Leader-Star News Service May 1996 Archive

Why Dwain Lingenfelter will be the next premier of Saskatchewan was obvious this week by the way he handled the hog problem.

Real hogs, that is. Those destined for the abbatoir.

Not the ones at the trough giving themselves $4,300 raises this year (although the way Link avoids being sullied by such unseemly greed is another reason why he'll be the next premier.) Some of you will scoff at this prognostication.

You've likely written Lingenfelter off as the Gary Lane of the NDP who will never be trusted enough to succeed Roy Romanow as NDP leader.

When he abandoned his Regina Elphinstone riding to retire to the countryside as the Count of Condie, many of you concluded he was abandoning further political ambitions.

But consider the reality, should Romanow decide to retire shortly before or after an NDP re-election in 1999.

Lingenfelter's chief rival for the premier's chair, Finance Minister Janice MacKinnon, has an arguably bigger problem with the perception of a drawing room socialist. Nor has she been able to cultivate the power base within caucus, cabinet and the party that Lingenfelter has.

While there is alway talk of a candidate from the left - Education Minister Pat Atkinson's name pops up frequently - the left seems a spent force in the NDP.

And young up-and-comers like Health Minister Eric Cline - while ambitious and a quick study - still have much to learn.

Lingenfelter will become the next Saskatchewan premier because the job will go to the best politician in the NDP. And his handling of the Intercontinental Packers Ltd. issue this week shows us why he can rightfully claim that title.

By all rights, Lingenfelter should have been roasted on a spit for offering Intercon a $5-million forgiveable loan to create 400 jobs just eight days before Romanow called the provincial election.

A lesser politician would have, but Lingenfelter knew full well that Saskatchewan's need for new jobs gave him some latitude to fend off criticism.

What the public didn't know about this Interncon deal, however, is it was based on the company closing its 400-employee Vancouver plant and relocating those jobs to Saskatchewan.

In political terms, giving a company money to move jobs from one province to another is "job poaching." There are interprovincial trade agreements prohibiting it.

Evidently, Lingenfelter was very aware of this, too.

An Aug. 31, 1994 memo written by Lingenfelter to cabinet colleagues plus accompanying briefing notes have at least 25 reference to Intercon's consolidation plans and the closure of its Vancouver plant. A four-page summary of the minutes from the Sept. 8, 1994 treasury board meeting has another six such references.

These internal memos, obtained by CBC Radio, speak of "complaints from British Columbia about Saskatchewan using incentives to 'steal' an industry from another province" and "the trick will be to talk about jobs without bringing attention to the Vancouver operation."

The memos also anticipate the Saskatchewan public will "likely be more positive than negative, given the preoccupation with job creation."

Maybe one can argue it isn't all that untoward for a provincial government to offer incentives to move jobs (see Crown Life).

But make no mistake that the memos caught Lingenfelter red-handed.

How the veteran New Democrat handled things from here, however, shows why he's destined to go much further in politics.

"Vancouver hasn't closed," he simply explained. "No jobs have moved from Vancouver."

Simple explanations are the best ones.

The fact is, the Vancouver closure will likely go ahead as soon as the pork industry rebounds and Intercon proceeds with its consolidation plans. (Even his own memos did not anticipate Vancouver's closure until 1996.) But by keeping a cool head and doing his homework, slick Link has given his government a plausible defence.

And when Vancouver does close, he'll say, as his memos recommended, this was "strictly a company decision."

Lingenfelter is simply the best.

The best usually becomes the leader.

The people who say that gay rights is a moral issue are right. It all comes down to whether it is moral to deny someone a job, or a place to live, because they happen to be homosexual.

Clearly, the answer is no.

By any standard, the notion that people should be punished because of their sexual orientation fails the test of morality.

It denies a fundamental belief at the root of religious faith that is, moreover, the foundation of civil society itself: the inherent dignity of all human beings.

So, while people might be morally offended by the notion of homosexuality, to allow discrimination of gay people is an immoral act. It denies the worth of individuals, and actually corrupts religious beliefs, which tell us all people are unique and created in, as Christian faith teaches, the "image and likeness of God".

As such, the Chretien government's decision to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Code should be seen as a moral act. It merely confirms the belief that people matter.

But the problem many have with extending human rights protection to homosexuals is they see it as a public sanctioning of a lifestyle that deeply offends their moral and religious beliefs.

As such, through its actions, government is being complicit in an attack on the very foundation of society.

But what is government really saying with this legislation? Saskatoon-Humboldt Liberal MP Georgette Sheridan argues there is nothing in the legislation that even mentions homosexual people, let alone bestows upon them "special" rights, as some suggest. "The term sexual orientation is itself a neutral term. It can mean either heterosexual or homosexual. That point is often lost," Sheridan says.

In that sense, it is similar to the term "gender", which is included in the human rights code. Discrimination on the basis of sex is already not allowed, which means that men and women must be treated equally.

For those still unable to accept what government has done, perhaps the way to reconcile your personal moral beliefs with the public immorality of discrimination is by seeing two dimensions to the same issue. It might be a fine distinction to draw, but it is possible to reconcile religious beliefs with the human rights protection of gay people.

A number of years ago, former premier Grant Devine weighed into the gay rights issue when federal NDP MP Svend Robinson openly declared his homosexuality. Devine was asked what he thought of Robinson's comments. His answer was that he "hated the sin, but loved the sinner". In other words, Devine took the position that he drew a distinction between the individual, who might be homosexual, and the practice of homosexuality itself.

Devine was widely denounced for his comment, largely by the gay community. They said he was expressing intolerance towards gay people.

But, in fact, for people with strong religious beliefs, what Devine said opens the door to acceptance of extending human rights protection on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no point in denying the reality that this issue strikes deeply at the core religious beliefs of many people. Those who mock or minimize those firmly and honestly held beliefs are merely engaging in their own brand of religious bigotry and intolerance.

In a letter dated April 16 to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops set out the Church's position on the amendments to the human rights code. Rev. Francis Spence, archbishop of Kingston, said the church "condemns the misuse of its teaching to justify violence or the abuse of persons who are homosexuals".

The letter set out five principles on the personal and social implications of including sexual orientation in the human rights code. It noted that respect for the dignity of every human being is central to Catholic teaching. As well, the Church believes homosexual behavior to be morally unacceptable, while, at the same time, accepting the gay individual. In other words the Church makes a distinction between orientation and behavior.

"The Church does not include human rights as a 'right' to behavior that it considers to be morally wrong. However, the Church does have a duty to oppose discrimination in all circumstances where a person's sexual orientation or activity cannot reasonably be regarded as relevant," Spence wrote.

This is, in effect, not unlike Devine's position of "hate the sin, lover the sinner". It allows people to recognize that when it comes to morality and human rights, all people are equal and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, even if your personal moral code is offended by their behavior.

Or, as Jesus Christ taught, to recognize the goodness in all people. Those who say they follow Him, would be wise to heed His message.

In a province divided along philosophical lines for most of the past 50 years, it would seem odd to feel comforted by an NDP government's talk of formulating policy on a strictly philosophical basis.

But there was something reassuring in Premier Roy Romanow's statement Wednesday that his new Health Facilities Licensing Act bill prohibiting any independent, privatized medical facility in Saskatchewan was: "A political statement because it is a statement of principle and philosophy."

No doubt, some of you still have a belly full of such philosophical debate from the privatization wars of the late 1980s.

Back then, Romanow was drawing so many lines in the sand, this flat province must have looked like a corduroy couch.

But since taking over a debt-plagued government in the early 1990s, slavishly adhering to philosophic principle hasn't exactly been Romanow's style.

Consider the most recent budget and throne speeches: more spending cuts and layoffs; discussions of modified work-for-welfare, and; talk of possibly privatizing Crown corporations.

Philosophy be damned.

The NDP had become the best Tory government Saskatchewan never elected.

At least they were until Wednesday, when Romanow was again talking about another "line in the sand" - legislation that guarantees a single-payer health-care system and prohits extra billing.

"For the people of our province, universal medicare is nothing less than who we really are," Romanow said.

Like any philosophy-driven decision, there were reasons to question its wisdom.

Private medicine only thrives if the public system falters.

A recent study from the right-wing Fraser Institute shows cataract surgeries in Saskatchewan have inccreased by nearly 1,500, or 25 per cent, in the past four years. Yet you can either wait an average 23 weeks to get this surgery done in Saskatchewan or you can travel to Calary's Gimbel Eye Centre to pay to have it done immediately.

Medicare's survival won't be because of this bill; it will be because such growing problems with public health are properly addressed.

Also, it's more than a little curious that Romanow suddenly sees a need for such legislation that he freely admits addresses no immediate problem.

Could this bill be a prelude to Romanow's May 15 address in Montreal where he is expected to make medicare a big part of the national unity debate?

Was the NDP attempting to flush the provincial Liberals out on the medicare question?

Or was the government just attempting to curry favor within its own party where disenchantment grows over cutbacks, treatment of government workers and talk of privatization?

No doubt, some element of politics is not all that far removed from the decision to introduce this bill.

