Ross Macnab2013-05-23T02:44:49-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=ross-macnabCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ross MacnabGood old fashioned elbow grease.Will Saskatchewan Strike a Balance Between Freedoms and Rights?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27826612013-03-01T16:08:39-05:002013-05-01T05:12:01-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/The Supreme Court of Canada's decision concerning Bill Whatcott's anti-gay campaign is just the latest example. But it is nothing new.
Saskatchewan's Bill of Rights was the first statute of its kind in Canada -- in the world, in fact -- and it predated the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights by one year. Saskatchewan's Bill guaranteed the familiar democratic freedoms -- freedom of expression and association, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and the right to vote. In addition, it guaranteed access to all of what we think of as public "goods" -- employment, property and accommodation, membership in professional and trade associations, education, public services -- without discrimination on the basis of "race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin."
The important and revolutionary thing about this legislation was that it was not just about the relationship between the government and the individual citizen. It was also about relationships among individual citizens and relationships between corporations and people. As long as you were acting in the public sphere, you were prohibited by law from discriminating against your fellow citizens. In the privacy of your own home, you could believe that Eastern European Catholics should be sent back where they came from, but you couldn't refuse to serve them in your shoe store. It was about getting along. It was about the way we treat one another and the way we all wanted to be treated.
The original Bill of Rights recognized a tension between the potentially competing human rights values of freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. Because you were prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion and ethnicity, it follows pretty logically that you were not allowed to SAY that you were going to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity. So, you couldn't put up a sign on your restaurant door that declared you wouldn't serve Jews or Asians; you couldn't advertise in the newspaper that you wouldn't rent an apartment to Germans or Catholics; you couldn't write in a job application form that people of Aboriginal or African descent need not apply. The fact that you could not express those particular preferences was, obviously, a restriction on your freedom of expression.
Subsection 14(1) of the original Bill of Rights prohibited the use of signs or ads or other publications that expressed an intention to discriminate. And, to demonstrate that the drafters knew what they were about, subsection (2) said "Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law on any subject." Thus, the provision signaled to those called upon to interpret the scope of the prohibition on discriminatory expression that they had to be mindful of the need to balance competing interests.
In the sixty-six years since Saskatchewan's Bill of Rights was enacted, despite change and expansion and resistance and backlash, the essential task of balancing competing rights and freedoms has remained. All the provinces and territories and the federal government now have human rights legislation. The list of prohibited grounds of discrimination has grown and now includes sex, sexual orientation,family status and others grounds, depending on the jurisdiction in which you live.
Saskatchewan's prohibition on expressing an intention to discriminate also expanded dramatically and appears to have lost its way. It morphed into a seemingly full-blown statutory enforcement of our mothers' wise counsel, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" - otherwise known as a "hate-speech" provision. Section 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code now prohibits any expression that "exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground." And, subsection (2) continues to read, seemingly without irony, that "Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law on any subject." Good luck with that.
Our Human Rights Commission and our Courts have always recognized that this provision, as written, is unreasonably broad and have, essentially, ignored the words "ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of". When the inevitable Charter challenge to section 14 arose in the early nineties, I was the lawyer who defended the provision on behalf of the Saskatchewan Government. We relied upon the then-recent decision of the Supreme Court in Taylor which had upheld the federal Human Rights Act hate provision and we enthusiastically jettisoned that nonsense about ridicule, beliittling and affronting dignity, in an effort to save the section from sinking entirely. This provision was, and is, about "hate" and the impact hateful expression can have on the enjoyment of the right to make one's way in life free from discrimination.
Our Court of Appeal upheld the provision in 1994, very much along the same lines that the Supreme Court upheld it this week. The Taylor case, upon which both decisions rely, was released by the Supreme Court in 1990. So, despite all of the hand-wringing and wailing we can expect from those who fuss about our fragile freedoms, we have been living with this balance of competing values for a generation. Somehow, we have managed to stumble along fairly well.
In other words, this week's Supreme Court decision did not alter the status quo. This is, I would guess, a disappointment to those who style themselves "free speech advocates". I have mixed feelings.
Hopefully, the Saskatchewan legislature will amend the Code to get rid of the parts of the provision that the Court found to be "overbroad". Those words have not ever been given effect, which is good, but they continue to mislead the casual reader of the statute. Section 14 appears to be exactly what its critics accuse it of being: a right not to be offended. A sop to the hypersensitive. And, when the legislature is cleaning it up, perhaps there will be a debate about whether we need a hate provision at all.
It is not a law that is used very much. I don't know how many complaints the Commission receives, but they've only proceeded with a handful in the history of the section. It's probably not terribly effective. Bill Whatcott has announced that he has no intention of abiding by it and will not be paying the damages that were awarded to the complainants in his case. And, if the Commission makes strenuous efforts to enforce the judgement it will just make Whatcott more of a martyr for his creepy anti-sodomy cause than he already is.
But, I will make a couple of points that are not made often enough on this subject. First, hate provisions in human rights legislation are not instances of the government directly imposing limits on your freedom of expression. If any limits are imposed, it is at the behest of your fellow citizens, because human rights standards are generally enforced by individual complaints. Human Rights Codes are not criminal or otherwise penal statutes. They don't create "offenses", they create remedies for those who are affected by the discriminatory actions of others. When you use your freedom of speech to threaten the rights of a class of people to non-discriminatory treatment, you may find yourself accountable - not to the government, but to them.
Second, while the Courts are criticized every time they uphold one of these hate-law provisions, that criticism is misplaced. The Courts are just doing the job given to them by the legislatures. If provisions like section 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code are so dangerous to freedom, then the solution lies in political action. That, in fact, was what happened to the hate provision of the federal Act - a private member's Bill repealed it. If you don't want the Courts to do this job, don't complain: organize.
Human rights legislation expresses our fundamental values of freedom and equality. No matter what we do, those values will conflict from time to time. It is the unavoidable consequence of any human enterprise. And the Courts will be called upon to attempt, in a consistent and principled way, to resolve the conflicts that arise. No matter what, someone will be unhappy with the result. That's democracy.]]>Why Senate Controversy Is Unique in One Provincetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27594852013-02-28T12:00:16-05:002013-04-30T05:12:01-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
Another thing that doesn't make the news very often is the old BNA Act - as in British North America Act, the U.K. Statute that served as one of Canada's central constitutional documents for well over a century. We have called it the Constitution Act, 1867 since 1982, when it was "patriated". This hasn't made it more interesting to most people.
