I have serious reservations over lots of what the Harper government is doing in so many areas, from the environment, to mandatory minimum sentences to national child care diverted to a phony positioning of presenting “choice.” I really despaired over their ideological induced demise of social programs like literacy supports. Much of this is caused by an incomplete and shallow sense of our society by the Cons who presumes simple self reliance and pulling up ones “socks" is all anyone need for success.
However, when I agree with Harper, I also have to give him his due. The reversal of a campaign promise on income trusts is one I agreed wholeheartedly with and said so in earlier postings on this Blog. I suspect his adamant campaign period promise in defense of the status quo for income trusts was pure politics. One would expect, however, with his celebrated grasp of economics, he'd of had a better handle on the issue's implications and been more forthright on it in the campaign.
We all "know", that in politics, there is a generaly held "belief" that there are certain things you just have to say to win and they are often very different from what you actually have to do once you get the job. The income trust reversal may be a case in point. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is no more redeeming than doing the political thing purely for reasons of power. Sometimes you just have to forget your principles and do the right thing, even in a campaign. (sic)
Once again, however, I am delighted to find myself agreeing with Harper, this time on China relations. The link between human rights and trade with China (and some others too) has to be made pointedly and held strongly. I disagree with the Harper government more often than I agree with it, but fair is fair.
Prime Minister Harper is right to stand up and be counted on human rights as foundational to Canada's long term trade relations with China. People have to realize respect for human rights is essential to long term mature trade relations, just as much as an independent justice system and a reliable currency system is foundational to effective trade relations.
I like Harper’s stand on this, and in particular, his rebuttal to the Liberal Opposition criticism of his stand. They have tried to frame him as “a bumbling cold warrior” accusing him of having “little influence in Beijing because of (his) blunt public criticism and lack of finesse on international affairs.” Harper counters that “past Liberal governments failed to standup to the Chinese on questions of human rights, with no apparent improvement in trade.” Appeasement and pussy-footing are inconsistent with the qualities necessary and the strength of character needed today, be it in a leader or in a country.
In the wake of Maher Arar, we now have the case of Huseyin Celil, a Chinese born Canadian citizen imprisoned in China on terrorism charges with the Chinese denying his Canadian citizenship, even though our government adamantly acknowledges he is a Canadian. Harper also seems to be on this case now too. Wow! Maybe our government is starting to see there is value and rights attached to being Canadian and they need to be protected and respected.
Good on ya Stephen Harper! Now please take up another important humans rights issue with China. Do something about the human rights violation inherent in their harvesting and trading of human organs from prisoners and members of the Falun Gong. I will be monitoring your progress with great interest and a keen eye.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Harper Attack Ads Didn't Do the Job on Dion
There are a few new poll results out that were in the field after the Cons attack ads were run. they were designed to position Dion as not being a leader and a do nothing guy on the environment.
The polls are all over the place proving voter volatility is the new normal. There is no clear preference of party leader nor do we have any definitive indication of a preferred political direction in the mind of voters.
Nik Nanos’ SES NationState poll surveyed 913 Canadians between Feb 2 and 8th and shows a Dion/Harper “dead heat” at 33% each of committed voters but the trend lines show Harper in decline and Dion ascending. There are fewer uncommitted voters everywhere since the November 2006 results except in Ontario which is constant and the highest of uncommitted voters at 12%. Quebecers are leaving the Bloc in droves (-11) and those supporter seem to be moving to the Conservatives (+8). The Greens are the strongest in the West at 9% (+1) and the Cons are waning a bit in the West (-7).
What Harper gains in Quebec he is losing in the West but will that result in any seat changes in either place? Not likely but it will be interesting to see how much Harper is prepared to risk his western base loyalty to win Quebec in search of a majority government. The west is obviously noticing Harper's priority focus on Quebec's issues.
Leger has a survey of 1500 run from January 30 to February 4th. They redistribute the undecided responders in proportion to the actual poll allocation and get an increased 7% delta between Cons and Libs, in Harper’s favour. What evidence that undecided will vote and if so, that they split like the rest of the population? The Libs and Bloc are tied in Quebec and Harper “owns” Alberta at 59%. Again the Greens are knocking on the NDP door in the west but they are not there yet to surpass them. A full 15% were not committed or didn’t want to participate. The trend lines show no net change in the party support levels since the 2006 election when the margin of error is applied.
Finally we have Angus Reid’s results of 909 Canadians surveyed on line January 30 and 31, 2007. This was an on line survey designed to test the effectiveness of the Cons attack ads. They asked questions before people saw the ads and then asked them again after they viewed the ads on their computer screens. The report results say “the attack ads didn’t work.” The decline in perceptions of Dion post –viewing the ads was negligible dropping 1% from 40 to 39 on the question of who “would be the best Prime Minister.” Harper’s approvals stayed the same at 36%.
So not only did the attack ads not diminish Dion they added nothing to Harper’s positive profile either. Another key figure is the “Don’t Knows.” A quarter of Canadians have yet to make up their minds on which of these two guys are the best to lead the country. Voter volatility is potentially the ruling factor in the next election results. That means the campaigns will matter.
