ND-phobia?

Well, the blog has been quiet for awhile; work tends to do that now and again. We have an endless myriad of topics to talk about, and while the Mike Duffy scandal is a tempting topic, we'll save that for a moment and talk about another interesting political story: The BC Election.

There has been a lot of political coverage on this issue, but I figured I may as well go ahead a throw my two cents in. As election night approached, even the casual viewer of politics seemed to understand that the election was more or less in the bag for the NDP. There was a question of whether they would form a minority or a majority government, as different polls showed different aspects of the race, but no one seemed to doubt that the NDP was in the lead.

And then election night came and by the end, everyone was scratching their heads and wondering just what happened. 

There's a number of theories, all of which have strengths, so let's look at a few of them.

The most prevalent theory: pollster error. Many people have pointed to the challenges that face pollsters in the modern era. From a population that is increasingly abandoning the home phone in favour of cell phones; which in turn limits pollsters abilities to contact people in great numbers. Add to that that many people use call display, and if they're like my parents, simply refuse to answer the phone to a number or area code that they don't recognize. 

As such, technology is posing a new problem for pollsters: whereas the phone used to make it easy to communicate surveys, new norms are having the opposite effect. 

So, this creates issues of sampling size. Add to this that people who answer polls are not guaranteed to go out and vote on Election Day, and given BC's turnout it would seem many people chose to stay at home. This is a two-fold problem, as it has the potential to leave many supporters of various parties shrugging their shoulders and staying home. The lead party, especially with the kind of polling lead the NDP had, may see supporters stay at home because they see the election as in the bag and their vote as unnecessary. Whereas trailing parties may also see their vote as futile in the face of an overwhelming leader.

Of course, when these polls are already facing accuracy problems this becomes a real problem for political parties. 

We also have issues with new technologies. Online surveys are often ignored as spam, or worse actively abused by political junkies. With the right technology, a person can "change" their IP address and access a survey multiple times, regardless of means of trying to prevent this. Effectively, the BC Election (when taken in turn with the last Alberta Election) should be a warning bell about the effectiveness of pollsters.

Speaking of the Alberta Election, that brings us to the next potential answer for what happened. In the Alberta Election, we saw people from across the political spectrum rush to the PC Party simply as a means of stopping the Wildrose Alliance from forming government. Some have suggested that a similar migration may have taken place in BC, with PCs and Greens jumping onto the Liberal brand to prevent an NDP government.

This is not a new trend. In fact, we saw this in the last federal election as well. The collapse of the Liberal vote was blamed on fear of a potential NDP Minority, with many in Ontario switching to the Conservatives as the only means of avoiding that scenario. It would seem that there is no party in Canada that is more politically reviled than the NDP. 

Whether is the somewhat idiotic cries of "they're a bunch of socialists" to "I remember what Bob Rae did to this province" or "The Romanow Government closed dozens of hospitals!" people always seem to have a reason to vote against the NDP. But if past performance by previous leaders was the only deciding factor in how people vote, I'd feel pretty confident saying the Conservatives are dead as a party once Harper vacates the political scene...

Effectively, it harkens back to the title of this post: ND-Phobia. Despite evidence from the treasury board that NDP Governments across the provinces have the best financial track record of all parties, people can't seem to shake the old ideas that the NDP somehow is too socialist to manage money. We are a country when there is a phrase that "Tory times are tough times", yet we seem to favour tough times over the NDP.

No party has remained static over the past decade; and while previous leaders may be revered by party members today, the parties have changed enough that many previous leaders may feel out of place in their parties today. This is a similar argument to what we see in the USA where many people point out that men like Nixon, Lincoln and Reagan would not have a place in the Republican Party of today.

But, for whatever reason, this fear of "The NDP" continues. Which brings us towards the next theory as to what happened in BC: the failure of positive politics. 

Adrian Dix ran a positive campaign, to which the Liberals responded by throwing as much mud as they could in the hopes of something sticking. There were numerous times when the Liberals were caught outright lying in their statements, but a tepid response by the NDP to quash such rumours didn't go far enough in addressing their accusations. 

And while many will say taking the high road was the wrong approach, I would venture to say it wasn't, HOWEVER the NDP took the high road in a poor way.

There are some who think that positive politics means you can't ever say an unkind word about the other political parties, even if it is the truth. This is the route the NDP took in BC, and they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this method does not work. It is okay to highlight the failures of the previous party's track record while in government. It is okay to point to the bad decisions made by the Premier, the Cabinet, and the party in power.

Pointing out flaws and mistakes is not negative politics, it's truth in marketing. If you don't remind people why there needs to be a change, they won't care to listen about the change you intend to bring.