When you have a news story that combines Saskatchewan and the BNA Act, the only thing that could make it less interesting is if it was also about the Senate. If you're still reading, that is the very definition of a slow news day.
The Senate's Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budget and Administration, chaired by SaskaSenator Dave Tkachuk, has been investigating the travel claims of a few Senators, because they aren't supposed to charge for travel home if they don't keep a residence there. And, more important, to even qualify as a Senator, you're supposed to be a "resident" in the province you were appointed to represent.
This is a special burden on Saskatchewan Senator Pamela Wallin. The controversy surrounding her residency exposes something unique about the character and culture of the province she comes from. Many Saskatchewan people, like Senator Wallin, live elsewhere. We are everywhere in this country, except Saskatchewan. You probably don't notice us, because we don't have any particular identifying characteristics. We've learned to get along. There is no distinctive Saskatchewan accent, though we do pronounce "Saskatchewan" less painfully than the rest of you. We're slightly nicer than normal.
Senator Wallin, as every Canadian knows, had a long career in broadcasting before she came out as a Tory and Prime Minister Harper gave her a Senator's unlimited travel pass. During her television career most people didn't know she was from Saskatchewan. But we knew. Just like we know that Peter Gzowski started his career in Moose Jaw; that Governor General Jeanne Sauve was born here; that nice-guy Dragon's Den Millionaire Brett Wilson grew up here; that the late Brian Dickson, the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, went to high school here.
We can all recite a long list of great Canadians from here who have made significant contributions to the political and cultural life of this country. Many, if not most, pursued their careers outside the province they called home. Our habit of moving away has been good for the Canadian talent pool and essential to our own gene pool. Leaving home is what we do. We consider it part of growing up.
Little Pam Wallin, growing up in Wadena Sask., aspired to be a journalist, television personality and national treasure. There are no jobs like that in Wadena. Pam, like so many Saskatchewanians, had to leave home to find work that suited her. Sure, from time to time, there are jobs here, but almost no national-profile perky broadcaster jobs. Same thing happened to Gordie Howe. There are no NHL teams in Saskatchewan, but he didn't cease to be Mr. Saskatchewan when he became Mr. Hockey in Detroit.
If, in fact, it turns out that Senator Wallin does not live here, most of us would think it actually makes her just that much more representative of the people of this province. We don't expect people to live here. Sure, there are things to do here and reasons to stay; but there are way more things to do elsewhere and a lot more reasons to leave.
Last week, when the wind howled us down to a lethal -48 degrees, I was wondering why anyone would live here. With all the communications technology available these days, we could give this frozen flat wasteland back to the buffalo and operate the entire province remotely. There would still be a Saskatchewan, but no one would actually live here. Surely, we wouldn't lose our Senators?
Senator Wallin doesn't need a residence in Wadena, she can stay with friends and family. There ought to be a "couch surfing" exception to the Constitution.
So why did the Prime Minister appoint a Saskatchewan Senator who did not live in Saskatchewan? One can only speculate. Perhaps, when he was considering Senate appointments, he looked over his caucus roster of people currently "resident" in Saskatchewan - guys like Maurice "Murder, He Wrote" Vellacot, and that Vic Toews wannabe, Gerry Ritz, and the rest of them - and wondered if he couldn't do better by looking beyond our borders.
However, the Constitution is pretty clear. The qualifications a Senator must possess are set out in section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Among those qualification is this: "He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed." There doesn't appear to be any way around it, despite the fact that most of us are happy to have Senator Wallin represent us. Or don't care.
But maybe the solution lies in those very words "He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed." Senator Wallin is not a "he." Right. Does that mean she can't be a Senator? No, of course not. Who would even suggest such a thing? Well, only the Government of Canada and the Supreme Court.
Yes, the Senate provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 were at the center of a milestone in advancement of the status of women in this country. I'm talking about the famous "Persons Case", decided in 1929. The case dealt with section 24 of the Act, which empowers the Governor General to "summon qualified Persons to the Senate."
Did the phrase "qualified Persons" include women? Up till that point, it had been assumed that it did not and the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that view. The case went over to England to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was, at the time, Canada's final appeal court.
The JCPC, in a long and boring, yet extremely important, decision said "poppycock" or something English like that and declared that women were indeed "Persons" qualified to be appointed to the Senate. It is true that, at the time the BNA Act was written, women would not be considered qualified for the Canadians Senate, but the learned law lords ruled that the BNA Act "planted in Canada a living tree, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits." In other words, the times had changed and the constitution had to as well.
It seem to me that "the living tree doctrine" can be used to help out our embattled Senator from Wadena.
Just as past understandings of the word "Person" ought not to prevent women from taking their rightful place in the Red Chamber, it can be argued that the living tree that is our Constitution is capable of growth and expansion to recognize that one does not have to have a Saskatchewan drivers license and health card to represent the people of this province.
It seems to me that the legitimate representative capacity of Senator Wallin can be recognized if we interpret the word "resident" in subsection 23(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, to mean "can be seen from time to time at the Co-op". As long as she remains "one of us" it shouldn't matter where she lives.
Now that this issue is resolved, the Senate can return to it traditional quiet, sleepy place beyond our notice. If the Senate is to survive as an institution, Canadians need to remain unaware of it. The less we hear about the Senate, the less we're annoyed by it.
]]>New Stadium Is a Love Letter to the Roughriderstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26239952013-02-08T17:35:52-05:002013-04-10T05:12:01-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/ This new stadium will cost $278 million to build and a few hundred million more to maintain over the next 30 years. It will be paid for by property tax increases, new taxes, fees on tickets, corporate sponsorships, user fees, manna from heaven. It will accommodate 33,000 people -- comfortably. We've been assured that the seats will be larger than the minimum width of 18 inches, with some suggestion that they will be as wide as 22 inches. I hope that's wide enough.
