http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=39b37438-9929-4b78-a107-e73a7a7ac7be
What this election could mean to Saskatchewan
Will Chabun , Leader-Post
Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008
REGINA -- It's a federal election but, as has famously been said, all politics is local. So, seen through that prism, what's at stake for Saskatchewan specifically?
Figuring this out requires an assessment of the likely range of outcomes.
Here's what several scenarios might mean for Saskatchewan:
A Conservative government
First, let's consider a Conservative majority: Particularly important for Saskatchewan would be the Conservatives moving on their long-standing pledge to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over the export sale of wheat and barley for human consumption.
That's not attracting much attention in urban Saskatchewan circles, but has been a red-hot issue among farmers for decades, with strongly held opinions -- pro and con-- of the board.
Reduced to its basics, some farmers figure they can do better than the wheat board in selling grain; other farmers see safety in numbers, particularly in a falling market. A lot of people, rural and urban, are just waiting to see what happens.
Stephen Harper's minority government tried to end this legislated monopoly, which has been in place since the 1940s, through cabinet orders-in-council. But a succession of court decisions said this can be done only through passage of legislation in Parliament.
And given the past opposition to this plan by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois, this won't pass unless the Conservatives get a majority.
Also riding on the election outcome will be the Conservatives' anti-crime package -- something relevant to Saskatchewan, given the high rate of reported crime in the province.
This has attracted the attention of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, which worries it is aimed squarely at First Nations people, who make up a sadly large proportion of Saskatchewan's prison population. As an alternative to tougher sentencing, the FSIN and others propose programs to cut crime by reducing poverty and increasing education and social development.
A Conservative majority could also pursue senate reform -- a recurring issue in Saskatchewan -- without the messy business of reopening the Constitution.
Based on what's been said in the last two years, rather than appointing party cronies, the Conservative government could instead appoint them in consultation with the provinces. And what better "consultation" is there than province-by-province elections to choose senators, who are then formally appointed by Ottawa? Over time, this practice would become accepted and be altered only by a future government willing to take the enormous political risk of telling voters they can no longer elect their representatives.
Voila! An elected senate without the pain (q.v. Meech Lake and Charlottetown) of rewriting the Constitution.
With a majority, the Conservatives could also move on border security, closer harmonization of Canadian and American regulations, a "go-slower approach" to the environment, and fewer barriers to exports of Prairie resources to the U.S.
"There have been some concerns that some (other) parties would like a more 'Canadiancentric' approach to resources," says Ken Rasmussen, director of the U of R's Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, who says the Tories would be more "continentalist".
Not strictly a policy issue, but still pretty important for us, is the Saskatchewan government's relationship with whoever wins the election. Here, Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party government is being particularly friendly with its federal Conservative fellow travelers -- in sharp contrast to Newfoundland's Danny Williams, who is happily traveling the country to bash his fellow Tories over resource payments.
Wall is quiet on equalization (not that Saskatchewan is eligible for any right now) and seems to be gambling that it's better to be on Harper's good side than not.
Says U of R history professor Jim Pitsula: "The downside of being superfriendly is that you might be taken for granted, but on the whole, I think it's probably a better strategy."
Now, suppose there's a Conservative minority.
"We'd be back to the style of government that Harper almost perfected in the first term: governing sorta like he had a majority -- but not quite," says Rasmussen. That is, dissent is frowned upon and some Commons votes are treated a confidence votes.
For Saskatchewan, changes to the Wheat Board and the grain marketing system would remain on hold. Further tightening of environmental laws on, say, air emissions (a topic of much interest to this province) could not be ruled out.
But if they came but, Harper is shrewd enough to find a way to take credit for it, said Rasmussen, who said Harper's handling of his minority government was far more assertive and smooth than the last two minority prime ministers: Paul Martin and Joe Clark.
"Nothing much is going to change, I wouldn't think, unless there's either a Harper majority -- or another party suddenly surges," agrees Pitsula.
And that brings us to ...
A Liberal government
The biggest issue here clearly is the Liberals' June 2008 promise of a "carbon tax". Critics worry it will hurt Saskatchewan by boosting fuel and electricity prices, and ship large amounts of tax money eastward, with relatively little in income tax breaks coming back to us.