The adage of not saying anything if you've got nothing nice to say does not apply in politics, especially during elections. But pointing out the FACTS does not make it negative politics. If you personally go after someone on their record, it's not negative. If you go after someone personally based on pedantic reasons, like hair colour or something like that, then you've gone negative and need to reexamine your campaign path.

We don't need "he's in over his head" mantras or "he's not here for you"; we need "3.1 billion in terrorism spending unaccounted for" or "scandal after scandal after scandal", the facts that show incompetence in government. Going after a record can still be positive, and that's what all progressives must understand heading forward. The other side will always sling mud when the facts are against then, the point is to completely out shout them with facts that the people can't ignore. 

In all likelihood, a combination of all of these theories played a roll in the NDP defeat in BC. What's important now is that politicians learn from the mistakes that were made and be sure to avoid repeating them in the future.

The "Rebel" Alliance

Perhaps I'm a bit late to the party, but this is an issue that I wanted to spend a bit of time talking about since it was mentioned.

In the past few weeks, an issue that wasn't on anyone's radar made its way to the forefront of everyone's minds when Cam Broten rose in the legislature to ask the Premier and the Minister of Education about the existence of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) in Saskatchewan schools. Brad Wall gave the standard right wing boiler plate warning of ensuring religious tolerance and freedoms were protected, while Russ Marchuk has tried to say that there is currently no legislation that prevent GSAs from being formed in schools across Saskatchewan.

Brad Wall further embarrassed himself, and Cam Broten rightly called him out on it, when in the media scrum afterwards the Premier seemed unable to bring himself to even say the word 'gay'.

While many people may be scratching their heads and wondering why this is an issue, especially given that Saskatchewan has allowed same-sex marriage since 2005, I think the Premier's behaviour is a perfect example as to why this is still an issue.

Allow me to share a story from my own high school experience, and perhaps that can give you some idea.

I went to a Catholic High School, I grew up in the Catholic education system, and it was in 2005 that Saskatchewan legalized same-sex marriage. As editor of the school newspaper, I used my editorial space to praise the province for legalizing same-sex marriage and talked a bit about why it was important to do so. I tried to address the standard arguments ("It's a choice", "Hate the sin, love the sinner", "the Bible says...", etc, etc, etc.) and talked about some of the prejudices that young gays and lesbians faced.

I'll be briefer than I was in the editorial, but basically: Who would chose to be a member of an ostracized community with an abnormally high suicide rate for youths? Jesus preached love and tolerance, and condemned judgment "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" and all that, as such, judging and condemning an action does not lie in the purview of humanity and belongs solely to God. The Bible also says you can't wear clothes made of two fabrics, eat shellfish, crossbreed animals, talk to a woman with her monthly visitor, and non-virgins who get married should be put to death...You know, stuff from the same section of the Bible (mostly Leviticus) that modern Christians have shrugged off.

At the end, I invited anyone who disagreed with anything I had said to sit down and have a civil discussion with me. Ultimately, no students took up that challenge, though one staff member did and sort of left the idea of civil discussion at the door. A "student" did publish a rebuttal editorial, shrugging off the points I made above, and after a conversation with our staff adviser for the paper, no rebuttal to the rebuttal was printed.

The reactions to my editorial were varied.

The Priests in the parish at the time had after school staff meetings with the teachers, during which time they were given lectures on marriage and even given pamphlets to give to students who had questions raised from my editorial. Some fellow members of the SRC condemned my editorial, stopping short of demanding a resignation (which I never would have given), but did make it loud and clear they disagreed with me.

But the moment that stands out the most for me, is when one of our staff members pulled me aside in the hallway the morning after the editorial was printed. It was no secret that her eldest son, a former student of the school from years before me, was gay. She simply hugged me, and thanked me for courage and conviction to write what said.

It was a moving moment, and if there were any doubt in my mind about whether or not I should have published the editorial, it was certainly erased by that interaction.

The varying responses to a simple editorial show why the need for GSAs, in both the public and private system, continue to remain. While we may have accepted same-sex marriage, many in the province have not fully accepted LGBT2Q people as a whole. I can point to the Star Phoenix's decision to run a Valentine's Day cover with a lesbian couple, and the backlash that it sparked from certain members of the community who were appalled to see such a display on their morning paper.

Homosexuality and other sections of gender identity are still not fully accepted in Saskatchewan; to try and say otherwise is tantamount to putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and denying that LGBT2Q people exist in the first place.

Adolescence is the first step out of ignorance and the first step in to determining the ideals and values that a person will hold throughout their lifetime. Education is immensely important, as it broadens your worldview and gives you a better understanding of not just who you are as a person, but who other people around you are.

We no longer live in the 1950s, where people spent their entire lives in the closet and worried for their careers or seeing their immediately family members if their sexuality was ever revealed. It's time that our political mindset accepted that as well. Like the Civil Rights Movement, it is only by discussing issues and beginning to reject the idea of "the Other" that we can even hope to make steps towards progress.