The new stadium will be "roof-ready," which is to say it will be "roofless." Remember that the Olympic Stadium in Montreal was "roof-ready" for a long time -- which meant that it was "unfinished." What "roof ready" really means in this instance is that this stadium has the potential, someday, to cost us even MORE money.
Regina, despite its great wealth and influence, is actually a pretty small city. There are about 200,000 of us here. Why do we need a 33,000 seat, roof-ready, stadium -- which will sit cold and empty for half of the year and will cost us a half a billion dollars or so? Only one reason. One BIG reason. The Riders.
This will be a football stadium. For the Saskatchewan Roughriders. There will be other users, but only the Riders regularly need 33,000 wide seats. There just aren't many things that happen in Regina that attract the attention of 33,000 of us at the same time. The Riders will use the stadium 10 times per year. Sometimes 11, when things go really well. The Riders will contribute $25 million of the $278 million their new home will cost to build.
Does this make sense? You might as well ask, "does love make sense?"
We love our Riders. Unconditionally, it seems. There's a phenomenon called "Rider Pride" which fuels this stadium project and defies earthly notions of economic wisdom. We are very proud of our football team. It is a pride that is unaffected by win-loss record, which is, after all, a pretty shallow measure of "success" in sports. The Riders have won three championships in 101 years. Rider Pride has sustained us through those other 98 seasons.
Yes, we're proud of our Riders. But, you know what we're even more proud of? We're most proud of how proud we are of the Riders. That's right, we're proud of our pride. If that makes sense, then this stadium project makes sense. In other words, in this cultural atmosphere, the normal rules simply do not apply.
It would be cheaper for the City to buy us all high definition televisions. We could watch the games at home, out of the wind.
Anyone suggesting this new stadium may not be a particularly wise use of mostly public resources is dismissed as "negative." Failure to support the new stadium is a failure to think and to dream BIG; it is to be mired in the mud of pessimism and to betray a lack of faith in the great community that we we can be; it is to be, if not a blasphemer, at the very least an infidel.
City Council member Terry Hincks said "It's important we leave this place a better place for future generations. and the way we do that is to build things to make it better for our children and grandchildren." See? You simply cannot argue with that kind of logic. Don't try. Besides, when has a municipally-funded stadium project ever turned out badly?
In a bit of what can only be called "unfortunate" timing, news leaked out the same week that the City is considering closing a couple of the outdoor swimming pools that serve poorer neighbourhoods. So expensive, those outdoor pools. Wouldn't those kids rather have a stadium? Sure they would. Not for themselves, maybe, but for their children and grandchildren.
You'll be relieved to know that, politically and democratically, this stadium is on firm ground. The Council vote was 10 to one in favour of the stadium plan.
There was a civic election just a few months ago. Obviously, the stadium was an issue in the mayoralty campaign. Of the nine candidates, only one was in favour of this particular stadium plan: Michael Fougere. He won. Fair and square, you might say. He got 42 per cent of the vote. Voter turnout was 33 per cent, which means that he won the election with 21,685 votes. All of his supporters can fit comfortably in the new stadium, with more than 11,000 seats to spare.
So, there is a sort of democratic legitimacy to this project, in the sense that those fervently in favour outnumber those fervently opposed, while the vast majority who will pay for it apparently don't give a shit. And, really, isn't that what democracy is all about: getting other people to pay for things you want, even though they probably wouldn't want to, if they thought about it even just a little bit?
]]>Saskatchewan Is Allowed Strippers, But There's a Catchtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21780892012-11-27T00:00:57-05:002013-01-26T05:12:01-05:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
I confidently expressed the view that, despite periodic flare-ups of interest on this issue, our no-titillation booze culture was never going to change. Not ever. So sure I was of myself. Do I know this province? Or what?
In a line I ought to have known I'd regret, I declared: No politician wants to be "The Guy Who Brought Strip Clubs to the Province."
The lifting of the stripper ban is only one feature of an entirely new regime of liquor freedom in this province. Minister Harpauer and the government have tried to keep the focus off the strippers and on the 70 or so non-stripper changes to our liquor laws. The government website announcement doesn't even mention strippers.
The changes will provide a host of new opportunities for public drinking here. We'll be able to buy a drink at the manicurist (giving new meaning to the expression "you're soaking in it"). We'll be drinking in movie theatres. In limousines and on tour buses. Golf courses will be allowed to have more than one booze cart. Sports venues will no longer be restricted in how many drinks they can sell to each customer (currently, there is a "one drink per hand" rule). Once the new regime is in place, if you are not drinking in Saskatchewan, you have only yourself to blame.
This new, relaxed legislative attitude towards booze is all very mature and hip and cosmopolitan if you believe that more drinking is all of those things. No doubt we'll be relentlessly counseled to drink "responsibly," albeit excessively.
If we'd had these rules back when I was drinking, I'd have spent way less time at home. The new laws represent the very definition of "win/win/win." We get to drink more. Those who sell booze get to sell more. The government brings in more revenue. There is no down side. More drinking is good for everyone. Obviously.
Actually, the legislative removal of booze barriers does not represent any substantive change in the culture of this province. Like most Canadians, we've always felt free to drink whenever and wherever we want, relying on the unwritten, but respected "paper bag" rule.
No, these "drink free or die" provisions are a side-story. The SaskParty Government is soft-selling it, but the real big news is that they are eliminating a truly unique cultural feature of the province: the stripper ban. Until now, you could have a drink in a bar here without having an Eastern European kidnap victim "exotically" shaking her stuff in your face. Despite what you may have heard, they're not all PhD students working to pay their tuition.
But wait. Not so fast. Saskatchewan won't completely lose its peculiar culture. We will simply express our peculiarity in a different, and more amusing way. Get this: our strippers won't be allowed to show everything. They'll have to keep a few things covered up. Yes, one of them rhymes with Regina. We will have "not quite" strippers, who will have to keep on g-strings and pasties.
Seriously? Pasties? G-strings? Having everything uncovered is normally how a stripper knows she's finished her act.This is like taking headshots out of hockey. Expect outrage.