But despite the blind ideology behind it, we still should find comfort in the "philosophical reasons" behind its introduction.

Coming after four years of abandoning its other so-called philosophical principles for fiscal reasons, it is now clear that medicare is where the NDP truly "draws its line in the sand."

This becomes the culmination of tumultuous soul-searching by this government to determine which principles are truly crucial and which aren't.

Much thought was given to this "political statement."

That, in itself, is very comforting.

Securing medicare also happens to be the right decision for both the province and the party.

No political party can lay exclusive claim to an issue the way the Saskatchewan NDP can to medicare.

It is their roots. Their touchstones.

And it is still the greatest gift Saskatchewan has given to the nation.

Ironically, introduction of this bill came mere minutes after provincial Liberals demanded Romanow show the same "courage and honor" as former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps (who was just dragged "kicking and screaming" out of the House of Commons.)

Ironic, it was.

The day they shore up medicare is not a good day for the Liberals - or anyone else - to be lecturing the NDP on integrity.

Take a look at gas prices the next time you drive down the street and you can arrive at only one of two possible conclusions.

With almost all retail outlets selling gas at exactly the same price down to the 10th of a cent per litre, either gasoline is the most competitive retail market in the world, or it's the least competitive. Like a lot of people, my suspicion has always tended towards the latter.

There is no other mass-market, retail commodity with less variation in price at any particular time than gasoline. What other product or service (bread, milk, haircuts?) has consistently identical prices, down to the fraction of a cent, as gasoline?

The gasoline industry in Canada has all the traits of an oligopoly, where competition is limited because of a relatively limited number of suppliers. Although there might be 22 gasoline refiners in Canada, the supply of crude oil used as the feedstock of gasoline is dominated by a handful of multinational oil companies. By controlling supply, they can dictate price.

At least that is the theory of Regina-Lumsden NDP MP John Solomon. For weeks, Solomon has been calling on the federal government to investigate what he sees as gasoline price gouging by the oil companies. Solomon introduced a private member's bill that would have created a gas price review commission and a transparent gas pricing system. Any price increases - or gas tax increases, for that matter - would have to be approved by the commission made up of a cross-section of the public, industry and government.

It was a good idea, but it never saw the light of day. A lowly NDP backbencher has little influence and Solomon's bill died when the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and Reform refused to give it the unanimous consent needed to advance.

But Solomon knows a good issue when he sees one. Retail gas prices in much of Saskatchewan have skyrocketed in recent weeks. In Regina, for example, the price per litre for regular gas has gone from 52.9 cents a litre to 60.9 cents in less than a month.

So, on Friday, Solomon and his NDP colleague Simon de Jong held a joint news conference to call for a consumer boycott of Imperial Oil (Esso) gas stations around the province. Similar calls were being sounded by other NDP MPs in Manitoba and British Columbia.

The reason Imperial Oil was being singled out goes to the heart of the conspiracy theory on gas pricing. Solomon calls Imperial Oil the "price setter" in the market. It has such a dominant position of the Canadian gas market that others, theoretically, follow its lead on price. However, Imperial Oil has only 22 per cent of the Canadian gas market and, in fact, independent retailers have more of the market than Esso.

As well, Imperial does not control the crude oil supply. Fully half of the 400,000 barrels a day of crude it needs for its four refineries is purchased from other oil producers. All of Imperial's crude supply for its Dartmouth refinery is purchased on the offshore spot market.

The other problem with the gas-price conspiracy theory is that it assumes others, such as the Consumers Co-op Refinery in Regina, for example, are part of this price collusion. It also assumes that Petro-Canada, when it was wholly owned by the federal government, was also part of the conspiracy to fix prices.

Obviously, when you're in a market where prices are allegedly being fixed, those who sell at the fixed price - like Co-op or Petro-Can gas stations - are co-conspirators in the collusion to prevent fair competition.

When asked about Federated Co-ops, and Petro-Can, at one point a government Crown corporation, being part of this attempt to gouge consumers, Solomon doesn't have a good answer. He says the Co-op refinery is forced to play along because of agreements it has to buy gas from Imperial and sell it back at the same price.

But Bud Dahlstrom, vice-president of refining for Co-op refinery in Regina, dismisses any suggestion of price fixing, collusion or gouging. In fact, in recent months, the margins for refiners (the difference between the crude oil price and gas at the pump) have been declining and most refineries are making considerably less money on petroleum.

"If there is a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy of competition where no one is willing to let others have an advantage of price for more than even a few hours," Dahlstrom says. "It is not unusual for someone to raise their price and others not to follow."

Over the last three or four months, Dahlstrom says crude has gone up the equivalent of six cents a litre, while prices went up three cents a litre. "All that really tells you is we're still behind the game. We were also behind previously because crude prices had gone up slowly and there had been no product price increase," Dahlstrom explains.

Like most conspiracy theories, this is one people would like to believe. But, unfortunately, it's easier to believe than to prove.

CALGARY - As Preston Manning has discovered, building a political party that is driven by populism and appeals to the politically disaffected is no easy task.

From its beginning, the Reform party has presented itself as a movement that seeks to change our political economy and how things are done. What mattered most was not power, but outcomes. Thus, the mere presence of the Reform party would be enough if it could change politics in Canada without ever actually becoming government.

Remember those early, idealistic days of Reform populism when Manning was trying to build a political movement? The idea was to change the political system by injecting the populist voice of common people into the rigid and insular world of Ottawa. The primary aim was to get Reform's ideas implemented, not power for power's sake.

Manning used to talk about "cracking open" the federal political system by forcing it to deal with grassroots Canadians who were not being heard. The base for this alienation was mostly in Western Canada, the source of other populist tides in earlier times, such as the Progressives and the CCF, that rolled out of the West into Ottawa.

But idealism and politics are not always easy partners. The Progressives ultimately disappeared when they refused to make the compromises that politics demands as a means to power. The New Democratic Party, successor to the CCF, still occasionally refers to itself as a "political movement", but such a label is fiction. Indeed, the NDP is the result of a explicit and strategic political act.

It is the creation of the official union of the CCF with the labor establishment in the hope of creating a party with the electoral base to win power.

Ultimately, so-called political movements that organize themselves into political parties must choose between idealism and realpolitik. What matters more: ideas or being a credible electoral force?

The Reform party is learning the truth about politics the hard way. The controversy over bigoted comments against homosexuals and racial and ethnic minorities by the likes of Reform MPs Bob Ringma and David Chatters illustrates the deep contradictions at the core of Reform.

As a populist movement that became the refuge of people who were alienated from the established political system, Reform became a magnet for a wide spectrum of people.

While much of its social and economic conservatism is certainly within the mainstream for many Canadians, it also attracted those whose ideas many find repugnant.

Manning has been well aware of the potential for Reform's right-wing populism to gather those with ideas that would taint the party's political legitimacy. Years ago, he talked about how "a bright light attracts bugs" and the need to exorcise those extremists from the party who would discredit it as a viable political force.

At the party's national assembly held in Saskatoon six years ago, when the decision was made to begin organizing the party east of Manitoba, Manning talked openly about Reform's image as an extremist right-wing party. He even joked about how the party could have a bright future if he could just get Reform members to start sleeping on their bedsheets, instead of wearing them.

There is no evidence to suggest Manning shares the kind of intolerant views that some in his party have expressed. His position, like that of the party itself, has been opposed to any form of discrimination. Manning argues that instead of a list of specific groups that are protected against discrimination, all Canadians should be treated equally under the law.

But the problem for Manning is that Reform has passed itself off as different from other parties. That means more freedom for MPs and less of the traditional top-down kind of discipline that maintains the so-called "party line". To counter a growing image as a leader who tightly controlled the party, Manning allowed his caucus members to speak out on the gay rights issue, expecting they would properly reflect the party's position.

When they didn't, and divisions in the Reform caucus erupted for all to see, Manning responded like any party leader who wanted to save face with voters. He made it clear he wouldn't tolerate dissent from the party position.

"It someone violates this concept of equality or articulates a racist position, we will kick them out as soon as we have ascertained that's that they have done," Manning vows.

Just how much political damage Reform has done to itself over the human rights issue is unclear. Certainly, it will tend to further entrench the opinion that it is a party that harbors people who have views that do not reflect mainstream Canadian values.

What is clear is that Reform has taken on the instincts of a political party like all the others. Its own preservation is what matters more than anything else.

"It may not sound like big dollars," explained Municipal Government Minister Carol Teichrob, "but remember what our grandparents said: 'Look after the pennies and dollars will look after themselves.' "

Sage advice from the minister who's earned a reputation for common sense since her re-appointment to cabinet last November.

We've heard plenty such straight talk from Teichrob this session as the minister responsible for convincing, cajoling - and even occasionally threatening - small urban and rural municipalities that it would be in their interests to amalgamate.

In fact, her above remarks were directly in reference to the amalgamation debate - specifically, in a Leader-Star Services feature by Mark Wyatt two weeks ago exploring what savings could be found if small communities amalgamated.

The story focused on admittedly the worst-case scenario - the village of Adanac (six kilometres east of Unity in west central Saskatchewan) that has dwindled to a population of six.