There is no us and them, there is only us: As in, there is only the human race. Being a member of the LGBT2Q community does not preclude you from being a member of the human race, and we need to make that message loud and clear.

There is so much hatred and vitriol directed to homosexuals in our world, and that is hatred that is passed onto and even directed towards our children. We are raising a generation that is still being told that the feelings they may be experiencing are shameful, immoral, wrong, and disgusting. It wasn't that long ago that we expressed these sames feelings towards all human sexuality, as we condemned the idea of sex for pleasure as shameful, immoral, wrong, and disgusting.

You can wrap up old ignorance and condemnation in a new shawl all you want, it doesn't change it. The world only spins forward, and holding onto the past and emulating it doesn't bring it back.

And as to the issue of religious freedom....

Even religions can change. Prior to the Council of Trent, Christianity was completely different from it was today. There were sects that denied the divinity of Jesus, rejected transubstantiation, and even some who viewed Christianity as a polytheistic religion.

Let's go even further.

Even after the Roman Catholic Church fully formed around a basic tenant of beliefs, those beliefs changed. Take the sale of indulgences, a practice that had no basis in the Bible, but was used and then fell out of favour. Take the moving away from the Bible as literal truth for all books, to some being credited as allegory. Take the moving of the mass from Latin to the common tongue.

It may move slowly, but the Church has evolved and even religious practice has evolved with it. I mentioned our good friend the book of Leviticus and some of the "Laws" that have fallen out of use, while it is still used to condemn homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is this: If you believe in Jesus Christ, you believe that he was the Messiah and that he spoke a gospel that you must follow. Furthermore, Jesus issued only one commandment that he said all must follow: That you love one another as I have loved you. This was Jesus' command, and as such, it is the only command that matters. You cannot love someone as Jesus loved you, unconditionally, if you then find you need to condemn homosexuality because a previous part of the Bible told you to. 

I fear this is becoming a sermon, something I am not even remotely qualified to attest to, so let's get back on political footing.

The truth of the matter is that it all comes back down to education. Religious freedom doesn't give you the protection to openly attack and persecute people; if it did, we'd be little more than a fundamentalist theocracy that didn't tolerate other faiths, let alone homosexuality. We need to educate people, let them know that members of the LGBT2Q community exist in their circle of friends, in their families, and in their communities.

We need to break down this idea that there is anything wrong or 'sinful' about homosexual behaviour; and more importantly, we need to let LGBT2Q youth know that there are people out there who care for them and support them exactly as they are. These kids need to know that they are 'normal', and that there is nothing wrong with them, and GSAs provide the best venue to create such a system.

We have a Premier who seems to be unable to even say the word 'gay', and was evasive on the question of whether he believed homosexuality was a choice. (He did hem and haw, though he did eventually concede that from what he 'knew' of it from people that it wasn't....though it still left quite a bit of doubt over whether or not he actually sees it as a choice as he never actually gave his opinion...)

We don't need to let another generation grow up where 'gay' is muttered as an insult; or worse, where people can't even mutter the word at all. 

Community Involvement

Source: SouthWest TV News: Community Lands Lost
Source: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: SaskNotes: PFRA Community Pastures

At the end of this post, I've also included a media release from Public Pastures - Public Interest, as this information found its way to my inbox with a request to discuss it on the blog; a request I'm happy to grant.

About a year ago, the Harper Government (in short-term cost cutting mode) stuffed into omnibus Bill C-38 a move to remove the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) pastures from the federal government's purview. Of these pastures, 1.77 million acres of land, exist within Saskatchewan. The Federal Government, in traditional style, devolved responsibility for these lands to the provincial governments and basically washed their hands of the situation all together.

In response to now having to figure out what to do with this land, the Wall Government in Saskatchewan was quick to call for the 1.77 million acres to be sold or leased as quickly as possible; and showed that it had no interest in maintaining any of the land under government control. The government has put in token environmental concerns to their plans for sale or lease, but has not proposed a means of regulation to ensure that these concerns are kept...Nor have they proposed any kind of consequences for anyone found to be in breach of concerns.

The government has also attempted to quietly pushed ownership issues aside by offering the pastures on a first basis to ranchers who currently use the pastures as feed areas for their herds; neglecting the fact that many of these ranchers are not in an financial position to purchase or pay high leasing costs for the use of the land.

In addition to the benefits provided to smaller farms, the pastures have also been used to great success for the use of advancing biology, protecting endangered wildlife, and protection of historical areas that document Canadian and First Nations history.

Effectively, the problem here is that we have seen a government that is in too much of a rush to properly solicit advice and opinions from the public it is supposed to serve. We've seen this before, on both the Federal and Provincial level, with these current governments. It seems as though consultation is a dying art form, and alternatives to ideologically driven decisions are completely forbidden.