The tricky thing will be enforcement of the new rules. Currently, it's pretty easy. An inspector goes into a bar; if there are no strippers, move to the next bar. Now, they'll be looking for nipples and naughty bits (and who isn't?) --- "Whoa there Missy -- I see a nipple. Well not a nipple, but an exposed bit of areola, I'm sure. Hold still while I get out my laser pointer. Oops. You're right, that's just a mole. You might want to have that looked at."
No doubt our technical institutes will create courses in primary and secondary sexual characteristic identification. Other such benefits will ripple through the economy.
More popular than our almost-peeled peelers, the province also plans to eliminate the prohibition against "wet clothing contests." You may expect the lads to flock to these contests -- for the love of competition, of course, but also for the opportunity to actually get a pretty good look at a nipple. I haven't heard whether there will be any rules about pertness.
People across the country used to mock us about our prudish stripper ban. It made us a bit odd and quaint. And, despite the howls of protest from those who had the time and energy to howl protestingly about such things, it was something most people either supported or cared nothing about. And, now, by making this change, we've been transformed from odd and quaint to idiotic. Pasties? Bums only? Nip and tuck inspectors? What is it about the "stripper" concept that the Saskatchewan Government doesn't understand?
Canada is still laughing. And, you know, I don't think they're laughing with us.
For those of us looking to make easy jokes, this Saskstripper issue is the gift that keeps on giving. But I think we've lost something valuable here. Yes, I've heard those who say that people should be able to do what they want, watch what they want to watch and be free to have a beer while they do it.
But, because the government regulates liquor and the places that sell liquor, there is a "public" aspect to it. Strip joints will now, through our government, have our blessing. We're implicated. It was nice when we weren't. I liked living in a province where, unlike everywhere else, we weren't so aggressively subject to the routine commercial reduction of women to their sex parts. And, while it would be foolish to suggest that the stripper ban meant that we were a feminist paradise, or that its loss will throw us into the mysogynistic abyss, it was at least a small symbolic gesture of respect.
Hopefully, this stripper nonsense does not overshadow a more important Saskatchewan story. A couple of days after the booze announcement, Premier Brad Wall addressed the situation of a refugee claimant from Pakistan, now living in Saskatoon.
The federal government had denied this man's cancer treatment, pursuant to one of the many mean-spirited policies it loves so much. Premier Wall said that the province would pick up the tab for the treatment. As reported in the Huffington Post and elsewhere, the Premier said, "It's unbelievable that some of the decisions that have been taken federally are having this impact on people who are clearly the most vulnerable, refugees who are obviously fleeing something quite terrible ... "
Our Premier affirmed that providing medical care to someone in these circumstances is "kind of a basic Canadian value."
I'll drink to that.]]>Saskatchewan -- Not so Socialist Anymoretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20195092012-10-26T17:41:56-04:002012-12-26T05:12:01-05:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
In 2004, a nationwide poll / popularity contest declared Tommy to be The Greatest Canadian. He beat out notable figures like Don Cherry [7th], Stompin' Tom [13th], Mr. Dressup [36th] and just really kicked the shit out of Preston Manning, the Patriarch of the Party that now governs Canada. Mr. Manning came in 91st, by the way, four places behind Dr. Henry Morgantaler.
So, Tommy Saskatchewan was not just a socialist. He was, and remains, a beloved socialist. Name another one of those.
Since Tommy left provincial politics, Saskatchewanians have wandered back and forth on the political spectrum. Our current government, the aptly-named "Saskatchewan Party," was conceived immaculately by the a union of the disgruntled and the disgraced from the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives (remember them?). Our Premier, Brad Wall, is himself much beloved, possessed as his is by a winning combination of smart, nice and lucky. He will likely be our Premier forever. He is not a socialist, but neither is he an ideologue. Our right wingers, like our socialists, have to be pragmatic. The moment you betray a "great big idea" streak here, people stop taking you seriously. The free market doesn't make it rain, any more than social cohesion put oil and potash under the ground.
But let's go to Ottawa. Saskatchewan has 14 seats in the House of Commons. There's not a single socialist bum in those 14 seats. Thirteen are occupied by Harper's Reform-a-Tories. The last is held by, of all things, a Liberal. (We just call him Ralph.) Yes, the home of Canada's great socialist experiment is now true blue Tory, top to bottom, side to side. (Except for Ralph.) Most of those Harperistas won their seats easily in 2011, many by landslides. There is nothing new about the NDP losing -- they've been shut out here since 2004. What is new is that the NDPistes are more popular than they have been in quite a while. Though they won no seats, they pulled in almost 33 per cent of the popular vote. Shut out with a third of the vote? Are you kidding? That's not losing -- that is loo-oo-oo-zing. That is like leaving the bases loaded, every inning, all season.
We're not your lovable socialists anymore. Saskatchewan appears united and unanimous behind a phalanx of Reform/Alliance/NewTories (and Ralph). We are richly rewarded for our loyalty to the Powder Blue Sweatered One, who has put two of our folks into his Cabinet. Gerry Ritz is the Minister of Agriculture. He's famous for so graciously killing the Canadian Wheat Board and for so comically presiding over a couple of tainted food scandals. He is a media darling, apparently having attended the same charm school as Vic Toews. Lynne Yelich is Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. Who really knows what a Minister of State does?
But wait? What's this? We appear to have allowed our rightward momentum to sweep us beyond mere Harperism and out to to the fringe.
A few weeks ago, there was a parliamentary vote on Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312, which would have appointed a special committee to consider the vexing question of when, exactly, one becomes a "human being." Woodworth is alarmed that the definition in the Criminal Code gives legal protection against murder and assault and other violent offences only to those who have emerged completely from their mother's bodies. The Special Committee would consider whether modern medical science, with all its electronic gadgets and probes and monitors and smart people in lab coats, might provide evidence that one becomes a "human being" sometime sooner than that. Like at conception, just for example.
This seems very much like an attempt to reopen the abortion debate. As we all know, however, the Prime Minister has assured us repeatedly that his government would not entertain such a debate. He expressed his disapproval of Woodworth's efforts and said that he would not vote in favour of the Motion. And he didn't.