Supporters say these fears border on the hysterical and that the tax would let Canada use the marketplace to cut emissions, develop new antipollution technology and dodge foreign (i.e., American) antipollution restrictions on our oil exports.
All this assumes, of course, that a victorious Liberal government stick with the carbon tax. Leader Stephane Dion has been giving concessions to groups like farmers and truckers and this week said, "I may have to slow down the pace by which I want to implement the changes..."
Pitsula disagrees. "I think they'd go ahead with it; that's Dion's nature. He's 'Green Shift' to the core."
Look for the Liberals to also go slow on any more changes to the CWB and make approaches to First Nations groups.
On the plus side for Saskatchewan, a Liberal victory would almost certainly mean a return to the cabinet table for Wascana MP Ralph Goodale, should be be re-elected (which seems likely, given the results of this week's Leader-Post/Sigman analytics poll, which showed him with a commanding lead among decided voters.)
In his role as federal finance minister in the Paul Martin government, Goodale wielded considerable influence. Should Goodale find himself in a position of power in a Dion government, many will expect similar benefits to flow to Regina and Saskatchewan.
A Liberal-NDP coalition
Not likely, but not impossible either. The two parties co-operated from 1972-74 and NDP Leader Jack Layton said, somewhat obliquely, Oct. 3 that "I've worked with any other party."
Rasmussen does not think this would necessarily lead to the Liberal "carbon tax" that has proven so unpopular in Saskatchewan. He thinks the Liberals would argue that "circumstance have changed since the tax plan was announced in June 2008 and could justify shelving it.
Other Saskatchewan-friendly policies would depend on whether such a theoretical coalition elected many, or any, MPs in Saskatchewan. Further Wheat Board changes would be shelved and there would be a danger such a coalition would become a big spender in order to keep al partners happy.
Such an unlikely coalition would move very carefully because all parties involved would be afraid of a loss of identity and the possibility of alienating traditional supporters by being too friendly with the enemy.
If such a coalition does come together, watch for it to come apart pretty quickly, getting the stage for -- you guessed it -- another general election.
What this election could mean to Saskatchewan
Will Chabun , Leader-Post
Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008
REGINA -- It's a federal election but, as has famously been said, all politics is local. So, seen through that prism, what's at stake for Saskatchewan specifically?
Figuring this out requires an assessment of the likely range of outcomes.
Here's what several scenarios might mean for Saskatchewan:
A Conservative government
First, let's consider a Conservative majority: Particularly important for Saskatchewan would be the Conservatives moving on their long-standing pledge to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over the export sale of wheat and barley for human consumption.
That's not attracting much attention in urban Saskatchewan circles, but has been a red-hot issue among farmers for decades, with strongly held opinions -- pro and con-- of the board.
Reduced to its basics, some farmers figure they can do better than the wheat board in selling grain; other farmers see safety in numbers, particularly in a falling market. A lot of people, rural and urban, are just waiting to see what happens.
Stephen Harper's minority government tried to end this legislated monopoly, which has been in place since the 1940s, through cabinet orders-in-council. But a succession of court decisions said this can be done only through passage of legislation in Parliament.
And given the past opposition to this plan by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois, this won't pass unless the Conservatives get a majority.
Also riding on the election outcome will be the Conservatives' anti-crime package -- something relevant to Saskatchewan, given the high rate of reported crime in the province.
This has attracted the attention of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, which worries it is aimed squarely at First Nations people, who make up a sadly large proportion of Saskatchewan's prison population. As an alternative to tougher sentencing, the FSIN and others propose programs to cut crime by reducing poverty and increasing education and social development.
A Conservative majority could also pursue senate reform -- a recurring issue in Saskatchewan -- without the messy business of reopening the Constitution.
Based on what's been said in the last two years, rather than appointing party cronies, the Conservative government could instead appoint them in consultation with the provinces. And what better "consultation" is there than province-by-province elections to choose senators, who are then formally appointed by Ottawa? Over time, this practice would become accepted and be altered only by a future government willing to take the enormous political risk of telling voters they can no longer elect their representatives.