I'd like to relate a story, and while it doesn't directly relate to the PFRA I think it is worth telling.

For one of my university biology courses, we took a class trip out into the wilderness and learned a bit about the ecosystems that existed around us. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not much for the outdoor life...I sunburn far too easily, among other issues. Yet, as we neared the end of our time on our field trip, our guide stopped us in the middle of an empty field and asked us just to look around.

It was with a sense of pride that he told us that we were standing on uncultivated land; a section of the province that existed as it had hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Even for a man who doesn't care much for the outdoors life, it was an astonishing moment that I still recall fondly.

The fact of the matter is that we are losing our areas like that, and the closing of the PFRA pastures is a step in that direction. Our governments have demonstrated that they have no interest in managing the land, and that they have no real plan to ensure that environmental regulations to protect that land once sold are adhered to.

And while there are many of us in the province who have never stepped foot onto one of these pastures, and some of us who probably will never have need to, the work that has been done on them and the protections that they have provided since the 1930s has played an impact that we all have felt.

It is for reasons like that alone that they are worth protecting, and worth finding a compromise way to ensure that these forces for community good remain within community hands.

Now begins the press release; * In the interest of privacy, I have removed the phone numbers of the contact people in the press release, but left e-mail addresses intact; hopefully, this was alright.*

**********************************************************

MEDIA RELEASE 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

For Immediate Release: 

April 17, 2013 

Public Pastures – Public Interest 

Uniting to Save Saskatchewan’s Community Pastures 

Joint Venture Video Release 

In April of 2012 the federal government announced it was divesting itself of 2.3 million acres of PFRA community pastures, 1.78 million of which are located in Saskatchewan.  The control for these pastures has now reverted back to the prairie provinces and in response the Saskatchewan government has announced they will be seeking to sell or lease these lands to the current pasture patrons.  With rising land values putting the purchase of these lands far beyond the reach of most patrons, exceeding their ability to run a financially viable operation, patrons are looking to find an alternative solution. Other stakeholders affected by this decision are looking to ensure a sustainable environmental action plan for the land is continued, safeguarding the continued health of the ecosystem and the 32 species at risk that reside there. 

To help communicate this message, the various stakeholders (Patrons, First Nations, Academic and Wildlife/Environmental groups) have been meeting over the past several months to discuss their common concerns and encourage the two levels of government to reconsider their position on the importance of preserving and sustaining our community pastures. The result is a collaborative and inclusive video showcasing stakeholder concerns and their belief that, in order to ensure a positive outcome for all, they must work together to find a viable solution. 

It is their hope this video will also help communicate the message to stakeholders not yet involved and encourage them to join the collaborative effort towards protecting out public interests, and maintaining current and long term sustainable management of our Community Pastures.

For more information on this video and the joint initiative please contact any of the following: 

• Trevor Herriot, Public Pastures – Public Interest, Regina, trevorherriot@gmail.com
• Joanne Brochu – Patrons representative, jbrochu@sasktel.net

 

Time for an Abstract Post

With all the last few posts being so specific, I think it's time we stumbled a little into the abstract for a bit. (I've tried to write a few specific blog posts over the past couple weeks, only to find myself deleting them over not quite liking the direction they were heading in; so, hopefully, some abstract thinking will allow us to move along out of this funk.)

Now, I call this an abstract post because I think we'll focus more on an issue and some ideas behind it rather than actually examine something that has been in the news. There is certainly a lot to talk about in news, whether its the Labrador by-election or the foreign worker issue or the SK Party spending $220,000 on touting their post-secondary track record (which doesn't deserve a touting).

Or even some words about the NDP Convention, or the coming Liberal Convention that will likely end with Justin Trudeau becoming the next Liberal leader. But despite all of that interesting political fodder, I think we'll stick with the abstract. I'm sure some passing reference to some, or all of it, will show up regardless but we'll see what happens.

With many of the things that have happened over the past weeks, on multiple levels, I have been frankly stunned by the stunting of ideas, debate, and reason that exist within the current political sphere. This is not a new thing, it's been the status quo in the US for quite some time, but it has been growing in Canada at an alarming rate over the past few decades.

A perfect example of this can be found in the death of two international leaders: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the UK's Margaret Thatcher.

We'll use our illustrious Prime Minister Stephen Harper for an example of this.

Upon Chavez's passing, Harper was quick to smack millions of Venezuelans in the face by talking about how Chavez's passing would lead to real change, real democracy and was more or less welcomed by the international community.

Compare that to Harper dropping everything to attend Thatcher's funeral in London, and his outpouring of her being a political icon and hero of his.