The motion was defeated -- 203 to 91 -- but 10 of the 12 SaskaTories who voted on the Motion supported it, including our star Cabinet member, Ritz. Weren't these people listening to the Prime Minister?
Some, like Saskatoon Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott, are always looking to take a bullet for the unborn. It is his robust support for those not yet residing outside their mothers' bodies that wins him his seat every election. He, and other avid members of the fetus brigade, aren't worried about the disapproval of a mere mortal like the Prime Minister. They have holier fish to fry.
A couple of our MPs assured us that this Motion was actually not about abortion at all, really. Perhaps they hadn't had the Motion explained to them. Let's take this slowly: talking about whether it should be a crime to hurt or kill a fetus -- really, listen carefully -- that's sort of engaging in a debate about abortion. Yes, it is true that the word "abortion" isn't in the Motion. Nor are the words "debate" or "reopen," so maybe their error was understandable.
There was an article about this a few days ago in the Regina Leader Post [the same newspaper everybody else gets, but with more Rider coverage]. The reporter interviewed Joseph Garcea - the head of University of Sasktchewan's Political Studies Department - who suggested that this break from discipline on Motion 312 is just one of several examples of Tory MPs resisting "the incredible level of control" exerted by the PM's office -- which has them all feeling like "trained seals."
Yes, it looks like we have rogue seals in our province, following the dictates of their consciences and courting the favour of their constituents (or, at least, two thirds of us). Our MPs aren't satisfied with the near-rational limits of the government's agenda. Damn it, they have promised to deliver a new, simpler, world -- one where most of what government does can be described as "cracking down" or "getting tough" or "well, that's just common sense." They are on a mission to de-tax and deregulate and secure "freedom" for all us. Think Tea Party, but with Pilsner. Our MPs are deeply committed and are not going to let the Prime Minister's timidity hold them back.
However, Professor Garcea also suggested that these MPs may not be simply manifesting their independence. These increasingly frequent eruptions of social conservative wing-nutism may actually be quietly tolerated by the PM, either as a means of placating the hard-line Party base, or floating "trial balloons" to gauge public reaction to an agenda that Harper himself believes in and would like to pursue -- someday.
Just maybe our parliamentary guys and gals aren't rogues at all. They're trend-setters. Not on the fringe. On the cutting edge.
Whatever. Tommy Douglas's red Saskatchewan has faded past pink, through blue and has plunged headlong into purple. Hopefully, we are still beloved.]]>Why Saskatchewan Will Never Be a Strip Club Kind of Towntag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19097432012-09-26T15:13:57-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
This is the start of a potentially awkward conversation that occurs only in Saskatchewan. Everywhere else in the Dominion, the merits, or otherwise, of allowing strippers to pursue their vocation in licensed premises is a subject not likely to arise at the dinner table.
Outside Saskatchewan strip clubs don't represent a live issue of public policy. They just "are" and "always have been." Husbands/boyfriends are not called upon to have and to express an opinion on the whole "naked ladies in beer parlours" idea.
Couples are free to avoid discussion of pole dancing, the details of the lap dance, no-touch rules, or how to tip a woman in a g-string when all you have is a toonie. Everywhere but here in Saskatchewan -- guys need not declare themselves "pro" or "con" strip joints. We envy those guys. Like them, we'd rather talk about the weather.
Among the variety of unique cultural features of Canada's only rectangular province is that we don't have peeler bars, or whatever you call them. It is another of those quirky things that makes us so interesting and quaint -- like the fact that we don't have daylight savings time.
Strip clubs aren't illegal here. You just can't sell liquor at them. Without booze, strip clubs just aren't viable. Apparently, guys need to drink while strippers perform. It gives them something to do with their hands, I guess. So, we don't have strip clubs. There does not appear to be any strong movement to change things. For example, there is a Facebook page titled "We Want Strippers in Saskatchewan," but in the two years it has been up, it has attracted seven "likes" and only one comment -- and that from a guy who wrote only to express his disappointment that the page had no pictures.
Nonetheless, it is an issue that seethes quietly among a significant portion of the drinking population and, perhaps especially, those who would sell them booze. Every once in a while, there is a flare up of public interest.
A couple of news items this spring caused just such a flare up. The first was the shutting down by provincial authorities of a fund-raising event in Saskatoon at which the Chippendales dance troupe was performing. No sauce for the gander means no sauce for the goose.
The second, and my personal favourite, related to the inaugural season in Saskatchewan of the Lingerie Football League. Columnists and commentators were sure that the killjoys who regulate liquor in this province would not allow the sale of beer and spirits at LFL games. For the information of those who are not sports fans, the Lingerie Football League is exactly what the name suggests -- women playing football in their underwear. Saskatchewan has two franchises -- the Saskatoon Sirens and the Regina Rage. There are only two other teams in the league -- in Toronto and Vancouver. Saskatchewan, then, has more lingerie football franchises per capita than any jurisdiction in Canada, perhaps the world. We love football.
Fortunately, our worst fear -- underwear football without beer -- turned out to be unwarranted. The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority -- the provincial agency which creates the rules around immoral commerce here -- assured us that, despite the odd nip-slip or deep wedgie, lingerie football was not prohibited entertainment and we're all free to enjoy it in public while getting pissed. Whew.
The rules are very clearly set out in the Alcohol Control Regulations, 2002, under the title "Prohibited Entertainment." If you're selling booze, you can't have, on the premises, "any nude activity or entertainment" nor can you can have anything that looks like "a striptease performance or wet clothing contest." These regulations have been further clarified, helpfully, by a panel of "Commissioners" who hear challenges to enforcement actions and issue written decisions. Essentially, the Commissioners tell us, the regulation aims to prohibit entertainment in bars which causes "titillation." I assume this is where the expression "titi bar" came from.
Titillation? After a few days on the tractor or a month on the rigs, almost everything is titillating on a Saturday night out. The fact that a woman will bring you as much beer as you can pay for -- and won't judge you -- well, that is particularly arousing to most of us.
We're not like those testosterone-fueled big city types in Toronto, who sit at their desks with boners that you get only from making a shitload of money by clicking your mouse all day. Those guys need something powerful and raw to get them going after work.