No schools, no churches, no stores, the community's only real amenity is a hall used by the local Masons.

Mayor Ed Ralston, one of four Ralstons serving on village council, argues he'd "hate to see things change because it runs smooth."

The common wisdom from government is such communities must be a burden on Saskatchewan taxpayers.

But Teichrob may need more than folksy wisdom to make her case.

For one thing, as soon as any politician talks about policy designed to "save the pennies," they are asking for trouble.

Despite both the McDowell Commission recommendations on salary reform and the election promises of last year, NDP MLAs aren't so obsessed with saving pennies that they will give up the extra $4,300 each will be collecting this session.

By refusing to adopt McDowell until after July 1, New Democrat MLAs ensured they would gouge taxpayers for another session of $155- or $94-a-day per diems.

Worse yet, they've lied to the public about the reality that - presuming this session lasts close to 70 days, which it most likely will - each MLA pockets an extra $6,580 in tax-free cash.

Taking care of the pennies?

Well, the amount of per diems the 11 Regina NDP MLAs will pocket this session would be enough to pay Adanac's municipal grant for the next 20 years.

Come to think of it, close to half of Adanac's annual grant could have been paid for with Premier Roy Romanow's three-night hotel bill ($1,527.60) at Manhattan's Drake Hotel last November. And the $55,000 travel bill Agriculture Minister Eric Upshall and entourage ran up on their recent Asia "trade mission" was enough to keep Adanac going for another 15 years.

Adanac's share of the municipal revenue sharing pool comes to a whopping $3,685.

That's more than $600 per capita - admittedly high, compared with the $60 per capita grants Regina and Saskatoon residents receive.

But in total dollars, the Adanacs receive a pittance compared with the $10,702,731 and the $10,924,576 Regina and Saskatoon respectively received from last year's urban revenue sharing.

In fact, public accounts show $255,139 was paid out in 1994-95 to 67 such Adanac-sized villages (about $3,808 each).

Teichrob may have an argument that the 847 rural and urban municipalities in Saskatchewan - about 150 of which are villages with less than 100 people - seem too many.

But even if some of the very smallest villages, as Teichrob claims, are spending 46 per cent of their budgets on administration, questions have to be asked what real savings there are here.

Given the obvious answer, one quickly suspects the NDP government's amalgamation plans are about something else - something much bigger.

Local municipal leaders are equally suspicious. They can't help but wonder if this isn't step-by-step conditioning of rural Saskatchewan for more hospital closures, school board amalgamations and a lot less small-town funding.

If so, perhaps this is really the straight talk we need from Teichrob.

It seems hard to believe that amalgamation is only about saving a few pennies from villages like Adanac.

CALGARY - A few weeks ago, about 900 people shelled out $125-a-plate to attend Roy Romanow's business dinner in Regina. It's an annual fund-raising affair where the premier gets to talk in glowing terms about the Saskatchewan economy.

For the most part, it was vintage Romanow. He explained how his government has eliminated its deficit and set itself a four-year strategy of balanced budgets. Romanow talked about doing things "the Saskatchewan way" by balancing deficit reduction with protection of social programs.

As for the economy, Romanow said there was reason for optimism. Grain prices are at, or nearing, record highs; retail sales are up; unemployment is down; the natural resource sector is strong; an ag-biotech sector is now established in the province; and the export manufacturing sector is expanding.

If a person didn't know better, you'd think that Saskatchewan's economy was booming. And those who don't know better, probably do.

But the fact is that in relative terms - at least relative to what is happening next door in Alberta - the economy in Saskatchewan is feeble. The stark evidence is everywhere and undeniable.

Walk through downtown Regina, and the retail business sector looks like a disaster area. It's littered with vacant storefronts, half-empty malls and offices for rent. The city has the highest commercial vacancy rate in the nation.

While retail trade in Saskatoon is stronger, the city's light industrial sector is struggling with an abundance of vacant space. Housing starts in Saskatoon lead those of Regina, but that's not saying much. New-home builders in Regina say they are trying to survive in a flat market, with no sign of growth on the horizon.

If a person were to characterize the Saskatchewan economy, words like sluggish, uninspired, lacking in confidence and hesitant would come to mind. Statistically, there might be bright spots, but it is not translating into the kind of growth that average people see on the street and feel in their lives.

The sad part is that none of this is unusual. At the best of times, the Saskatchewan economy plods along, which means there often is not a huge amount of visible difference between good times and bad.

To appreciate how Saskatchewan is an economic underachiever, you need only sample what is going on in Alberta. The differences between the economies of Saskatchewan and Alberta are like night and day.

While job growth in Saskatchewan has been flat or growing at a snail's pace over the last five years, Alberta has produced 85,000 new jobs. Over the same period, Alberta and B.C. have had the highest real economic growth among the provinces. Saskatchewan has the second lowest. While Saskatchewan's population growth is barely measurable, Alberta's grows by an average of about 35,000 people a year.

But , you'll find the most telling difference between the Saskatchewan and Alberta economies goes beyond the statistics. It comes down to attitude.

To appreciate the difference, all you need to do is talk to any of the tens of thousands of Saskatchewan people who have come to Alberta. They have sampled the business climate on both sides of the border and say the attitude towards business in Alberta is crucial to its economic success.

One who understands the difference is Bob McInnes, president of the Follger Group, a multimedia and computer networking company. McInnes left Saskatchewan for Alberta five years ago and, while he misses the personal community atmosphere of Regina, he says the economic dynamism of Alberta far exceeds Saskatchewan.

"It's a totally different environment," McInnes says. "Here it is extremely entrepreneurial. In Calgary, people don't say 'how can you do that', they say 'when can you do it.' The difference is really quite phenomenal."

McInnes maintains politics is one of the problems holding back the Saskatchewan economy. So much attention is paid to politics that it tends to detract from the economy.

"No one in Alberta really cares about politics. That's not to say government doesn't play an important role here, or people don't appreciate government, it's just that it's not something that's on people's minds. They are more concerned about doing business."

This kind of explanation between the economic and business climates of Saskatchewan and Alberta is common place among Saskatchewan ex-patriates now living and working in this province. They see business in Alberta as a kind of dynamic force that is fuelling economic growth, opportunity and a more prosperous future.

Of course, other factors, such as Alberta's massive, wealth-generating oil industry, are the foundation for its expanding economy.

But we also shouldn't kid ourselves. Alberta's economy towers over Saskatchewan in large part because people here take pride in economic achievement.

Pardon my redundancy, but it's been a bad week for the Liberal caucus.

That the above comment could apply to almost any week of the past six months of Saskatchewan politics makes repeating it all that much more tedious.

But if you've been curious what's gone wrong with the Liberals, how and why, three events this week did a marvelous job of putting the Liberals' problems in perspective.

The first deals with the "what" - a collapse of public faith in the party since last year's election, as reflected in a breakout of Saskatchewan results in The Financial Post poll last Saturday.

The poll showed the NDP in Saskatchewan at 47 per cent, the PCs second at 25 per cent and the official Opposition Liberals trailing at 18 per cent.

Given that these polling numbers were based on a puny sampling of 100 people with a 10-per-cent margin of error - meaning, the Liberals are really anywhere from eight to 28 per cent - it should have been easy for the Grits to shrug of the bad results.

Except these numbers do seem to reflect what most everyone has suspected.

It's quite reasonable to believe the Tories - likely due to both the popularity of their right-wing agenda in rural Saskatchewan and their ability to present a more effective and pointed critique of the government - have supplanted the Liberals.

How this has may have happened was somewhat apparent in the adventures of Melfort MLA Rod Gantefoer, who needed to take the political equivalent of a time-out this week.

The issue that Gantefoer raised prior to being kicked out of the assembly Tuesday was valid enough - the closure of his local nursing home due to a funding shortfall.

After a couple of patented non-answers from Health Minister Eric Cline, a heated Gantefoer accused the minster of "throwing these people out of their homes."

"You've told these people you'd look after them," Gantefoer railed.

"Minister, you've lied to these people . . ."

Accusing a politician of lying - even if it were true - is the most serious breach of protocol an MLA can commit in the assembly.

In this case, it was also inappropriate.

Cline - the rest of the NDP cabinet, for that matter - can be accused of many things this session, including being insufferably arrogant.

But lying, Cline wasn't.

While the lives of these Melfort-area seniors will be disrupted, they won't be - as Gantefoer seemed to be suggesting - thrown out on the street. (In fact, the local health board chairman clearly stated later: "No one will lose their bed.")

As has been the case time after time this session, a Liberal MLA was simply wrong about a basic fact.

And accusing the government of lying when you are wrong about the facts does nothing to bolster your party's sagging credibility.

Of course, many will argue inexperienced and overly passionate caucuses are bound to make such errors.

But judging by comments from Arm River MLA Harvey McLane this week, you wonder if Liberals are even all that passionate about their jobs . . .

Or are even sure what they stand for as party.

Also Tuesday, MLAs gave final approval of their new pay scales that takes affect July 1 (ensuring they will collect the another session of $155 a day per diems which will be equal to a $4,300 pay raise).