Despite the common adage that one shouldn't speak ill of the dead, that idea seems to fly out the window when you're dealing with a political rival of the opposite spectrum stripes. At the same time, however, Thatcher's death has prompted various reactions in the UK. The BBC reported today that Judy Garland's "Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead" from the Wizard of Oz, is likely to hit in the Top 10 Charts in the UK due to it being bought in response to her death; and numerous people across the country have thrown parties and celebrations on her passing.

Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle has gone so far as to say that "the government could save money on her funeral by simply giving every Scottish person a shovel who would be more than happy to dig her a hole to hell."

Naturally, people have come out and condemned this behaviour, citing the mantra of one not speaking ill of the dead. And while comments such as that, which the comedic value will not be discussed (personally, I found it and the rest of Boyle's routine quite funny, but comedy varies) might venture into crossing the line, we must remember that many of the same people weren't showing the level of respect they're demanding when politicos on the other side of the spectrum passed.

One of the more interesting articles I read on Thatcher's passing revolved around the idea of not white washing history; to acknowledge Thatcher's political legacy, and the things that she had done well, but to also remember the division and issues that she got wrong. Effectively, it's a call to common sense.

People are ultimately human, and death does not bestow a state of perfection that automatically removes any mistakes, errors, goofs, or downright inhumane actions taken during that person's lifetime. To quote another British politician who has a checkered record, Oliver Cromwell, we need to remember people "warts and all".

To get a little more abstract, we need to talk about how this is systemic of a larger picture in politics. There is an idea of one-sided debate that is establishing itself as the dominant mindset of politics.

Allow me to explain that a little better.

I've mentioned the differences in Harper's reaction to two deaths; but we've seen that same reaction when it comes to political discussion. Under the Harper Government, we've seen a move towards equating opposing political policy with treason.

We've seen an alarming amount of references to the idea of "selling out Canada" or "betraying the nation"; references that harken back to the dubious phrase of "un-American". A simple word that has been a death knell to political issues south of the border for decades, if not centuries.

We've seen a government that has restricted debate from the discourse of actual ideas and the examination of best course; to "we've made our decision, we're in power, and you're all a bunch of damned traitors if you say anything different!" And numerous people across this country are swallowing this poisoned Kool-Aid en masse, accepting the government's accusations that the audacity to say anything against government policy means you are "un-Canadian".

It's almost as if everyone in this country has forgotten what the word "Opposition" means. The role of the Opposition has never been to rubber-stamp what the government was doing...Or perhaps this was a behaviour that was established during the Dion-Ignatieff years that the Conservatives figured would continue until the end of time.

At the same time, the Opposition doesn't exist to just stand up and yell "WRONG" and "NO" over and over either. There are indeed times when the government and the opposition will agree on a course of action, but more often then not, the opposition exists to provide an alternative viewpoint and a suggestion of another way to do things.

But, much like our American cousins, we're seeing a slide toward the stunting of debate by simply calling any and all different viewpoints "un-Canadian" and "traitorous with a side of treason"!

We've seen it provincially as well with Brad Wall's attacks against Thomas Mulcair, and his attacks against Cam Broten as well. A key example was trying to paint Cam as "anti-Saskatchewan" for a perceived lack of being in favour of the Keystone Pipeline. Granted, Cam has since come out in favour of the pipeline, which perhaps shows one of those areas where the opposition and the government can agree...

But we have to start to ask ourselves what sort of representation we want from our officials. Bad policy is the result of electing anyone who is so blinded by ideology that they must resort to cries of treason against political opponents; we deserve to be able to have debates, as opposed to stunted conversations that in the end get us nowhere.

Furthermore, these debates lock us into a perpetual cycle of the same old argument over and over. Look again to the US, and the debate over Obamacare. The 2012 Election saw Romney, and all of his Republican opponents in the primaries, talk about the need to repeal Obamacare. And I would be willing to bet that the 2016 Election will continue to see Republicans call on the need to repeal previous bills passed by the Obama Administration.

When we get locked between administrations that only care about repealing and undoing what the other side did when they were in power, we get locked in the same argument for years to come. A local example would be the SK Party's Bill-85 with regards to labour laws. I'd be willing to bet the NDP will campaign on repealing parts of that bill, much like they campaigned in 2011 with mentions of repealing Bills 5 and 6.

And while bills like that do need to be repealed, we must be sure that we are not defining our campaigns simply by being the party that wants to undo what was done in the past.

Perhaps the real problem with debate, beyond ideological blindness and base accusations, stems from the short memory span of the citizen. Again, talking locally, the issue of health care has come up a lot in the Legislature during Question Period. Primarily, questions revolving around a new medical facility in North Battleford that is now massively behind schedule despite campaign promises to move quickly.

The SK Party's main line of argument is the same old line we've heard from governments of all political stripes: The last government is the problem; or, when you were in government, why didn't you do it then?

