Saskatoon to Regina, Saskatoon to Prince Albert, and Regina to Moose Jaw, and sacrificing the mobility of our rural residents.

The icing on the cake is Harding's assertion that a poll showed 71% support for the privitization of STC. While this is stated in the document, it's important to emphasize that CTF supporters were the only group polled. Further, the sample size was omitted -- probably to hide the size of their base of support in Saskatchewan. Using their own bluster of 64,000 supporters nationwide -- about one fifth of one percent of Canadians -- and with the assumption that this percentage will hold as an average across Canada, we can posit a sample size of roughly 2100 people polled.

This is how the CTF bravely goes to bat for Saskatchewan people -- by polling people who would donate to their organization without the lure of tax receipts, taking the recommendation of 1500 of them as a mandate for change, then lobbying the government to enact said change, all in an effort to save people one stinking penny a day.

Lee, it's time for you to shut up about this issue. The only thing that's overtaxed here is your imagination, and you ought to consult with other CTF officials about that.

Mandryk Drops the Bomb

In today's column, Mandryk sounds like he's almost as pissed off about equalization as I am. Which is awesome, because it's moved him to expose the elephant in the room: Harper now has a lot of control over our provincial government. First he gets Wall to drop the equalization challenge (which Cathie from Canada has more on), then he gets him to support tying the $1 billion trust fund to the next federal budget, and now he's got the whole government doing backflips over this paltry $36 million payout.

I don't know why Wall finds himself so deep in Harper's pocket. Danny Williams certainly doesn't have any trouble speaking up.

And while I'm at it, I'm sick to death of Wall trotting out his pet line of turning this current boom into a lasting prosperity. You what would help with that, Brad? $800 million a year.

Federal Largess

So there it is. With much hoopla, Harper announces Saskatchewan's chunk of the $1 billion in Federal money. Brad Wall was on hand to let people know how happy he was to get some juice from the federal lemon squeezed into the province. But money's money, and I think everyone was pretty happy about it -- with the notable exception of the Jurist, who informs us that the $1 billion comes on the heels of $14 billion in tax cuts for industry; and Wheatsheaf, who points out that Saskatchewan is due only $36 million of the proposed funds. But I guess it's the thought that counts.

The only problem is, the money is just that: a thought. The premier's pipe dream. Why? Forget for a moment that Quebec alone dumped $1.4 billion into forestry and that this is chump change with respect to a national industry. The real issue is that Wall and Stelmach made the foolish fucking decision to back Harper's desire to tie this money to the coming federal budget, while McGuinty and Charest rightly came out against the idea.

Harper is playing politics with this money instead of moving immediately to put it where it's needed. But as for poor old Brad, it seems his lips only move when Harper's doing the talking.

As much as I dislike him, I have to admit Harper's a smart man. And he's played this minority government the way Satriani plays guitar. So a huge stumble like this, open to such deep criticism from all corners, can only mean one thing: he's getting ready to let his government fall.

The Enterprise Saskatchewan List

Joe Kuchta at Owls and Roosters has the full list of organizations receiving letters soliciting nominations for Enterprise Saskatchewan, as well as a breakdown by industry. It's interesting to note that the government's press release is misleading: 55 organizations received more than one of the 303 letters sent.

It'll be interesting to see how the SaskParty makes its appointments to the Enterprise Saskatchewan Board. Although the press release says that the SaskParty wants to "ensure we have a transparent, open and accountable process in place," in the Leader-Post Lyle Stewart says that "he and another minister, along with some deputy ministers, will be part of the committee that selects the final board members," and "as candidates for the board are narrowed down, the government may conduct interviews." He also says that the committee will select the "best" candidates (emphasis mine) who "also seem to have a willing and collaborative attitude to work with the other sectors of the economy." (Source: Leader-Post, Jan. 5/08)

Clearly, there are enough wiggle words here to drive a truck through. While Stewart claims the details are still being worked out, let's not forget that Enterprise Saskatchewan has been Brad Wall's baby since 2004. I would be flabbergasted if an appointment process had not been developed in those three years. If it truly hasn't, it's a horrible omission in the development process and speaks more to the secret agenda of Enterprise Saskatchewan than to the incompetence of the SaskParty (though it speaks to that, too).

As Stewart promised, it's vital that the SaskParty gives us a transparent, open, and most of all, accountable appointment process, and that we hold them to their word.

Bernadette at The Regina Mom has another perspective on the organizations receiving invitations.

Word on the Street

A number of NDP constituency assistants I've spoken to are fed up with the Saskatchewan Party government. Apparently it's impossible to get casework done: phone calls are not being returned, there's little communication within the Ministries, and even the Deputy Ministers are having trouble communicating with the Ministers.

This was not the case when the NDP were in government. When SaskParty MLAs came to the Ministers with a genuine concern and not just some flaming bullshit, the work was handled as judiciously as possible. Now it seems that the works are gummed up, and the CAs are frustrated.

I think this points to one of five scenarios:

1. The SaskParty is deliberately trying to shaft the NDP
2. Brad Wall is attempting to pull a Stephen Harper, with expected results
3. The SaskParty is incompetent and doesn't know what the hell they're supposed to be doing
4. The SaskParty is inexperienced in the role of government, and the machinery just isn't working properly
5. This doesn't have anything to do with lowering taxes, busting unions, or selling Crowns, so it's not a priority

While options 1 and 5 aren't outside the realm of possibility, they are unlikely: the public opinion backlash of playing politics with peoples' problems would be hard and immediate. This leaves 2, 3, and 4. And while Wall does fancy himself to be a tiny Stephen Harper, he doesn't have the balls of steel nor the weak-kneed press necessary to pull this off. If I were a betting man I'd choose 3 over 4, but the truth is it's probably somewhere in the middle.