Included was a recommendation calling for a $200-a-day fine if an MLA is absent from the assembly during sessions for reasons other than illness, constituency work or government business.

The position McLane took on behalf of his party is, there should be no such fines because MLAs should be able to take off as much time as they need to run their farms or private businesses during the onerous three months of session each year.

In other words, despite their full-time $55,000 salary, the Liberals see no reason why they really have to show up at work every day.

Is this the message a party that may be third in the polls wants to send to voters?

That Liberals don't really know how to conduct themselves as MLAs? That it is a job they don't even take that seriously?

It has been more than just a bad week.

The thing you have to like about so many New Democrats is the way they subscribe to the conspiracy theory of economics. It really is an article of faith for them.

The latest example is Regina-Lumsden MP John Solomon, who is of the view that Imperial Oil is leading a conspiracy of gasoline price-fixing in Canada.

This must be the case because Imperial Oil is such a large player that it has the market clout to set the price for gas. With such muscle, Imperial virtually dictates the price and other competitors have no choice but to follow like sheep. Among the sheep, by the way, are Co-op gas stations owned by Federated Co-operatives Ltd.

How this happens is not exactly clear, especially when neither Imperial, nor its multinational parent Exxon, has anything close to monopoly control of the world's crude oil supply. But identifying corporate villains is always good politics, especially when people want someone to blame for rising gas prices.

The idea of controlling the market - whether oil, wheat, potash, etc. - has long been an obsession among New Democrats. They have this unfailing belief that it is possible, if you become a big enough producer of a commodity, to control the market. Thus, the NDP, and others who share an inherent mistrust of corporate capitalism, have long attempted to demonstrate how prices can be manipulated if you are the dominant player in the market. In other words, you can determine the price if you control the supply, which is a basic law of economics.

It's this notion of market control that Solomon, like most social democrats, accepts as a truth. With gas prices going up, there must be someone responsible, someone with the ability to "control" the market. Imperial Oil is the biggest player in the market and, therefore, must be the villain that is forcing all gasoline retailers to gouge the driving public.

Probably the most spectacular example of this kind of thinking was the attempt by NDP government of the 1970s to take over the world potash market. What happened was the Blakeney government wanted to behave like the capitalists it claimed distorted and controlled the market.

With Saskatchewan holding such a dominant position in the world potash market as the largest potash producer, it dawned on the NDP that Saskatchewan could effectively control the price of potash. Here was the NDP's chance to demonstrate how markets and prices can be manipulated.

By setting the potash price, Saskatchewan could force higher-cost marginal producers in New Mexico and elsewhere out of the market. In other words, by using its economic muscle, Saskatchewan could rule the potash world.

The idea of controlling the potash market was one of the management objectives of the then-government-owned Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan. The Crown corporation wanted to reduce potash prices and force less efficient potash producers out of the market. Once the competition was gone and PCS was in a monopoly position, it could then raise prices.

When private corporations do such things to control the market, it's called predatory pricing. When government Crowns do the same, apparently it is good public policy.

But to achieve its goal, PCS would have to go it alone in the offshore market. That meant getting out of the marketing agency Canpotex, which was owned by all the potash companies. So what the Blakeney government did was create an international marketing division of PCS.

At the time, the New Democrats couched their potash argument in the language of free-market economics. They maintained (correctly) that Canpotex was a means for potash companies to collude so that they could keep potash prices high. What PCS wanted, as the lowest-cost producer, was a competitive market that would allow it to sell at a lower price and increase its market share.

The plan was simple. PCS International would undercut its competitors price and take ever-larger shares of the market because private potash producers would not be able to match its price. Eventually, its competitors would go broke, PCS would have a virtual monopoly (outside of the then-Soviet Union) and the world would be safe for public enterprise.

Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately for those who buy potash) the NDP never got to exercise its monopolistic intent. An election intervened, the NDP lost and the new Tory government reversed the decision to have PCS leave Canpotex.

What's interesting about this is the NDP's double standard when it comes to conspiracy theories.

It denounces perceived market control by a private company, as Solomon alleges in his boycott campaign against Imperial Oil.

But when it involves government policy, manipulation of the market, for the purpose of inflating prices, suddenly becomes a social good to be pursued.

I guess it all depends on who is being greedy.

The fact the NDP government completely ignored the advice from its economic development department to scrap the Crown Construction Tendering Agreement (CCTA) may not be the most alarming element in this saga. In the strongest terms possible, a leaked Nov. 19, 1994 memo from former economic development deputy minister Pat Youzwa to her boss, Dwain Lingenfelter, recommended the CCTA be scrapped before it started.

• "Although there are problems with the Crowns' current tendering policies, we are not convinced that an allied collective agreement represents a greater commitment to 'fair and open' tendering."
• "A 'fair wage policy' will be seen as a 'union preference policy' by the business community. In fact, it is a union preference policy. CIC estimates that unionized contractors will receive 15-20-per-cent more work than before."
• "Although the government may wish to make the announcement at that time, I would draw to your attention the strong possibility that this could jeopardize the work which has been done in leading up an announcement on the Labor Standards Act for December," Youzwa summed up in memo to Lingenfelter.

But even if economic development did lay out all business's concerns about the CCTA months before it was announced March 3, 1995, the fact the NDP government didn't heed these concerns may not be all that surprising.

Of course, economic development would be worried about a union-preference policy.

Similarly, other departments - ie., labor - would have equal but opposite concerns.

That labor obviously won is hardly surprising, either.

Did anyone think an NDP government wasn't going to appease labor just prior to an election - the time when labor traditionally drops a big wad of money in the NDP's lap?

A later briefing to cabinet exploring what would happen if the CCTA was rejected says as much:

"This would be seen as a betrayal by the Buildings Trade. The level of animosity between the government and the Labor movement in general would likely increase."

As distasteful as it is, a certain amount of politics is always a part of such decision-making.

That both Lingenfelter and Labor Doug Anguish would later bald-face deny that the CCTA could potentially increase Crown tenders by 30 per cent - also in Youzwa's memo - may not even be that surprising.

In for a penny; in for a pound.

But what has been truly startling in the CCTA saga - even to cynics like us - is the amount of time, energy and taxpayers' money this government spent manipulating the public into believing this policy was absolutely the right and only one.

Included in this leak was draft No. 6 (Feb. 26, 1995) of Crown Investment Corporation's communication strategy for the CCTA - CIC 16-day event schedule (Feb. 15 to March 3) to sell the CCTA that would make the authors of the D-Day invasion envious.

CIC outlines specific dates for briefings to contractors, MLAs, RMs, Chambers of Commerce, the business federation, the FSIN and newspaper editorial boards. It stresses CCTA's union signators "are ready and properly briefed."

It calls on CIC staff to prepare an article for the party's magazine, The Commonwealth. It calls for "letters to the editors supporting the agreement," and even outlines a plan where other employers like Husky and Cameco will be encouraged to contact specific business and political reporters for "pre-announcement positive stories" on similar union-preference agreements.

Getting business to manipulate reporters. Writing phoney letters to the editor. Civil servants writing for The Commonwealth.

Ahh. Our hard-earned tax dollars at work. It makes that last 14-per-cent SaskPower hike seem all that more worthwhile.

Were as much effort put towards refining the CCTA as was put towards massaging, manipulating and controlling public opinion of it, one suspects the NDP government wouldn't have had to sell the policy.

The fact this government found it so necessary to manipulate us, should make us all uneasy about the CCTA.

MONTREAL - Say what you will about Roy Romanow's alternative national agenda, one thing we surely all can agree upon is this country has reached a point when it should re-examine its beliefs.

You can't help but get the feeling that Canada needs to regain its sense of purpose and direction. With governments crippled by debt, and globalization robbing us of economic security, we seem to have lost control of our destiny. Not that we ever were masters of our fate, but at least it seemed that way. There was a time, not long ago, when people felt we could at least manage adversity when it confronted us.

Those days are gone. Now, high levels of unemployment seem to have become embedded in the economy. People with jobs fear losing them and many who don't have jobs wonder if they'll ever find one. Security in our private lives, whether it was something we earned through our work or were entitled to through government, has been greatly diminished.

Running parallel to this has been the ongoing and seemingly never-ending national unity debate. Aside from creating frustration and anger, the threat of Quebec separation adds to the economic and emotional insecurity we already feel.

If this turbulence in the life of the nation isn't bad enough, what makes it even more disconcerting is the lack of leadership at the national political level. We seem trapped in an era in which the accepted wisdom is that there is little we can do.

No matter which way you look, we're told that we are the victims of circumstances beyond our control. The economy is being shaped by global forces; government lacks the money and levers to protect people from a hostile economic environment; and there seems no reconciling the nationalism of Quebec with a federalism other Canadians will accept.

It's into this political vacuum that Romanow has injected his so-called alternative agenda. The move is an attempt to ignite a national debate. To do it, Romanow challenges the political consensus by asserting the idea of activist government still has merit and isn't dead.