It's a flippant remark, and quite frankly, is another example of everything that is wrong with our political system. For those who know Saskatchewan history, everyone knows why the NDP governments from 1993 - 2007 didn't address some of these issues. The province was on the verge of bankruptcy, and difficult decisions had to be made to keep the province afloat.

Now, I'm risking falling into my own trap here some might say of blaming previous governments. But, as we talked about white washing earlier, there is a difference when blaming a previous government when they did indeed play a role in developments outside of their term. There is no denying that Grant Devine's Tories left the province in rough shape, and in a mess that took years to clean up.

That forced the NDP into tough decisions; it was a question of cutting off the limb to save the body. Yes, hospitals were closed (an action SK Party supporters still throw at NDPers, which truly underscores the need for a stronger history program in schools) to save money and other actions were taken to right the province's economic ship.

People must begin to understand that the actions of the past continue to have an impact today. A government from 20 years ago can still have made actions that are felt today, I think Margaret Thatcher proves that point quite well, and there is nothing wrong with admitting this. But, we cannot have selective history. You can't stop at blaming the NDP for something, without acknowledging the mess they inherited from the previous government.

Perhaps this was where debate truly began to go downhill, the moment the public began to allow politicians to simply spin even the recent past into a flexible talking point. Debate cannot be, or at least should not be, white washed. And the public should begin to demand better. Winston Churchill said that "The best argument against democracy was a five-minute conversation with the average voter", which is only half of the story.

The other half is that the average voter forms their opinions from the media, which uses the opinions and soundbytes expressed by politicians. The public deserves better, but first we must become a better public. We were endowed, with free thought and the capacity to be rational, thinking beings. It's only a shame that so few people decide to actively use this talent.

Which I think brings me to my final thought on this issue. The true problem, which could be a byproduct of spin, is that we have legitimized opinion to the same level as fact and truth. It is true that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinion should not be confused with fact.

It may be your opinion that the Great Dragon in the sky swallows the sun at night, and burps it up again in the morning. But our facts explain concepts such as stars, gravity, and orbit; your opinion is yours to keep, but it is not valid in the court of true and false and at no point should you feel you've won an argument based on overwhelming opinion over fact.

Rationality seems to be a dying art form, which is a rather depressing thought on the face of it; which becomes doubly so when one begins to wonder whether we have ever truly exercised our rationality in the first place. Regardless of that thought, we need to elect politicians who encourage debate. Who don't spew talking point after talking point, followed by a revisionist history that paints their party as sunshine and lollipops while demonizing all political opponents.

We need to do this, if only to have a force that encourages the general public to put down the remote and think for themselves. To question everything, to examine everything, and to truly start us down a path where debate is open and free.

It is hard to say whether such a politician exists, or if such a person would even get elected in the first place, but in addition to rationality we've been given two other gifts that should be embraced fully: the power to hope, and the power to dream. 

Saskatchewan Round-Up

Source: Star Phoenix: Contract Was to Produce Spin, NDP Says
Source: CBC News: Sask. Government Pays to Study Film Tax Credit After it was Cut
Source: Leader Post: Sask. Party Not Straight on IPAC-CO2

There's a few things to talk about, so let's move on and get to talking.

We'll start with the recent development on the Saskatchewan Film Tax Credit front. One year after the government cut the tax credit, the debate over why the credit was cut and the demand for it to return continues to hound the government. With numerous production companies and industry professionals leaving the province as a result of the cut, there is a good reason why this debate continues to remain in the spotlight.

And now it came out today that the government commissioned a study on the tax credit after the decision was made to cut the tax credit. The contract was made public through an Access to Information request by NDP MLA Danielle Chartier. The contract was signed on March 11th, just ten days before the budget was released, and was signed off on by the Deputy Minister on the 28th, seven days after the budget.

The $5,000 price tag attached the study may not sound like a lot of money at first, but one has to look at the way in which the money was spent. Undoubtedly, the decision to cancel the tax credit was made prior to the signing of a study to look into the tax credit, which means the study was nothing more than an exercise in government propaganda.

Chartier is right to say that the government's actions result in nothing more than public relations and spin produced on the taxpayer's dime. If this study had been done, and seen by the ministry, prior to the budget bringing in the cut then one could make the case that there was a reason for the study. However, given the timing, there's no doubt that this study was nothing more than an attempt to bring some credence for the government's decision.

We now need to try and talk about the IPAC-CO2 issue, which may be complicated due to the distance between the issue first coming to light and now, but we'll give it a try. To sum it up in a nutshell, IPAC-CO2 was a public-private independent project that focused on carbon capture technology and development. Run on the University of Regina campus, IPAC-CO2 came into the spotlight a few weeks ago when a massive conflict of interest accusation was levelled at the organization.

Two members of the board were accused of having ties to organizations and companies that received contracts from IPAC-CO2 and of signing deals with other organizations and companies that favoured these companies while creating questionable spending inside IPAC.