The next set of questions went to the Dion’s character and capability. The ads reduced perceptions of Dion ability to lead – the prime reasons for running the ads in the first place – by 5% - moving 3% away from his pre-ad supporters and 2% from undecided voters. Other perception questions on Dion and the environment, trust to keep promises and manage the public purse saw the ads have more impact. They changing poll results with more people have a diminished perception of Dion but the change came mostly from the undecided ranks and not from the core Dion support. these question tend to remind voters about the old Liberal fiascos under Chretien and Martin. The Liberals are not yet out of the penalty box but Dion does not get blamed for the "penalty" in the first place.
Only in the "will he improve the environment" question did Dion seem to have a glove laid on him. Then his core support went from 53% before seeing the ads to 47% afterwards. Some perspecitve isneeded here. If Dion actually got 47% of the popular vote in an election he would be forming a Liberal majority…so it is not really indicating much of a body blow to Dion’s potential electoral fortunes.
The hoopla over the ads and the big money spent, including the Super Bowl buy has to be very discouraging to the Tory war room given the net results being bugger all. Not much momentum coming out of this "full court press" on Dion by the Cons, especially for the money they spent on those ads. There is a glimmer of hope though; the ads are reported to have had to the most impact, such as it was, in Ontario and female voters, two key targets for Conservatives in the next election. Their money may not have been totally wasted.
The polls are all over the place proving voter volatility is the new normal. There is no clear preference of party leader nor do we have any definitive indication of a preferred political direction in the mind of voters.
Nik Nanos’ SES NationState poll surveyed 913 Canadians between Feb 2 and 8th and shows a Dion/Harper “dead heat” at 33% each of committed voters but the trend lines show Harper in decline and Dion ascending. There are fewer uncommitted voters everywhere since the November 2006 results except in Ontario which is constant and the highest of uncommitted voters at 12%. Quebecers are leaving the Bloc in droves (-11) and those supporter seem to be moving to the Conservatives (+8). The Greens are the strongest in the West at 9% (+1) and the Cons are waning a bit in the West (-7).
What Harper gains in Quebec he is losing in the West but will that result in any seat changes in either place? Not likely but it will be interesting to see how much Harper is prepared to risk his western base loyalty to win Quebec in search of a majority government. The west is obviously noticing Harper's priority focus on Quebec's issues.
Leger has a survey of 1500 run from January 30 to February 4th. They redistribute the undecided responders in proportion to the actual poll allocation and get an increased 7% delta between Cons and Libs, in Harper’s favour. What evidence that undecided will vote and if so, that they split like the rest of the population? The Libs and Bloc are tied in Quebec and Harper “owns” Alberta at 59%. Again the Greens are knocking on the NDP door in the west but they are not there yet to surpass them. A full 15% were not committed or didn’t want to participate. The trend lines show no net change in the party support levels since the 2006 election when the margin of error is applied.
Finally we have Angus Reid’s results of 909 Canadians surveyed on line January 30 and 31, 2007. This was an on line survey designed to test the effectiveness of the Cons attack ads. They asked questions before people saw the ads and then asked them again after they viewed the ads on their computer screens. The report results say “the attack ads didn’t work.” The decline in perceptions of Dion post –viewing the ads was negligible dropping 1% from 40 to 39 on the question of who “would be the best Prime Minister.” Harper’s approvals stayed the same at 36%.
So not only did the attack ads not diminish Dion they added nothing to Harper’s positive profile either. Another key figure is the “Don’t Knows.” A quarter of Canadians have yet to make up their minds on which of these two guys are the best to lead the country. Voter volatility is potentially the ruling factor in the next election results. That means the campaigns will matter.
The next set of questions went to the Dion’s character and capability. The ads reduced perceptions of Dion ability to lead – the prime reasons for running the ads in the first place – by 5% - moving 3% away from his pre-ad supporters and 2% from undecided voters. Other perception questions on Dion and the environment, trust to keep promises and manage the public purse saw the ads have more impact. They changing poll results with more people have a diminished perception of Dion but the change came mostly from the undecided ranks and not from the core Dion support. these question tend to remind voters about the old Liberal fiascos under Chretien and Martin. The Liberals are not yet out of the penalty box but Dion does not get blamed for the "penalty" in the first place.
Only in the "will he improve the environment" question did Dion seem to have a glove laid on him. Then his core support went from 53% before seeing the ads to 47% afterwards. Some perspecitve isneeded here. If Dion actually got 47% of the popular vote in an election he would be forming a Liberal majority…so it is not really indicating much of a body blow to Dion’s potential electoral fortunes.
The hoopla over the ads and the big money spent, including the Super Bowl buy has to be very discouraging to the Tory war room given the net results being bugger all. Not much momentum coming out of this "full court press" on Dion by the Cons, especially for the money they spent on those ads. There is a glimmer of hope though; the ads are reported to have had to the most impact, such as it was, in Ontario and female voters, two key targets for Conservatives in the next election. Their money may not have been totally wasted.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Who Should Do What in a Progressive Canada?