In effect, Romanow is attempting to broaden the terms of the national debate, to move it away from the notion that there is little government can do to change the way things are. He argues there is a second option to the politics of laissez-faire government.

With Canada struggling through a period of economic and social uncertainty, where the forces dividing us seem greater than those that unite us, Romanow argues that we need to devise a "new national policy".

His thesis is that just as Canada's original National Policy was based on an "east-west railway" that united Canadians economically, we need to find a new set of policies that unite and define Canada. The crux of his argument is that preservation of social policy and the sense of security it gives to Canadians should be the cornerstone of a new national agenda.

What Romanow proposes is that all sectors of society commit themselves to a new era of public-spirited capitalism. He defines it in terms of a Canadian ethic that involves a new ethic of individual citizenship, corporate citizenship and activist government.

From there, Romanow is calling for federal and provincial governments to work together in six specific areas. He wants a national commitment to: strong social programs; debt management; public and private investment; taxation review; a raising and harmonization of government-imposed standards; and renewal of federalism to make it more efficient.

These might not seem to be revolutionary ideas and, indeed, they're not. At one stage or another, they have all been raised by Romanow or other public figures.

But the point remains, this is the first time anyone has attempted to present a coherent national agenda different from the orthodoxy that has reduced and debased political debate to squabbling over incidentals rather than ideas. In that sense, Romanow has tried to set himself out as a voice for a kind of "new" left, that wants to reclaim government as a useful social and economic instrument.

The problem Romanow faces in all this is getting the public's attention. Certainly, in this province, his alternative national agenda created scarcely a ripple of interest. The same seems initially true elsewhere. Still, he intends to keep repeating his message in the belief it will help fill the political vacuum that exists in Canada.

For some, Romanow's initiative might seem rather grandiose and even self-important. But when you look at those on the national stage these days, whether provincially or federally, it's not apparent who else is capable of proposing the alternative agenda that Romanow has set out.

That is not to say there is necessarily merit in everything Romanow says about the need for activist government. But who can deny the merit of at least proposing that we have a national debate about what we believe as Canadians?

There are some folks out there who believe the time has come to let bygones be bygones when in comes to the past misdeeds of the PCs.

Whether one forgives the Tories, I'll leave as an individual choice each of us can make based on Judeo-Christian values or whatever parameters we each choose. But as for forgetting what these Tories did, I don't think I'm quite ready to do that just yet.

Two developments of late - the release of convicted million-dollar thief Lorne McLaren to a halfway house after serving eight months incarceration followed by the PC party's failure to disclose $400,000 in donations - have said much about the problems the "new PCs" have distancing themselves from their past.

McLaren's release after serving one-seventh of his sentence behind bars may say even more about how our society treats white-collar crime. By November 10, he will receive full parole.

Certainly, McLaren will have to deal with the stigma of being a convicted criminal who has to rebuild his life as a 67-year-old man in poor health. But he'll also enjoy a monthly income of $2,783 - more than the national average for households more than 65-years-old - including $1,239 from his monthly MLA's pension.

Barrie Anderson, a criminologist at the University of Regina, put it best: "If some person of a lower income was to rip off a bank for $1 million, would they be walking the streets again in six months?"

For some strange reason, the current Tory caucus - ever-vigilant about most crime issues - have said very little about McLaren's early release.

Were it 16-year-olds convicted of stealing Oldsmobiles, we could safely bet the Tories would be the first to scream bloody murder if the perpetrators were back on the streets in eight months.

Sadly, the Tories' lack of responsibility for events of 1980s hasn't stop with McLaren and Co.

We also learned Tuesday that the PCs may have been in violation of the Elections Act for years by failing to disclose $401,555 in donations.

Why this money - given to the party between 1988 and 1991 and kept in two secret funds - was not disclosed until now was due to a "filing error," said Tom Lukiwski, the party's executive director.

Apparently, it was a "filing error" that had been carried over for seven years and the PCs' continued laissez-faire approach to matters of money doesn't do much to convince us they've learned many lessons.

To the surprise of no one, both the NDP government and Liberal Opposition have made it clear they have no interest in forgetting or forgiving the Tories.

Unfortunately, the motivation of the other parties seems to be more of the same old self-serving and sanctimonious politics.

The Liberals - whose disastrous performance in the assembly this session has put them behind the PCs in credibility and possibly the polling - have introduced a private members' bill they call the"Thief Act" that would make political parties financially responsible for their members.

Of course, attempting to hold any organization financial accountable for the criminal activities of an individual member is ludicrous and would be thrown out of any court in minutes. One might think a former RCMP officer like Ron Osika might know that.

So should the NDP government, but that hasn't stopped them from joining the Liberal chorus on both issues to score a few political points of their own.

At least when it comes to the Elections Act, the New Democratic Party may be as much in violation as the Tories currently are.

The Election Act clearly calls on parties to name all contributors of more than $100 - something the Saskatchewan NDP refuses to do. As a matter of fact, it's something that even the PCs now do.

Interesting, NDP-appointed Chief electoral officer Myron Kuziak seems less eager to pursue the New Democrats' perceived violations of the Act.

But all the politicking from the other parties still does not forgive the PCs for failing to take responsibility for their predecessors' actions.

And until they sincerely do, it will be impossible to forget what they've done.

OTTAWA - There are times when you can't help but marvel at the value and resilience of our democracy. We take it for granted, but every so often something puts things into perspective.

It happened again one day this week.

Peering down from the public galleries onto the floor of the House of Commons were six heads of Central American governments. They included Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua, Carlos Reina of Honduras, Alvaro Arzu of Guatemala and Armando Calderon of El Salvador.

They represent nations whose populations know too much about civil war and not enough about civil life. They are countries struggling with their colonial past, trying to build stable societies and democratic institutions that respect human and political rights.

The visit to Canada by the Central Americans was kind of a bitter-sweet event. Now that the United States no longer sees Central America as a haven for Communist insurgents, the region has disappeared from much of the world's attention. With the Soviet Union gone and the Cold War over, Central America no longer plays any kind of strategic geo-political role in the so-called new world order.

But that doesn't mean much has changed for many of the people who live there. Human Rights Watch has Guatemala high on its list of nations where human rights abuses are common. A United Nations mission has been observing the situation in Guatemala since 1994 and is trying to be part of a brokered peace agreement to end its civil war.

According to Anne Manuel of Human Rights Watch/Americas in Washington, it was Guatemala that introduced the practice of "disappearance" to the Western Hemisphere. People who challenged the government, or state security forces, would simply vanish without a trace and never be found.

"There is a lot of torture, disappearance and extra-judicial executions in Guatemala. As well, there is a notable problem of the police and security forces being involved in organized crime," says Manuel.

A recent Washington Post article headlined "The Nun Who Knew Too Much" talked about the alleged rape and torture of Roman Catholic nun Dianna Ortiz in Guatemala. "Human rights organization estimate that as many as 100,000 Guatemalans have been killed by their own government over the last four decades," The Post story asserts.

The promise of economic development through foreign investment has done little to change living standards for the majority of people in Central America. Without mature democratic political structures and institutions, the hope of capitalism and free trade has ground out as much economic misery as economic miracle. Child labor is common and labor rights are virtually non-existent.

But it is also not all bad. "In Nicaragua and El Salvador, the human rights situation is vastly improved. Largely it's happened as peace agreements have been worked out and while they're far from a paradise on Earth or incredible democracies, there has been tremendous improvement," Manuel says.

Judging Central American countries by the standards we enjoy in Canada is obviously unfair. They face far more complex problems than we do, deeply rooted in their history, customs and economy.

Still, it was impossible not to contrast us with them, especially when you watched what unfolded during question period in the Commons in front of the six Central American politicians.

As usual, the Bloc Quebecois led off with an attack on the Chretien government's treatment of Quebec. With typical outrage, BQ leader Michel Gauthier attacked the Chretien government for its position on Quebec's right to secede from Canada.

For the past week, the issue of Quebec's right to self-determination has dominated the federal scene. The Chretien government's intervention in Guy Bertrand's challenge to Quebec's legal and constitutional right to hold a referendum and unilaterally declare its independence has raised the issue of how you balance democracy with the rule of law.

What made the scene in the Commons so remarkable was the mere fact it was happening. The place dissolved into an uproar as the separatists on one side and federalists on the other clashed over an issue that has gnawed at the national fabric for generations.

Yet, in all the emotional tumult, there was also a kind of democratic poignancy to behold. The realization that we have a political system that can absorb and accommodate these kinds of fundamentally opposed views that go to the heart of the nation itself has to be reassuring.

At times, you can't help but wonder if our democratic system can withstand the strains that are put on it by the emotional and potentially destructive national-unity debate.

But glancing over at the Central American politicians watching it all unfold below with a look of amazement, you couldn't help but realize how lucky we are in this country.

Why would the Saskatchewan government have a worse credit-rating today than five years ago when this province suffered from the highest deficit per capita in the country and roughly $600 million more debt? It's enough to make you wonder whether the New York and Toronto bond-rating agencies really have a clue what's been going on in this province.

There again, maybe those New York bond-rating agencies happen to have a slightly better perspective than we do here at home.

