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.

Christmas Cutbacks

In light of the stark nature of the province's finances and the puny $2 billion surplus in the bank, Premier Brad Wall, on advice from the Board of Enterprise Saskatchewan, will move to implement the following cost-cutting measures for the Twelve Days of Christmas:

1. The partridge will be retained, but the pear tree, which never produced the cash crop forecasted, will be replaced by a plastic hanging plant, providing considerable savings in maintenance;
2. Two turtle doves represent a redundancy that is simply not cost effective. In addition, their romance during working hours could not be condoned. The positions are, therefore, eliminated;
3. The three French hens will remain intact. After all, everyone loves the French;
4. The four calling birds will be replaced by an automated voice mail system, with a call waiting option. An analysis is underway to determine who the birds have been calling, how often and how long they talked;
5. The five golden rings have been put on hold by recommendation of Enterprise Saskatchewan. Maintaining a portfolio based on one commodity could have negative implications for institutional investors. Diversification into other precious metals, as well as a mix of T-Bills and high technology stocks, appears to be in order;
6. The six geese-a-laying constitutes a luxury which can no longer be afforded. It has long been felt that the production rate of one egg per goose per day was an example of the general decline in productivity. Three geese will be let go, and an upgrading in the selection procedure by the Ministry of Agriculture will assure government that, from now on, every goose it gets will be a good one;
7. The seven swans-a-swimming is obviously a number chosen in better times. The function is primarily decorative. Mechanical swans are on order. The current swans will be retrained to learn some new strokes, thereby enhancing their outplacement;
8. The eight maids-a-milking concept has been under heavy scrutiny by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. A male/female balance in the workforce is being sought. The more militant maids consider this a dead-end job with no upward mobility. Automation of the process may permit the maids to try a-mending, a-mentoring, or a-mulching;
9. Nine ladies dancing has always been an odd number. This function will be phased out as these individuals grow older and can no longer do the steps;
10. Ten Lords-a-leaping is overkill. The high cost of Lords, plus the expense of international air travel, prompted the Ministry of Finance to suggest replacing this group with ten out-of-work MLAs. While leaping ability may be somewhat sacrificed, the savings are significant as the Opposition has ten MLAs seeking employment as a result of the 2007 general election;
11. Eleven pipers piping and twelve drummers drumming is a simple case of the band getting too big. A substitution with a string quartet, a cutback on new music, and no uniforms, will produce savings which will drop right to the bottom line.

Overall there will be a substantial reduction in assorted people, fowl, animals, and related expenses. Though incomplete, studies indicate that stretching deliveries over twelve days is inefficient. Service levels will improve if materials can be drop shipped in one day.

Regarding the lawsuit filed by the Saskatchewan Bar Association seeking expansion to include the legal profession ("thirteen lawyers-a-suing"), a decision is pending. Premier Wall is expected to stick to his election promise of growing the civil service at a rate proportional to the province's population.

Deeper cuts may be necessary in the future for the province to remain competitive. Should that happen, Enterprise Saskatchewan will request the government to scrutinize Snow White to see if seven dwarfs is the right number.

(Stolen from kraftmstr.com and edited for more appropriate content. Merry Christmas!)

Wolfman Brad Gets Results!

One day after I replied to Lee Harding's comment about WAM on my blog, the CTF magically has a post on the excessive legislative staff salaries. My hard-hitting comments finally drove some sense into those hypocrites. Thanks for doing the right thing for a change.

The CTF is still a bunch of weasels, but at least now they're weasels who bend to my will! Dance, puppets!

We Are Many

Lee Harding, former pastor and current Executive Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has turned his pulpit of the toward the We Are Many festival.

“Why should our governments pay for free entertainment and activism?” asked Lee Harding, Saskatchewan Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Organizers should get money from private supporters and festival attendees instead of co-opting politicians who are all-too-eager to look green.”
...
“No government or crown should fund political activism,” says Harding. “If this event really attracted 50,000 people, then $6.25 is all each of them would need to pay to cover all expenses. Citizens should pay for whatever concerts, festivals, or activism they want, not governments.”
(CTF Press Release, December 17, 2007)

While Harding raises an interesting issue in the top paragraph, he certainly raises an ominous one in the bottom. Does he really mean governments should not fund public festivals like the Mid-Winter Blues Festival, the Saskatoon Fringe Festival, the Regina Fringe Festival, KonaFest, Moose Jaw's Prairie Arts Festival, the Yorkton Short Film and Video Festival, Queer City Cinema (that's probably a gimme, given his background), Swift Current's Windscape Kite Festival, Ness Creek, the Boreal Mixed Media Jam, the Connect Festival (probably another gimme), the SaskTel Jazz Festival, Mosaic, the Regina Folk Festival, Moose Jaw's Motif Cultural Festival, Saskatoon's FolkFest, or the John Arcand Fiddle Festival?