Voila! An elected senate without the pain (q.v. Meech Lake and Charlottetown) of rewriting the Constitution.
With a majority, the Conservatives could also move on border security, closer harmonization of Canadian and American regulations, a "go-slower approach" to the environment, and fewer barriers to exports of Prairie resources to the U.S.
"There have been some concerns that some (other) parties would like a more 'Canadiancentric' approach to resources," says Ken Rasmussen, director of the U of R's Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, who says the Tories would be more "continentalist".
Not strictly a policy issue, but still pretty important for us, is the Saskatchewan government's relationship with whoever wins the election. Here, Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party government is being particularly friendly with its federal Conservative fellow travelers -- in sharp contrast to Newfoundland's Danny Williams, who is happily traveling the country to bash his fellow Tories over resource payments.
Wall is quiet on equalization (not that Saskatchewan is eligible for any right now) and seems to be gambling that it's better to be on Harper's good side than not.
Says U of R history professor Jim Pitsula: "The downside of being superfriendly is that you might be taken for granted, but on the whole, I think it's probably a better strategy."
Now, suppose there's a Conservative minority.
"We'd be back to the style of government that Harper almost perfected in the first term: governing sorta like he had a majority -- but not quite," says Rasmussen. That is, dissent is frowned upon and some Commons votes are treated a confidence votes.
For Saskatchewan, changes to the Wheat Board and the grain marketing system would remain on hold. Further tightening of environmental laws on, say, air emissions (a topic of much interest to this province) could not be ruled out.
But if they came but, Harper is shrewd enough to find a way to take credit for it, said Rasmussen, who said Harper's handling of his minority government was far more assertive and smooth than the last two minority prime ministers: Paul Martin and Joe Clark.
"Nothing much is going to change, I wouldn't think, unless there's either a Harper majority -- or another party suddenly surges," agrees Pitsula.
And that brings us to ...
A Liberal government
The biggest issue here clearly is the Liberals' June 2008 promise of a "carbon tax". Critics worry it will hurt Saskatchewan by boosting fuel and electricity prices, and ship large amounts of tax money eastward, with relatively little in income tax breaks coming back to us.
Supporters say these fears border on the hysterical and that the tax would let Canada use the marketplace to cut emissions, develop new antipollution technology and dodge foreign (i.e., American) antipollution restrictions on our oil exports.
All this assumes, of course, that a victorious Liberal government stick with the carbon tax. Leader Stephane Dion has been giving concessions to groups like farmers and truckers and this week said, "I may have to slow down the pace by which I want to implement the changes..."
Pitsula disagrees. "I think they'd go ahead with it; that's Dion's nature. He's 'Green Shift' to the core."
Look for the Liberals to also go slow on any more changes to the CWB and make approaches to First Nations groups.
On the plus side for Saskatchewan, a Liberal victory would almost certainly mean a return to the cabinet table for Wascana MP Ralph Goodale, should be be re-elected (which seems likely, given the results of this week's Leader-Post/Sigman analytics poll, which showed him with a commanding lead among decided voters.)
In his role as federal finance minister in the Paul Martin government, Goodale wielded considerable influence. Should Goodale find himself in a position of power in a Dion government, many will expect similar benefits to flow to Regina and Saskatchewan.
A Liberal-NDP coalition
Not likely, but not impossible either. The two parties co-operated from 1972-74 and NDP Leader Jack Layton said, somewhat obliquely, Oct. 3 that "I've worked with any other party."
Rasmussen does not think this would necessarily lead to the Liberal "carbon tax" that has proven so unpopular in Saskatchewan. He thinks the Liberals would argue that "circumstance have changed since the tax plan was announced in June 2008 and could justify shelving it.
Other Saskatchewan-friendly policies would depend on whether such a theoretical coalition elected many, or any, MPs in Saskatchewan. Further Wheat Board changes would be shelved and there would be a danger such a coalition would become a big spender in order to keep al partners happy.
Such an unlikely coalition would move very carefully because all parties involved would be afraid of a loss of identity and the possibility of alienating traditional supporters by being too friendly with the enemy.
If such a coalition does come together, watch for it to come apart pretty quickly, getting the stage for -- you guessed it -- another general election.