Particularly when so much of the glow of optimism over the performance of the Saskatchewan government emanates from its overheated propaganda machinery.

Last week, the NDP government received the praises of Moody's Investors Service for making "significant progress" through expenditure restraint and economic growth.

That the Saskatchewan government would be lauded with such praise is neither surprising nor undeserving.

In the space of a few short years, the NDP government has taken Saskatchewan's debt from 68 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 44 per cent.

But when it came to improving the A3 rating Saskatchewan has been stuck with since 1992, Yves Lemay, president of Moody's Canadian Rating Group explained: "It would be premature to adjust its rating at this time."

While praising the NDP government for its third consecutive balanced budget and its decision to sell Cameco shares to reduce debt, Lemay noted "tax-supported debt still remains a burden." So does the uncertainty with resource prices and federal transfer reductions.

A day later, the Canadian Bond Rating Service (CBRS) offered similar encouragement, but failed to upgrade the A rating it also imposed on Saskatchewan in 1993.

Finance department officials still hold out hope that Standard & Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating Services Ltd. - both of which rate the province in the BBB range - will soon upgrade their assessments of provincial government's performance back to the A range. (Last year, DBRS did restore Saskatchewan to where it was (BBB-high) in 1992 - the first upgrade any province has received in five years.)

But there are a couple legitimate reason why the bond raters don't share all of the NDP government's optimism.

For one thing, the bond raters deal in the cold, hard bottom line, seldom falling for the financial jiggery-pokery that so often awes we reporters and voters.

In CBRS's May 16 press release, the Toronto-based bond rater makes no qualms the 1995 pre-election budget needed $125 million from liquor board revenues to balance its books.

It also notes 1996's surplus is largely due to the dividend from the Cameco shares.

Most significantly, CBRS points out, Saskatchewan's net-debt-to-GDP ratio is still one of the highest in Canada.

In other words, winning the annual battle to balance the budget is not enough when the government still must pay more than $800 million in annual interest on the debt.

Bond raters understand dealing with debt is much harder than acquiring it.

Another reason has to do with the fact that the bond raters are less influenced by the constant barrage of positive economic news emitting from this government.

For example, in Finance Minister Janice MacKinnon's 1995 Economic Review released in January, she points out all the factors that "helped the Saskatchewan economy continue its strong growth" including: a 5.1-per-cent rise retail sales in the first nine months of 1995; a 13.9-per-cent increase in recreational and motor vehicle sales in the same period; 8.4- and 9.3-per-cent increases, respectively, in oil and natural gas; a 17.7-per-cent increase in potash production, and; the crop was estimated at 23.2 million tonnes.

Roughly five months later, Statistics Canada put Saskatchewan's "continued strong" 1995 economy in another perspective: Saskatchewan's GDP in 1995 had increased only .8 per cent - the third worst in the nation.

That may be the real advantage bond raters have.

You sometimes need to view things from afar to see how well a government is really doing.

It is not unusual that politicians are often far more popular with people who don't know them well than with those who do. In fact, it's common.

For years, this was the story with former Saskatchewan premier Grant Devine. His support in Saskatchewan had plummeted, his government was in disarray, but outside the province, Devine was greeted warmly and with respect.

The same was true of Allan Blakeney during his final years in office. On the national stage, only months before his government was routed from office, Blakeney was considered a credible, effective and capable politician by people from outside Saskatchewan. Many of those same people were shocked when Blakeney's government was massively rejected by voters.

There are two main reasons why politicians are more popular elsewhere than with their own people. One is that outsiders don't have any personal stake in the performance of a particular politician that they view only from a distance. They are not affected by what the politician does while in government.

The other reason is that politicians, when they travel, get to define themselves and the successes of their governments.

It was always quite a sight to observe Devine spread the good news about Saskatchewan to people who didn't know better. You'd think that Saskatchewan had the most prosperous economy, the most effective government, the lowest taxes, the best quality of life and the brightest future of any place in Canada, if not North America.

There is nothing wrong with premiers behaving this way. Politics is like that: it magnifies realities, both good and bad. The sky is always falling, according to opposition politicians. The future looks bright and the land is strong (as Pierre Trudeau put it during the 1972 federal election campaign) when politicians in government are defining reality.

As he travels, Roy Romanow paints the picture he wants of Saskatchewan. Five years ago, that picture was grim. The province was deep in debt and it would be a herculean task to turn around the situation.

Today, the situation is far different. Romanow tells his audience that Saskatchewan has its fiscal house in order and is on the economic rebound. The key message Romanow gives people is that his government dealt with its deficit problems differently from other provinces. We did it "the Saskatchewan way".

The theme Romanow has attempted to develop is that Saskatchewan has followed a different path, a more humane course in dealing with what was the worst per-capita deficit of any province.

The reference points that people are often given to differentiate Saskatchewan are Alberta and Ontario. Unlike those provinces, Saskatchewan did not balance its budget on the backs of the weakest and most vulnerable. Welfare rates were not cut, single employables were not given one-way bus tickets out of the province and government money for kindergarten was not eliminated.

While that is true, what's emerged from this depiction of what has taken place in Saskatchewan is a kind of myth. Allowed to define itself to outsiders, the Romanow government has attempted to create the impression it has blazed some new and revolutionary trail that sets it apart from the likes of Ralph Klein and Mike Harris.

In some cases, what has been offered as proof that things are different in Saskatchewan is the lack of public unrest. There has been no storming of the legislature, no need to call out the riot police, no need for police escorts to get the premier and government members to work. Yet, in three short years, the Romanow government was able to erase its deficit and become the first provincial government to balance its budget.

But the real reason why the Romanow government has faced muted public opposition says more about the lack of political integrity among interest groups in the province than it does about the supposedly enlightened policies of the NDP.

Let's not kid ourselves. The reason why there has been limited public backlash is because many of the groups that should be speaking out have sold their souls to the NDP. They were politically co-opted and, for years, have been proxies for the NDP in other political battles.

Imagine if the Tories or Liberals had closed 52 hospitals and called it "health reform". What would be the political reaction if a Tory government was responsible for the closure of nursing homes like the one in Swift Current, leaving old and frail people traumatized and fearful about their future? What about farmers who had their crop insurance contracts cancelled? What if the Liberals raised taxes and cut programs?

My guess is that the same groups that now offer only token resistance would be on a campaign to make the province ungovernable.

The reason why this is not happening has to do with the political stripe of the government, not because of how it's being done.

Suddenly, the little government that just wanted to be all things to all people is having a hard time making anyone happy.

And the issue couldn't be more critical for the NDP.

Or more emotional.

Despite its best efforts to blame Ottawa's underfunding or say they are just decisions being made by the local health board, the NDP government is being severely scarred by changes to and closures of Saskatchewan nursing homes.

When it comes right down to it, they only have themselves to blame.

Mere days after reaffirming its commitment to universal medicare by virtually barring private clinics from this province, the NDP government increased the maximum number of residents in private care nursing homes to 40 from 10.

The move has one union up in arms, and it isn't the first time it has raised these exact concerns.

Three years ago, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) called on then health minister Louise Simard to intervene in the sale of the private 29-bed Pioneer Place in Weyburn to Carol Kreiger,who was already operating a similar facility in Yellowgrass.

The union complained Kreiger had laid off all 13 employees - non-unionized, but making between $9.87 and $10.95 an hour - and told them they would have to reapply for their jobs. The jobs were filled by other employees paid the minimum wage of $5.35 an hour.

With the recent changes, CUPE expects more of the same.

"The restructuring that led to the closure of 52 hospitals, the failure to provide adequate funding for district health boards, group homes or home care and now the probable expansion of private-for-profit nursing care tarnishes the NDP's long-held reputation," said CUPE spokesman Andrew Huculak.

"Saskatchewan's Health Minister (Eric Cline) may spell his name differently from Alberta's Premier (Ralph Klein), but the actions on the health care front are frighteningly similar."

Cline argues this policy change was a compromise that will allow the 10-patient, in-home operations to survive, but still prevent any huge, corporate 40-bed-plus nursing homes from setting up shop in Saskatchewan.

Certainly, the minister could point to the recent closures of some private nursing homes as one argument the NDP has no privatization agenda here.

The 70-resident, private Swift Current Care Centre will close Dec. 1 as a result of its board's $500,000 deficit and $200,000 provincial funding cut this year. And the 22-bed private Martin Luther Nursing Home in Regina, will soon fall victim to a $4.8-million cut in services by the Regina Health District Board.

Consolidating such long-term care into public facilities will allow the health boards to provide the service cheaper than they can now, Cline explained. "If you're not changing, you're dying." (Given the subject matter, perhaps he might have picked a better metaphor.)

But if the NDP were hoping a clear, concise policy on nursing homes would emerge out of all this, quite the contrary has happened.

The little government that always seems to want the best of both worlds is getting the worst.

Unions and small nursing home operators have sound reason to be suspicious this policy may be partly about unloading some nursing home costs on the private sector.

And the closure of any nursing facility - private or not - is hardly the source of much solace.