This is far from an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. All of these events receive some sort of funding through municipal, provincial, or federal governments. Festivals provide people with entertainment, artists with publicity, communities with tourism, and cultures with exposure. It's one thing to say government shouldn't support political activism -- although the argument that WAM is political activism is tenuous -- but it's something else entirely to say they should pull out of funding festivals altogether. But given that these festivals are all filled with drug users, fornicators, and godless homos, I'm not surprised he has that opinion.

This is Lee's second news release attacking Saskatchewan's arts industry -- you may remember his tirade against the film industry two weeks ago. By the way, Lee, I'm still waiting for a piece on the new salaries for the Sask Party's legislative staff. Why don't you get your non-partisan ass on that?

PA Mill Addendum

I can't back this up with any news items, so let me apologize off the top. But if SDA can make post after post of unsubstantiated claims, so can I.

Further to my previous post, I've been told by a reliable source close to the Leader of the Opposition that Prince Albert Mayor Jim Scarrow found out through the media that the Sask Party would not be honouring the Domtar MOU. When Calvert phoned Domtar CEO Raymond Royer to talk about the current mill situation, he was told that Royer also learned of the Sask Party's actions through the media.

Neither Wall, nor Boyd, nor Hicke felt it was necessary to talk to the Mayor of the city or the CEO of the company on the other end of the agreement before taking action. We're already seeing that this style of "consultation" will be a common theme for this government.

The Prince Albert Mill

QP the last couple of days has been dominated by talk of the mill -- specifically Darryl Hicke's bungling on the doorstep and Brad Wall's shredding of the MOU with Domtar.

Hicke is on the record saying the NDP gave the residents of PA false hope over the mill deal:

"I'm disappointed the NDP gave false hope to the workers at the mill," said Hickie.

He said the memorandum of understanding signed between the NDP government and Domtar was never legally binding and never promised anyone their job back. But that's what the NDP led people to believe, said Hickie.

"It was an election ploy," said Hickie.
(PA Herald, Dec. 4/07)

When paired with the current scandal Hicke's involved in, this becomes the stuff of high comedy:

But even more problematic for Wall is justifying how scrapping the MOU squares with those little cards Prince Albert Carlton Saskatchewan Party MLA Darryl Hickie was handing out on election doorsteps proclaiming: "A vote for Darryl is a vote for the mill open (sic) & people working."

On Tuesday, Wall was eventually forced to acknowledge to reporters outsider the chamber that, if the mill isn't reopened, P.A. voters will be well within their rights to decide that Hickie misled them on this commitment. This isn't good news in a seat that the Saskatchewan Party won by a mere 61 votes.
(Regina Leader-Post, Dec. 12/07)

From what I understand, even though the MOU was riddled with wiggle words, Domtar was serious about opening the mill and was approaching the project in good faith. I don't know if Wall, Hicke, Boyd, and the rest of the Sask Party realize this, but according to the Forest Sector Task Force, the mill is the lynchpin to the forest industry in Saskatchewan -- an industry valued at 1% of the provinces GDP, or $500 million a year. We lost half a percent when the mill closed, so we could very well lose the other half a percent if the industry collapses.

Of course, all of this is lost on Wall, who is only interested in pursuing his three objectives: lower taxes, sell the crowns, and bust the unions. Any issue not tied to those three objectives will be on the periphery. Consider Wall's pre-election statement:

However, Wall said that if he becomes the next premier, work would continue to reopen the mill.

"We want to see a resolution for this. The asset there could be an asset in the forestry industry and there is a role for the government in facilitating that," he said."

We would very much want to sit down with Domtar," he said, and "try to find a way to open that pulp mill. What we will not do is risk - in either grant money or equity - taxpayers' money."

The work that's been done is not lost," he said, if an election is called.
(PA Herald, Oct. 9/07)

And here's a press release from Domtar dated Nov. 30/07:

Montreal, November 30, 2007 – Domtar was informed today that the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan is not prepared to participate in the financing of the redevelopment of the Prince Albert pulp mill as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on September 12, 2007.

Although Domtar recognizes that the Saskatchewan Government remains committed to ensuring the future of northern Saskatchewan’s forest resource, the Government’s decision to withdraw its support narrows down Domtar’s options regarding the Prince Albert facilities.

Consequently, Domtar will terminate all work being done on this project.

At least Wall's being consistent about the MOU.

What Wall and Boyd are not mentioning is that the province is still on the hook for the costs of the environmental clean-up -- which, in fairness, can be tied back to the NDP. But there's also the looming possibility of legal action from Domtar over the cancellation of the agreement, the settlement of which could make Spudco look like -- well, small potatoes.