Here is a unique opportuity to gather with some other Canadian progressives and get into the issues of the day through the progressive lens. Great speakers and interesting folks wiht a focus on the future.
Here are the details and I encourage all of those so inclined to progressive politics to attend:
(La version française suit le texte anglais)
26-28 March 2007. QUICK: SAVE THOSE DATES!
Join world-leading Canadian and international thought leaders for Canada 2020’s must attend policy conference in the national capital region March 26-28, 2007.
Continuing the discussion that began last year at the inaugural conference, this year, Canada 2020 has teamed up with Crossing Boundaries to deliver a progressive, innovative examination of the challenging theme:
“Who should do what in a progressiveCanada?”
Join the discussion and tackle the tough questions:
What is the role of citizens, government, the volunteer sector and businesses in solving social and economic challenges?
What does this mean for the traditional roles and responsibilities of government when the old top-down approach no longer works?
The conference will apply this new governance model to two major issues – the economic digital divide and the environment.
Participate in a discussion that will shape the future of the country - Save the dates today!
Confirmed keynote speakers for the March 2007 conference include:
Booker and Whitbread winning author Salman Rushdie. With his usual flair, Rushdie will tackle the issue of multiculturalism and what it means for progressives today.
The man who inspired Al Gore (last year’s dinner keynote speaker) and the author of the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery. Flannery will offer his insights on who should be leading whom in the public debate over the environment – the public or the politicians.
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and author of the widely acclaimed book on the new niche digital economy, The Long Tail. Anderson will challenge us to make the most of the transformational forces of the internet and new digital technologies. Canada , a country with a small market and a lot of geography, is well placed to benefit from the Long Tail.
New Brunswick Premier Shaun Graham will reflect how New Brunswick will engage the public in achieving its goal of making New Brunswick a have province by 2025.
Share your views and experiences. Test a new model of Progressive Governance. Meet with key leaders and decision-makers from the public, private and third sectors.
Registration will open February 1, 2007 on the Canada 2020 web site (http://www.canada2020.ca/). Early Bird rates will be available for the first 100 registrants.
See you there!
Canada 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the details and I encourage all of those so inclined to progressive politics to attend:
(La version française suit le texte anglais)
26-28 March 2007. QUICK: SAVE THOSE DATES!
Join world-leading Canadian and international thought leaders for Canada 2020’s must attend policy conference in the national capital region March 26-28, 2007.
Continuing the discussion that began last year at the inaugural conference, this year, Canada 2020 has teamed up with Crossing Boundaries to deliver a progressive, innovative examination of the challenging theme:
“Who should do what in a progressiveCanada?”
Join the discussion and tackle the tough questions:
What is the role of citizens, government, the volunteer sector and businesses in solving social and economic challenges?
What does this mean for the traditional roles and responsibilities of government when the old top-down approach no longer works?
The conference will apply this new governance model to two major issues – the economic digital divide and the environment.
Participate in a discussion that will shape the future of the country - Save the dates today!
Confirmed keynote speakers for the March 2007 conference include:
Booker and Whitbread winning author Salman Rushdie. With his usual flair, Rushdie will tackle the issue of multiculturalism and what it means for progressives today.
The man who inspired Al Gore (last year’s dinner keynote speaker) and the author of the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery. Flannery will offer his insights on who should be leading whom in the public debate over the environment – the public or the politicians.
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and author of the widely acclaimed book on the new niche digital economy, The Long Tail. Anderson will challenge us to make the most of the transformational forces of the internet and new digital technologies. Canada , a country with a small market and a lot of geography, is well placed to benefit from the Long Tail.
New Brunswick Premier Shaun Graham will reflect how New Brunswick will engage the public in achieving its goal of making New Brunswick a have province by 2025.
Share your views and experiences. Test a new model of Progressive Governance. Meet with key leaders and decision-makers from the public, private and third sectors.
Registration will open February 1, 2007 on the Canada 2020 web site (http://www.canada2020.ca/). Early Bird rates will be available for the first 100 registrants.
See you there!
Canada 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Stelmach's GHG Reduction Plans for Alberta is in the Works
Alberta’s new Premier Ed Stelmach is reported to say that he will not be reducing GHG emissions and “…stands firm on greenhouse gas plan.” There seems to be as much misunderstanding and confusion on Alberta’s intensions on GHG emissions as there is about how equalization works.
The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.
Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.
Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.
The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.
The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.
We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.
The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.
UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318
The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.
Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.
Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.
The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.
The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.
We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.
The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.
UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318
Alberta Firewall Guy Clarifies Equalization Payments
There is a very good op-ed in the Globe and Mail today that clarifies many of facts and the questions around equalization payments from the government of Canada to the so-called have-not provinces. The piece is written by Ken Boessenkool, now GM of Hill and Knowlton Alberta and one of the famous Firewall Letter signatories in 2001.
The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.
The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.
Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.
The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."
Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.
It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.
The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.
The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.
Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.
The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."
Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.
It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)