The images of frail, tearful pioneers being told they can no longer live in their homes because of funding cuts is one of the worst things a party that has claimed to be the guardians of medicare can face.

Blaming it all on Ottawa becomes the obvious defence, but the NDP has a problem claiming no money can be found to properly fund nursing homes.

This NDP government is receiving an extra $100 million a year from its VLTs and casino and has also just received a $50-million dividend from its Crowns. It's also having trouble denying its union-preference tendering policy is costing taxpayers an extra $9 million a year.

What's happening at Saskatchewan's nursing homes is satisfying no one.

And the NDP mostly has itself to blame.

The other day a woman named Claire Bishop sent a fax that was kind of an open letter to Premier Roy Romanow. As chairman of the Kamsack and District Health Action Committee, Bishop put in words what no doubt many are thinking.

These are uncertain and even disturbing times for Saskatchewan. The entire public sector is going through a period of unprecedented upheaval; health care is in the midst of wrenching change, the education system is under severe pressure and our system of local government is on the verge of major restructuring.

What motivated Bishop to put her thoughts down on paper was news of Romanow's proposed "alternative national agenda". Last week in Montreal, the premier set out his ideas on what needs to happen for Canada to overcome its economic, social and unity problems. Yesterday, Romanow gave a similar speech to the Canadian Council on Social Development in Ottawa.

Essentially, Romanow's message is that governments must commit themselves to preserving the core values of Canadian society. Particularly critical are social programs. In a period of government deficits and high debt, Romanow calls for a co-ordinated fiscal, taxation and social strategy in which social programs are preserved and protected.

In her message, Bishop's frustration with the premier was evident. Funding for hospital beds in Kamsack and other surrounding communities has been cut over the last two years, leading to the creation of the health committee she heads. Now, there is fear in Kamsack that the community will lose its seniors' residence to similar cuts.

"Mr. Romanow, let's concentrate on saving Saskatchewan first," Bishop says in her letter responding to news reports of Romanow's agenda to save Canada. "How can you speak of strong social programs when you are busy tearing down the very foundations of Saskatchewan health and education?

"Your policies are depopulating rural Saskatchewan and creating second-class citizens. Surely you know the economic impact of losing 10 or 15 jobs in a small community. These people have nowhere to go and will no longer contribute to the tax base. If it isn't too much, could you kindly tell us where you are going with these cuts and what kind of future do you see for rural Saskatchewan?"

For many, to hear Romanow preach the merits of co-operation, planning, fiscal integrity and commitment to social programs is bitterly ironic. They wonder why the premier doesn't follow the advice he gives others, in the rest of Canada, right here in Saskatchewan.

Such criticism isn't without merit. The very things Romanow says should happen nationally didn't occur in Saskatchewan. His government's major initiatives, whether health-care reform and funding cuts to third parties such as school boards and local governments have largely been imposed from above.

The premier accuses the federal government of acting unilaterally, off-loading its fiscal problems onto the province without regard for the social consequences. Well, I've got news for him: he's done much the same in Saskatchewan.

When confronted with that assertion, Romanow flatly rejects it. "Your premise is totally wrong," he argues, maintaining there was widespread consultation on health-care reform that produced the "wellness model" his government now follows. The same, he says, is happening with a social policy reform paper being debated across the province. Romanow even harks back to the 1991-92 Gass Commission, which he says, aside from being a fact-finding process, also sought public input on policy direction.

The mere fact there is public controversy and opposition to what is happening, Romanow argues, should not be confused with a lack of consensus. "I'm not arguing people don't have the right to disagree. But that's a different issue than abandoning the process of developing a social safety net, which I say is what Ottawa has done by cutting transfer payments. We went through a process of public hearings preparing for the 21st century. People told us if there is a shortage of funds, don't run a deficit and don't cut health, education and social services and that's what we've done."

But it's not difficult to take a less generous view of the process. There is little doubt the health reform process was imposed from the top. Indeed, the belief in government was if the initial round of 52 hospital closures or conversions was not dictated to the health districts, they would never happen.

In effect, whether it's health reform, or cuts to education and local government, the process has been fiscally driven. The province has passed off its headaches and responsibilities to other levels of government and let them concern themselves with the problem of how to cope.

Or, to put it another way, Roy Romanow's alternative national agenda could be summed up this way: do as I say, not as I do.

When the Liberal caucus chose Ron Osika as its interim leader, it was on the assumption that Osika did not intend to run for the party leadership. That was then, this is now.

After six months in the position, Osika is having second thoughts. He no longer categorically rules out letting his name stand for leader when the Liberals hold their leadership convention, likely in November.

When asked about the leadership, Osika admits he's interested and maybe even regrets his earlier pledge that he wouldn't run. But he also does not want to go back on his word to caucus. He says that he only would run if the caucus was united behind his leadership.

Don't count on that happening.

Melfort MLA Rod Gantefoer is almost a sure bet to run for the leadership. In fact, Gantefoer is planning a golf tournament and fund-raising dinner in Melfort on June 21, which just happens to be the first anniversary of last year's election. It would be a

logical time for Gantefoer to announce he's a candidate for leader.

Others in caucus who could run are Ken Krawetz and Harvey McLane. Both are quiet, solid individuals who should not be underestimated. One of those pushing McLane to the leadership is former party vice-president Hewitt Helmsing, who, of course, led the charge to oust former leader Lynda Haverstock.

If you're looking for possible leadership candidates from outside the Liberal caucus, names you can add to your list are former candidate Dr. Jim Melenchuk of Saskatoon, the Liberals vice-president of finance. Also giving the leadership serious thought is Radville lawyer Rod MacDonald, who many will remember from his days with SCRAP, an organization opposed to the construction of the Rafferty-Alameda dams during the latter Devine government years.

As for the convention itself, the Liberals' provincial council will meet June 22 and is expected to confirm the convention will be held November 22 and 23 in Saskatoon.

Now that Don Ching has landed on his feet as president of SaskTel, some of the old political in-fighting and intrigue has returned.

Last week, Mark Stobbe stepped down as general manager of public affairs at SaskTel. The official reason given for Stobbe's departure is "philosophical differences" between himself and Ching. The real reasons are far more complex.

For years, there has been a power struggle going on behind the scenes in the Romanow government. What has happened is that Garry Aldridge, Romanow's chief of staff, has basically won the battle. Where, at one time, power around Romanow was spread among the likes of Aldridge, Romanow's former deputy Ron Clark, now the head of SaskEnergy, and Ching, when he was at Crown Investments Corp., only Aldridge remains in his original position.

The word from some at SaskTel was that Stobbe's loyalties rested more with the government than SaskTel. That is nothing but code language for saying Stobbe was too closely aligned to Aldridge, which is why Ching wanted a change. Whatever the case, expect Stobbe to resurface at a senior position somewhere in government. He's too talented and capable not to be repositioned.

What makes the move even more surprising is that Stobbe spent almost three years working closely with Ching as director of communications at the Crown Investments Corp. when Ching was CIC president.

With the government's Crown corporation review process about to begin, the Insurance Brokers Association of Saskatchewan is gearing up to take a position on the privatization of SGI Canada.

A May 22 memo from IBAS executive director Ernie Gaschler asks all members to complete a ballot that asks two questions. The first is: should SGI Canada be privatized; the second is: should all or part of the Auto Fund be privatized?

The memo notes that SGI Canada has been profitable "on a regular basis", but notes, "It is possible that SGI Canada could be sold to the private sector, with or without conditions requiring the head office and/or control remaining in Saskatchewan."

It is interesting to note that the insurance brokers are not necessarily calling for the privatization of SGI Canada, which competes with other private general insurers, or the compulsory Auto Fund.

The memo presents the arguments both for and against privatization. The information gathered will be presented when public hearings are held as part of the Crown review process. The process itself will have three parts. One is a business/situation review being done by outside consultants at each Crown, second is an economic analysis, and, third, a public-hearing process.

As for the hearings, they will run five days a week from June 10 to 25. A group called Talking About Saskatchewan Crowns has been formed to help interested individuals and groups have their say.

Dumb and Dumber, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Stupids, the federal Reform Party explaining the difference between its policy of free speech and its need for caucus discipline, anything with Pauly Shore in it, any promise made by Sheila Copps ...

We are a society that has come to celebrate the silly, honor the obtuse, dote on the dim-witted, adulate the asinine, applaud the absurd, marvel at the moronic and always revere the ridiculous.

We love dumb guys.

Not only is this an encouraging trend for we newspaper columnists who've been very concerned about our relevance as of late, but it's a trend vote-seeking provincial politicians were bound to emulate.

Admittedly, one shouldn't assume democratic doltishness is always deliberate.

It's Day 61 of this session.

Sessions kill about four million brain cells a day - close to the same rate of cerebral deterioration afflicting crack-cocaine users or the guy who edits my copy.

By this point, I'm sure some NDP MLAs have sincerely convinced themselves they didn't give themselves a $4,300 raise this year.

But beyond a session's ability to corrode one's mind, there has also been a marked trend of late for our politicians to perhaps appear dumb and dumber than they really are.

We shouldn't be surprised.