Not here. Strippers are so "in your face," so devoid of nuance. Nothing is left to the imagination. And we have a lot of imagination here, where, for eight months of the year, women are decked out in parkas, ski pants and Sorels -- but are, nonetheless, so very very hot.
Whenever the issue does arise, and before it fades away again, there is an embarrassed hue and cry about how backward and stupid it is that we can't be titillated while we drink. Ten years ago, a constitutional challenge was brought, claiming that the regulations violated the strippers' Charter-protected freedom of expression. [I, too, have noticed that I express myself more effectively when everyone around me is drunk.] Ultimately, the challenge failed, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it, scandalously believing, I assume, that whether prairie folk could have Brazilians with their Cuba Libres was not a matter of national concern.
One common lament about the current policy is that it is a throwback -- that Saskatchewan ought simply to "get with the times." Stripper bars, on this view, are an example of hip modernity and our refusal to embrace them is the equivalent of holding on to our rotary dial phones or watching a TV with rabbit ears.
Many blame the regulators, those nameless, faceless bureaucrats who oversee and enforce the titillation ban. It is common to hear these public servants characterized as "Puritans." Really. Liquor licenses are issued by the same people who sell liquor, run casinos and put video lottery terminals in bars and who bring in about half a billion dollars a year doing these things. I did a little research on the Puritans: rum running and gambling don't appear to be consistent with their faith. These officials are more like old-style gangsters than Puritans.
No, I don't think it is backwardness or puritanism that keeps Saskatchewan a peeler-free zone. No politician wants to be "The Guy who Brought Strip Clubs to the Province." Though long gone,Tommy Douglas peers over the shoulder of every public figure here, and you can imagine what the Baptist minister thought of strip bars.
And, despite our "economic powerhouse" pretensions, Saskatchewan is, and likely will remain, just a very large small town. There is no anonymity here. We know everybody's business. While that is just great if your barn is on fire, it sucks when you're trying to get away with something kind of sleazy.
If you're spending time at the strip club, we'll all know, because we'll see your truck parked there, or we'll notice you're not at the rink. We'll probably mention it to your Mom. Strip clubs are best placed outside the province.]]>Saskatchewan: the Ugly Kid With the Great Personalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16659732012-07-14T07:00:04-04:002012-09-13T05:12:07-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/Canada's ugliest province.
To be completely accurate, the euphemism used is "least beautiful." And, the designation refers to this province's scenery, not its people. Small consolation.
To celebrate Canada Day, Abacus Data released a poll, entitled "Provincial Perceptions: The Best and Worst Canadian Provinces." The pollsters invited Canadians to rank the provinces in a number of categories -- taxes, government management, friendliness, scenic beauty, business climate, etc. An informal poll conducted among my immediate family and close friends revealed that 100 per cent of Saskatchewanians had never heard of Abacus Data until we saw that we live in the least attractive of the provinces. And now, thanks to this hitherto unknown company and its cruel poll results, we have to endure being the butt of "your province is so ugly..." jokes. Happy Canada Day, Abacus.
The poll is devastating. Only a single percent [1] of those polled ranked us as having the "most beautiful scenery." Worse, a whopping 47 per cent found us to be the "least beautiful." Manitoba, at 20 per cent, is a very distant second. No other province hit double digits in the ugly category.
It's not a big surprise. If you ask us what we love about Saskatchewan, we'll say "oh, it's the people" or, "it's a great place to raise a family" or, "there's such a sense of community" or "I got a job and had to move here." In most cases, then, Saskatchewan is charitably described as "the girl with personality," the kind of province for whom friends have trouble finding a blind date. We're the province who took her dad to the prom. At the great trans-Canada sock hop, we're sitting against the gym wall, behind the stacking chairs, certain we'll be rejected by the popular girls.
Our Premier, Brad Wall, came immediately and sarcastically to the defense of his province, saying that the poll should be thrown in one of the the hundreds of scenic Saskatchewan Lakes. Get it? We have lakes. Defensive stubble-jumpers reacted likewise on Internet comment boards, listing all the very beautiful things to be found here. The saddest frequent comment was this: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Right. So is ugly. And, in the eyes of most beholders, well ...
Others will point out that most of the respondents in the poll have never actually spent any time in Saskatchewan and therefore haven't experienced the very real beauty to be found here. Sorry, but the poll is broken down into regions as well. You'd expect that the people most likely to have actually been here would be those from "Western Canada." Yes? Well, Western Canadians were more likely than anyone else to rank Saskatchewan as least beautiful. Fifty-five per cent of Westerners felt this way, which would include Saskatchewanians themselves. Really? How can we expect others to love us if we don't love ourselves?
When people think of Saskatchewan, they're not thinking about our lakes and forests, or about Cypress Hills or the Qu'appelle Valley -- undeniably beautiful parts of this province. No, the really distinctive thing about Saskatchewan, what makes this place so different from the rest of "Oh-So-Freakin'-Beautiful Canada", is that Saskatchewan is dominated by the Great Interior Plains. It covers the southern third of the province, where most of us live. If you drive through here on the TransCanada, it's all you see.
For most Canadians, including those of us who live here, Saskatchewan is prairie. Alberta is also mostly covered by the Great Plains, but only 8 per cent of those polled found our neighbour to be less attractive than other provinces. Some may suggest this is because we associate Alberta with Banff and Jasper, but I think it has more to do with money. Wealth is often perceived as beauty. Alberta is the acne-scarred guy in the hot car. So far, Saskatchewan hasn't been rich long enough to benefit from the redemptive power of wealth.
My prairies, then, are not everyone's definition of natural beauty. It's not all rocks and trees and mountains and lakes and rivers. Think British Columbia. Of course people love that stuff. It's like loving chocolate. Prairie beauty is more subtle. Obviously, too subtle.
I love it, of course. But I'm from here. It's home. Maybe I wouldn't describe it as beautiful. It is awe-inspiring. It is often bleak, especially in winter. Hot and windy and dry in summer. Flat and featureless. There is very little steering required as you drive through. There is, in fact, one curve and one hill on the drive across the province. Both are in the same spot. That's right, a curved hill. So, stay awake. People often talk about how big and beautiful the sky is here -- like it's our best feature. Yes, we're at our best when you fix your gaze over our heads.