Now, the NDP is raising questions about what the government knew and when it knew it about the questionable dealings that occurred. Trent Wotherspoon has been leading the charge on keeping the government's feet to the fire on this issue, and trying to cut through the spin and non-answers that the government has provided thus far.

Murray Mandryk is right to point out that the government has shown a complete lack of concern on this issue, in trying to dismiss it as a non-government issue, and has spent the bulk of the time since this came to light obscuring the role government played in the developments at IPAC. After all, the government did have board members on IPAC, all of whom should have been able to see some of the shady dealings that were going on and report it to the government.

But rather than use the Harper approach of throwing at least one former adviser under the bus, the government has simply shrugged and tried to blame everyone from those at IPAC, to the University, to the NDP itself.

There is a lot of questions here, especially considering what the government knew and when and just how much tax dollars went into this program and were misspent, and until the government stands up and answers those questions the song and dance of obfuscation won't fool anyone for long.

I had meant to include a section on health care here, but I think we'll save that for a separate post for now.

Saskatchewan Budget Day

Well, it was Budget Day here in Saskatchewan and everyone is stopping to take a moment and examine the budget and the details that it contained. I've said before on the blog that financial policy isn't one of my strong suits, so hopefully I've managed to examine this information correctly.

There were some silver linings to the budget, including a bit of a swell into health care spending (though there is room to debate whether spending on reducing surgical wait times and rural doctor recruitment will pay off) but the bulk of the budget was mostly on the disappointing side.

There's a few things to highlight here, so let's get to it.

We'll start with education. Although there is a modest increase in direct funds, and the promise of $17 million to school boards that are seeing student increases, the budget fails spectacularly on the subject of education. One massively under reported aspect of the budget has been the massive change to Education Property Tax Mill Rates. The agricultural rate is dropping from a little over 3.91 to around 2.67; while the residential rate is dropping from 9.51 to 5.03. The biggest decrease comes in the industrial/commercial rate and resource rate, which is collapsing from three categories into a single rate of 8.25 and 11.04 respectively.

The budget document says that this cut is intended to be revenue neutral, but I just can't understand how that is possible given the major decrease in the two commercial based rates. And while it may actually manage to be revenue neutral for taxpayers for the 2013 year, it doesn't address the cost impact it will have on schools, both for 2013 and the years to come.

On the subject of post-secondary education, the picture is a little more grim. Both the University of Regina and University of Saskatchewan received less than half of the 5% increase they were hoping this budget would deliver. This further guarantees that these institutions will have to continue with program cuts, staff layoffs, and major increases in tuition rates.

The silver lining here is that SIAST is lined up to receive some increased funding, but one does wonder whether or not it will create a positive impact and generate more seats for programs across the province.

The other issues with regards to education revolve around the floating notion of P3 (Public-Private Partnerships) being used to build new schools. The thought stops short of proclaiming that Saskatchewan will be populate with private schools/academies/word of choice; effectively creating a two-tiered education system in the province, but one does have to wonder what a P3 would accomplish in terms of education.

Either way, in the long term, the use of P3's would put all of the risk and debt onto the public books while allowing the private side to prosper (much like the AMICUS agreement in Saskatoon),

The other thing we need to talk about is the way our totals have been calculated. At first, we had a $150 million shortfall in this budget. Then $180 million from the Crowns later and we have a balanced budget.

Now, I can't deny that the NDP did the same thing in office. They used the Crowns and the Rainy Day Fund to balance out a little (though the NDP never really were too far off the mark, and definitely didn't misread oil/gas and potash revenues). I'd also point out that the NDP didnt ravage the Crowns as much as we've seen from this government; can anyone else remember a time when a Crown had 100% of their revenue taken in a single year? The government also used GRF (General Revenue Fund) totals instead of SF (Summary Financials) in order to paint a rosier picture. Of course, everyone is pointing out how the NDP did the same when in power.

Though, I would also note on that front that GRF reporting was still the norm in Canada when he NDP was last in power and now Saskatchewan is the only province still using GRF reporting. Simply saying we're doing it the way the other government used to doesn't fly as an answer, or a justification, since times and methods have changed since then.

So, ultimately, we continue to not have a balanced budget under this government. Not to mention the fact that this is a government, like all right of centre parties, that extols the virtue of buying now and paying much later (in fact, leaving the cheque for the next generation.)

One positive was that we didn't see the 2% corporate tax rate reduction that was touted prior to the budget, though we did see changes in the uranium royalty system that will likely result in lower profits for the province in regards to uranium; the budget says the steps being taken will result in increase production and quotes $5 billion over 14 years with potential new investment (key word on 'potential' as the number could be significantly lower if investment does not meet expectations).