If Jim Carrey can make $20 million as the Cable Guy, why wouldn't Health Minister Eric Cline conclude he could make $500 million as the health premiums guy?

So what if the $4,946 annual provincial tax bill a $50,000-a-year Saskatchewan family now pays is already the highest west of Newfoundland? So what if the NDP government's only defence of the $1,300 less Albertans pay in annual taxes is: "At least, Saskatchewan family don't have to pay $816 annually in health premiums."

Cline claims that "we should keep our minds open" to what was a Liberal Opposition suggestion. All he is doing is thinking out loud, he explains.

Politicians who think out loud are either politicians who aren't thinking or who have already thought a lot about what they've just said and what reaction it might stir.

And talk of more taxes may have many of us thinking about whether we should be complaining about nursing home and hospital closures or not.

As is the case with Cline's lumpish remark, Municipal Government Minister Carol Teichrob has been thinking out loud a lot lately, too.

The District Services Act, says Teichrob, thinking out loud, is not about governance and serves no real purpose, but should be passed anyway, just in case it's needed to deal with next year's $20-million reduction in the revenue sharing pool.

Huh?

One might assume Teichrob was being completely ludicrous, were it not for the result.

With the District Services Act hanging over their heads, RMs and villages have had to talk about the amalgamation. The more they've been forced to talk about amalgamation, the harder it is to deny some changes should happen.

Come to think of it, political debate is seldom more stupid than when our politicians are being clever.

Take the recent question period debate over the dismissal of SaskTel communications director Mark Stobbe that went something like this:

Glen McPherson: Your decision to fire a guy as politically connected as Mark Stobbe shows patronage is alive and well in the NDP government.

Carol Teichrob: Nonsense, before we had to fire him, Stobbe's credentials and work were impeccable.

Premier Roy Romanow, later: Isn't McPherson a big, dumb dope for accusing us of patronage when we fire a New Democrat .... No, I actually don't know if I have already re-hired Stobbe or am going to be re-hire Stobbe.

But why each sounded so thick had a lot to do with what each knew but wasn't willing to say: Stobbe was asked to leave SaskTel because of a falling out with new president Don Ching.

Stobbe will soon re-emerge as a communication co-ordinator in Romanow's office, replacing Dale Schmeichel who'll leave to head a southwestern health board.

So don't assume every lunkhead-dunderhead-Muirhead politician is as dumb as he or she appears.

They may just be part of the latest rage.

It is known as the "Persons case" and is arguably the single biggest victory for the cause of women's rights in Canadian history.

It began in 1921 when the National Council of Women (NCW) passed a resolution calling on the federal government to appoint women to the Senate. The campaign for women's rights had originated in the West and specifically Alberta, which was ahead of its time in recognition of women as equals.

For example, in Edmonton, in the early 1920s, a woman was appointed a police magistrate. It proved to be a bold and controversial move that outraged male lawyers who argued the court had no standing because a woman was not a "person" and thus could not be an officer of the court.

Across the West, the rights of women became a strong movement. Much of it related to the farm economy itself, where women were often victimized and left destitute. It was not uncommon for husbands to abandon their wives once the children had been raised, or for women to be left with nothing after their husbands lost the farm to alcoholism.

The response from then-prime minister MacKenzie King to the call for women to be appointed to the Senate was that it would be impossible. He could only appoint "persons" to the Senate and, legally, women were not "persons" based on English common law.

Offended and angered by such treatment, the NCW mounted a lobby to have the issue referred to the Supreme Court for a ruling. In 1927, the federal government agreed the case was of "great public importance", sent it to the Supreme Court and even agreed to pay the legal costs for the women. In 1929, the court ruled women were indeed "persons" under the law and therefore eligible for all the rights and privileges granted to men, specifically the right to hold public office.

Although almost 70 years have passed since that landmark decision, the battle is still being waged. In what it sees as a completion of the original "Persons case", the Human Rights Institute of Canada is pressuring the Chretien government for another Supreme Court reference.

Leading the effort is institute president and former judge Marguerite Ritchie, who argues that women have a constitutional right to equal representation in the Senate. The institute wants a straightforward and simple question answered by the Supreme Court: "Is the Governor General of Canada, in making appointments to the Senate of Canada, legally required to appoint women on an equal basis with men?"

Ritchie argues this will be the first real test of equality as guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says every individual "is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit" without discrimination based on various categories, including gender.

In the case of the Senate, Ritchie says women clearly have not been treated equally, in spite of the original "Persons case" that determined women could be appointed senators.

In the almost 70 years since that decision, men have dominated Senate appointments and today only 24 of 104 senators are women.

Shortly after the Liberals took power, Ritchie renewed her efforts to have the Senate appointment issue referred to the Supreme Court. Similar efforts failed when the Mulroney government was in power. In a December 1993 letter to Chretien, Ritchie said that efforts by women to be equally represented in the Senate have been ignored.

"Women have long sought the right to appointment to this body so that they can have a real voice in developing the laws and policies that are necessary for a just and healthy Canada," Ritchie said in her letter to Chretien.

"Women are not appointed to the Senate in a fair and equal basis. For many years, women's organizations have submitted resolutions and have proposed names of highly competent and qualified women, but women's abilities have been largely ignored."

Last week at its annual meeting in Saskatoon, the National Council of Women returned to the original battle it began more than 70 years ago. The council threw its support behind the call by the Human Rights Institute for a "Persons case 2" that would rule on equal gender representation in the Senate.

At this point, the Chretien government is showing little interest in referring the issue to the Supreme Court. Ritchie says indications are that Chretien wants to maintain control over Senate appointments to use them as traditional patronage rewards for the faithful.

When federal Justice Minister Allan Rock has been approached, Ritchie maintains his response has been to treat the request as no different from any other group seeking Senate representation.

"In other words, women are just another interest group," Ritchie says.

Apparently, being recognized as a person is one thing; being treated equally is something else entirely.

His harshness aside, Blaine Favel is dead on when he suggests the PCs are being mean-spirited, unprincipled and impractical with their private member's bill that would have natives pay the provincial sales tax on off-reserve purchases. To borrow the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) chief's own blunt words, the PCs are just pandering to "the redneck element" in white rural Saskatchewan to solidify its political base.

And you can likely add politically stupid or naive to the list of adjectives applicable to this Tory bill.

"It's only fair to expect status Indians to pay their fair share," PC leader Bill Boyd told the assembly Tuesday, before introducing his bill.

"With equal rights comes equal responsibilities, and that includes paying taxes."

Given the patronizing tone that Indians are less responsible than the rest of society implicit in Boyd's remark, Favel has every right to be angry.

A party whose stewardship means we now pay $851 million each budget just to cover interest on the debt it ran up in government need not lecture Indians - or anyone else - on responsibility.

Why didn't we hear Boyd talk about about responsibility when the FSIN announced last November about $500,000 from its annual $2- to $2.5-million casino profits will go back into the First Nations Addictions Foundation? (The provincial government will only put back about $1.5 million into gambling addiction treatment on $100 million in gambling profits.)

But worse may be the historical revisionism contained in Boyd's notions that Indians use the education, health and highways systems, but don't pay their fair share of taxes to support them.

Perhaps he's heard of something called treaties.

For example, the oral interpretation of the treaties speak of the "medicine chest clause" where the government of the day gave Indian people the right to medical care, in perpetuity, in exchange for their lands.

Also, the interpretation by the territorial governor of the day suggests he believed the treaties meant Indians should never be subjected to forced military service or taxation.

Given that the nine per cent we pay the province isn't really a "provincial sales tax" - but what is officially known as the "Education and Health Tax" - one can see the natives' legal argument for why they shouldn't again be paying for their health or education.

Evidently, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal would seem to agree.

Ironically, the day the PCs were introducing their tax law, the New Brunswick court upheld the Indian exemption from that province's 11-per-cent tax on- and off-reserve.

Favel insists status Indians here will soon receive a Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruling, suggesting that Indians are actually owed millions of dollars in gas and tobacco tax the province has wrongly collected over the years.

If such a court ruling inspires Indians to do more shopping on reserve, Favel argues, the ones most hurt will be small-town businesses next to reserves.

But there is also pure political impracticality to the Tories' position, as well.

The destruction of the Liberals the past six months has offered the PCs the wonderful opportunity to at least become official Opposition next election.

The problem is, of the two, the Tories will have the hardest time penetrating NDP Regina and Saskatoon where the PCs garnered a paltry 12,536 votes in those 22 ridings in 1995.

Worth noting, an estimated half of all Saskatchewan Indians, or about 45,000 live off reserve - the majority, in Regina and Saskatoon. Also, half of all Saskatchewan Indians are under 18 years.

Also, in many rural seats won by the NDP in 1995, mostly due to a PC/Liberal vote split, also contained large Indian reserves that voted NDP.

One might think the PCs would be thinking about broadening their political base or, at the very least, not offending the next generation of Indian voters who may now have incentive to vote against them for years.

But it doesn't seem the PCs have thought about anything other than a few redneck votes in their own ridings.

Back to Archive Index

Go to Leader-Star June 1996 Archive