The Abacus Data poll didn't have much good news for us at all. "Least beautiful" was the only category in which we scored in the top three. Contrary to our sense of ourselves, we scored a miserable 7 per cent -- second last -- in the "friendliest people" category. But, really, how friendly would you be if you knew everybody thought you were ugly?
To add insult to insult, only one per cent said that they planned to visit Saskatchewan on their next vacation. One per cent. The poll surveyed 1,008 randomly-selected Canadian adults so, by my calculation, about ten people said they were coming to visit soon. Please, Abacus, let us know when they're coming and we'll leave the yard light on.
But, really, it doesn't matter that no one wants to come here. The best thing about the prairies, the thing that makes it the most beautiful scenery in the country, is the fact that they're mostly empty. Having a lot of people around would ruin that.]]>Why I Love Canada: We'll Tickle Your Funny Bonetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16344322012-06-29T10:56:30-04:002012-08-29T05:12:05-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
People my age will remember Wayne and Shuster. They had comedy specials that were broadcast across English Canada on CBC television. Back then, we all watched the same thing on television -- like Canada was one large living room and somebody had lost the remote for the TV. I'm going to get some flak here, but I never thought they were funny. Clearly, they intended to be -- these were called "comedy" specials. My Dad was a lot funnier than these guys and he was a banker.
But, you know, I am as proud as any Canadian that Wayne and Shuster appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show 67 times -- more than any other act. I can't explain it. To Americans, Canadians were either hockey players or these two funny guys. Eventually, Americans and Europeans played hockey, but Canadians remain the comedy Kings and Queens.
Still, without denying the impact of W & S, I thought The Hart and Lorne Terrific Hour was way funnier. The "Lorne" in Hart and Lorne was, and is, Lorne Micheals. Yeah. That guy. Coincidentally, he was married for a time to Frank Shuster's daugher, Rosie. So, how do I know that Hart and Lorne were funnier? Well, I laughed.
I also laughed, a lot, at SCTV. And Kids in the Hall.
CBC Radio also gave us a lot of laughs in a distinctively Canadian way. Royal Canadian Air Farce was much beloved [I am too young to remember The Happy Gang]. Again, despite my affection for it, I didn't think Air Farce was very funny -- in the "make me laugh" sense of the word. But Frantic Times? Very funny. Mr. Canoehead -- a crime-fighting super hero with an aluminum canoe welded to his head by a lightning strike during a portage. What could be more Canadian? Well, maybe Hart Pomerantz's portayal of the beaver.
Double Exposure was also funnier. Bob Robertson and Linda Cullen provided the lasting and defining impressions of an array of Canadian political figures, from Preston Manning ["EEEEliminate the deficit"] to "I'm Adrienne Clarkson and you're not".
And, I've only mentioned people who plied their yuks-trade here in Canada. This Canada Day, America's funniest folks will be celebrating their Canadian roots. You know who they are.
And back home, on this Canada Day Weekend, let's gather around the campfire and debate important matters of Canadian cultural identity and our international presence. Am I wrong about Wayne and Shuster and Air Farce? Are Jim Carrey's movies funnier than Mike Meyers'? Are politeness and humility the key ingredients to Canadians' comedic appeal? Which is more "Canadian" -- stand-up or sketch? Who do we miss more, John Candy or Phil Hartman? Would The Simpsons be funny without Canada? Does 22 Minutes need Rick Mercer? Is anyone funnier than Brent Butt? Red Green? Could Russell Peters have emerged from anywhere other than Canada? Who is your favourite Ghostbuster -- Dan Ackroyd or Bill Murray?
Bill Murray? He's not Canadian.
Yeah, but he could be.]]>In the Prairies, We Can Talk Farmtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16226182012-06-26T17:03:12-04:002012-08-26T05:12:05-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/This is the second in what is, so far, a two-part series of blog posts intended to introduce HuffPost Canada to Saskatchewan and its interesting people.
You find Saskatchewan people everywhere. We often stray from the province and find ourselves working, visiting or living our lives in other parts of Canada. When you discover one of us -- as you most certainly will -- there is a good chance that the conversation will turn, at some point, to farming. I guess people just really like to talk about farming and they believe that a Saskatchewanian is more likely than others to indulge them. We love the attention as much as they love to talk about farming.
I mentioned in last week's blog post that agriculture is only a very small part of Saskatchewan's economic engine. I was taken to task for this diplomatically, and was reminded that farming is the "backbone" of the province. I checked again. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting account for about 11 per cent of our GDP. That is significant, yes, but down the list. Whatever the number -- even if it dropped to zero -- historically, socially and culturally, agriculture is Saskatchewan. The southern part of the province is covered in farmland. You can't miss it. You see it right there beside the highway as you speed through on your way to the Rockies. Farms, as far as the eye can see -- and the eye can see a really really long way out here. But you won't see many farmers. In the last generation, the number of people employed in agriculture has dropped by half: from over 100,000 in 1976 to 50,000 by 2006. Our backbone has a declining number of vertebrae. In an economy dominated by resources and agriculture, it is only a few people who are directly involved in creating the wealth. The rest of us keep busy doing things for them.
Most of us, then, are not farmers. That has always been the case, but it's especially so these days. And, you know, most of us don't really know that much about farming. Farmers aren't that interested in talking to non-farmers about farming. My next door neighbour is an accountant. We never talk about accounting. Farming is the same.
So why is it that we always end up talking about farming when we leave home?
One reason is that people are trying to be friendly. All they have ever known about Saskatchewan is that there are a lot of farms out there. So, they figure we'll know something about farming. But that can't be the whole story. I don't assume that my relatives from Ontario want to talk about automobile parts manufacturing.
People have a romantic view of farming and about rural life generally. Living off the land. Working with your hands. Battling the elements. Wind in your face. Nurturing fragile life from the soil. In tune with nature, marking time with the rhythm of the seasons. It is virtuous, hard work done by simple, honest souls, men and women who keep alive the pioneering spirit. Urban life is so congested, loudly complicated,dangerous, alienating, morally ambiguous. Saskatchewan seems the last connection to a simpler, pastoral time.