As stated, the budget fails on a number of levels, and despite a few silver linings it ultimately does nothing to ensure long term financial prosperity for the province. When the Saskatchewan Party was first elected, there was billions left by the Calvert Government. From the looks of things, the next government will have to start completely from scratch.

Those Who Can't Do...

Source: CBC News: Province Won't Limit Classroom Sizes, Minister Says

There certainly is no shortage of things to talk about; from SGI motorcycle rates, to unanimous approval to move forward with "Howard's Law" on asbestos, it was hard to decide what should be the first thing to move on to.

But, as you've no doubt guessed from the title, I'm going to focus on education. Education is one of those questions that almost rivals the "chicken or the egg" in terms of complexity, if only because it seems we all have a desire to improve our education system, but few know the best way of achieving that. So far, the Saskatchewan Party government has taken some dumbfounding moves in their desire to improve education.

We all remember how they robbed school boards of the ability to set their own mill rates, denying them the ability to have stable and regular funding. We all remember how they slashed Educational Assistant programs, laying off hundreds of EAs across the province.

In another move of shortsightedness, they pushed back the start of the school dates to correspond with holidays; and now are forcing schools to shove extra time into their schedules now as a result. And we now hear that standardized testing is going to become a norm across the province, though the ministry and Minister Russ Marchuk have yet to determine when, who, what, and how to administer such testing.

It comes to this moment where we should discuss Finland. (LINK) The link is a nice infographic that shows some details about the Finnish Education System, which has become a sort of idealized system as people begin to learn more and more about it. I highly recommend clicking on the link and reading through it, but I will also use some of the facts they incorporate here.

For starters, let's look at some of the Canadian-Finnish comparisons; Finnish high school graduation rates are 93%, where Canada's is 78% (that number, much to our shame, would drop considerably if we compared it to Aboriginal graduation rates). Finnish students outperform other nations by a considerable margin on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), scoring an around 560 while Canada lags behind at the 530 mark.

On the issue of standardized testing, Finnish students take only ONE standardized test in their entire school career at the age of 16. Whereas an American student in New York will take TEN standardized tests before even entering high school, with American students collectively taking ONE HUNDRED MILLION standardized tests a year.

Considering the proof in the pudding, given Finland's lead when compared to other nations, it seems quite odd that Saskatchewan would consider adopting a new system that revolves around standardized testing.

Then there are the other flaws. We have long known that standardized tests often have a bias, usually around first languages, which inherently sets up some students to fail regardless of their actual intelligence level. Furthermore, these sort of general exams do not actually encourage actual learning. It restricts the curriculum, narrowing a teacher's focus on a few subjects at the sacrifice of others.

It also does nothing to help foster rational thinking and independent thought.

Then there is the concern of where standardized testing can lead. We all remember George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" initiative, which uses the idea of standardized testing to not only grade students but to grade teacher performance and school performance. In the end, rather than improve education this move diminished it as schools lowered passing scores on these tests in order to avoid funding cuts.

Is this Brad Wall's prelude to a new school funding formula based on standardized testing performance?

Let us hope not, but I wouldn't put it past him; given that we've seen school budgets cut, and his government has once again refused to pump any more money into the system (as they have announced they will not be reviewing the educational tax rate in the upcoming budget.)

Now, let's get to one other difference between Finland and the rest of the world: Class size. NDP Education critic David Forbes talked about how he's heard of a kindergarten class that will have 94 students in Saskatoon, and called on the government to introduce measures to control class sizes. The government has come forward and said that such measures are not on the table, and that they leave it up to the school boards to allocate resources as needed for large classes (resources, which as we've mentioned have been significantly clawed back).

Again, using our handy link, we see that in New York there is ONE teacher for every TWENTY-FOUR students. In Finland, the rate is ONE teacher to every TWELVE students. On top of this, children in the Finnish system don't experience heavy homework loads until they are in teens; which in turn, produces less work for the teacher to mark allowing them to spend more time TEACHING.

Growing classes are not a new thing and not going away, they are a new normal. When I graduated from high school in 2005, we had a class size of about 90 or so students. The next year, that number swelled to over 120; and from keeping in touch with teachers from high school, it is my understanding that there always seems to be more and more students than the year before.

Cutting EAs, and forcing teachers to adhere to standardized testing is not going to enhance education; especially not when it's a ratio of ONE to NINETY and UP.

The fact of the matter is that we need to be increasing our resources to teachers, not tying their hands in one area and then expecting them to pick up slack at the same time. All the moves taken by this government seem incredibly shortsighted and unlikely to enhance childhood education, if anything they are increasing the odds of stunting childhood education and putting more strain onto the system.

There is a need for educational reform and a change to the status quo, but let's focus on changes on emulating a system that works better than ours (like the one in Finland) rather than one that already in worse shape than our own (like the USA's).