Or something.
The main reason everyone thinks we all know about farming is that many of us, myself included, willingly talk about farming as if we know something about it, which -- and I must emphasize this -- we don't. We have led people to believe that all Saskatchewanians can chin wag about crops and moisture and soil conditions blah blah blah. We can't resist. We want to be liked: if that means we have to pretend to be rural sages; we'll do it.
It's dishonest. So much for rural virtue. It also has the potential to spread a lot of misinformation. I often worry about what happens when a real farmer meets up with the people who have been infected by my faux-farmboy wisdom.
But I never go overboard. I don't create farm stories from whole cloth. At worst, the deception is in the confidence with which I hold forth on things agricultural. I embellish. On the other hand, I have a friend who lives in Calgary. When he visits his wife's relatives, they always get him talking about oil and gas. He knows less about oil and gas than I know about farming, but he really goes to town. He makes up technical terms, invents scientific processes, speculates on the effect particular world events will have on the price of a barrel. He becomes an oilman.
Anyway. I'm sorry. We've been lying to you.
I want to apologize especially to the faculty of the law school out in Ontario where I was a grad student many years ago. Grad students had "common room" privileges, which meant that I got to have coffee and smoke in the same room as the professors. One day, one of them was commenting on a complaint from a student that law school final exams were going too far into the month of May. The professors agreed that the complaint was groundless -- something about academic "rigour" -- a nine month law school year was perfectly acceptable.
It was quiet in the room for a moment, so I piped up earnestly: "You know, in Saskatchewan, law school starts after harvest and ends just before seeding."
They all nodded. That seemed perfectly reasonable.
I was immediately horrified that they didn't recognize that I was joking and I shouted at them "No it doesn't". They all looked at me innocently and unapologetically, as if to say, "How the hell are we supposed to know any better if we have to rely on you, you fibbing prairie fraud?"
We've created our own stereotype.
But we won't stop.]]>Is Saskatchewan the New "It" Province?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16099222012-06-20T07:32:52-04:002012-08-20T05:12:05-04:00Ross Macnabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-macnab/
"You're not from here, are you?"
"Well, no. What gave me away?"
"You're walking slowly, looking around... and you're whistling."
Unwittingly, I'd become a cultural ambassador. A wordless whistling argument for a way of life, maybe? I'm from Saskatchewan.
Unlike Newf'n'landers, Saskatchewanians don't have a word to describe people from other places -- other than "a guy I met at the gas station out on the TransCanada." But we can tell you're not from here by the way you say "Saskatchewan." You put too much "aaah" in the Saaask. You bite on the "chew" a bit too much. You draw out the "wan" - round out the 'a' sound - so it's more like "wawn."
Saas ka tchoowahn. That is just way too vowelly. Relax.
It's S's kah tchwn.
Practice it. Because many of you are going to be coming here. And you'll want to fit in. You'll come for the money, I'm guessing, but while you're here, you'll enjoy our big sky and sunshine. And the wind. And the really really long cold winters -- a dry cold that will make your skin crack. And our cheery attitude -- you may even adopt one yourself.
Because, friends, Saskatchewan is the new "it" province. We have dodged the economic troubles that afflict the rest of Canada -- and the rest of the world, for that matter. It's not just us. I'm not forgetting about Alberta. Who could ever forget our Provincial American cousin -- always dressed with flash, smoking a fat stogie, driving a big car (leased, of course), looking flush even hung over after a bad night at the casino.
Saskatchewan wears its new wealth more quietly. We aren't tarred by the tar sands, nor did we give the country Stephen Harper. We don't have Ezra Levant defending us. People don't have mixed feelings about us. Our current wave of prosperity gets us our own chapter in "When Nice things Happen to Nice People."
I live in Regina, the capital city. Given the rhyming possibilities, it surprises me that Regina doesn't show up in more songs and poetry -- or in a limerick, at the very least. We like to claim that Regina is the sunniest capital city in the world. It's not true, but we like to claim that it is. Perhaps it is just our sunny disposition that makes us believe it.
What is true, in the "factually accurate" sense of the word "true," is that Saskatchewan leads the nation in economic growth and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. We have the lowest unemployment rate. We're experiencing rising incomes and record housing starts. "Wow," you're thinking. "Wheat sales are booming." No, friends, farming is just a tiny part of our big, modern, diversified economy. We get our GDP from all over the place. This boom won't bust.
The other day, I was driving up Albert Street, one of two "main drags" in Regina -- Yes, two. We're that big. The way things are going, we'll have a third very soon. -- I saw a big billboard high in the prairie sky above the parking lot of the 24-hour Adult Source video/toy/VHS/magazine store proclaiming in green and gold, "That's the Saskatchewan Advantage". The 'v' in "Advantage" was a stylized checkmark. The billboard was paid for by the Saskatchewan Party Caucus.
In case you didn't know, the Saskatchewan Party governs this province. Yes, the party has the same name as the province itself. Easy to remember. If you love this province, you should love the party. Originally, they wanted to really cash in on provincial pride by calling themselves the "Saskatchewan Roughrider Party," but the opposition NDP threatened to counter that move by changing its name to the "Pilsner and Hockey Fights Party."
So what is The Saskatchewan Advantage with a checkmark?
Here it is: Saskatchewan: Canada's ONLY balanced budget! That's our advantage? That's what we choose to pridefully crow about? That's what is going to bring people here to share in our quaint interestingness, easy pace, big sky, sunshine, bitter cold and empty space? Wow. That's so like, "Hey -- look at these sensible shoes. Got 'em on sale."
We do have a balanced budget. A small surplus. It's not quite true to say that we have Canada's only balanced budget -- we share that distinction with all three of the Territorial governments up North. But have you noticed Ontario? A FIFTEEN BILLION dollar deficit? Yikes. Your deficit is more than Saskatchewan's entire budget.
So, all you Ontarioians, or whatever you call yourselves, get out here. Ditch that insecure, Dutch-diseased manufacturing sector and come enjoy our balanced budget. Let someone else worry about that $15-billion.
And, while you're here, walk a little slower, look around. Whistle.]]>