Talk:Saskatchewan New Democratic Party

"Nondp" website

I have serious doubts about the validity of this site, particularly in light of this 1999 press release from the Saskatchewan Party. CJCurrie 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

For immediate release June 22, 1999

Saskatchewan Party Condemns Website Forgeries

Saskatchewan Party Caucus Chief of Staff Reg Downs today issued the following statement regarding the Anti-Socialist Society Internet website (www.members.home.net/nondp):

"The Saskatchewan Party is in no way associated with this website.

"Our caucus and party are extremely upset and offended that someone has posted comments to this website’s ‘Guestbook’ which have been falsely attributed to myself, Saskatchewan Party Leader Elwin Hermanson and another member of our staff.

"It is our view that these actions constitute forgery. Section 366(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada states: ‘Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not.’

"I have contacted SaskTel in an attempt to determine who is responsible for these forgeries. I have also written to SaskTel Minister Dwain Lingenfelter to request that SaskTel investigate this matter. If we are able to determine the person or persons responsible for these forgeries, we will take appropriate legal action.

"The Saskatchewan Party strongly supports the right of every citizen to free speech on the Internet or in any other public forum. However, the right to free speech does not allow a person to falsely attribute statements to another person.

"For the record, both the Saskatchewan Party and the Saskatchewan Party Caucus have excellent websites at www.saskparty.com and www.skcaucus.com."

---

I see you socialists are back at it again -- trying to portray a revisionist history with respect to the government of Allan Blakeney and his predecessors. Just because they didn't properly account for unfunded liabilities or infrastructure decay in the 1970s and early 1980s prior to Devine coming to power, does not mean that they were not legitimate items. To attribute all of the debt to Devine's administration is simply to propogate an innaccurate myth.

64.110.251.69 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting view you're promoting. Do you have any sources to back it up? CJCurrie 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up your implied assertion that there was no debt before Devine came to power from the government of Allan Blakeney and his predecessors?

Merely reverting edits without justification is definitely against the spirit of wiki.

64.110.251.69 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given you my justification. Your view is that the Blakeney government hid deficits. You're entitled to this view, but you'll need to back it up with something tangible if you want it included in the article.

I also don't appreciate the dodgy anti-NDP site you've linked the article to. CJCurrie 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that you only post pro-NDP sites and do not allow for a balanced view. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that all the deficits of the Government were the responsibility of the Devine administration?

It goes both ways. Don't try and have it both ways, it simply will not work that way.

64.110.251.69 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We know that the Devine government posted deficits. This isn't a matter of debate. On the other hand, it is a matter of debate that the Blakeney government posted deficits.

You might want to look over Wikipedia:RS sometime. CJCurrie 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Posting" deficits (the result of transparent accounting practices and balance sheet consolidation), and 'hiding' deficits (the result of phoney baloney such as "Fiscal Stabilization Funds" or hidden Crown Corporation debt or unrecognized pension plan unfunding) are entirely two different things.

64.110.251.69 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Link was posted to prove defitcits did exist before Devine, so reverted article back.

NDP and scandals

The NDP government is now embroiled in a number of scandals including the Murdoch Carriere sexual harassment affair, and a scandal involving the cover-up of theft of caucus and taxpayers funds.[1]

I agree with Greenjoe that this is not sufficiently verified. It comes from a highly partisan source - a hostile political campaigning website - whose portrayal of events might well be biased. What do other sources with a different viewpoint say on the same subject? Tearlach 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Can we have some assessment of whether the Frontier Center for Public Policy is a reliable unbiased third-party source for this edit by 70.73.4.197? 86.150.52.4 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially the line politically motivated firings of professional civil servants, is very POV against the S-NDP. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, delete it for now, and I will re-add it in when I dig up Hansard references to the firing of professional civil servants like George Hill and various others who provided valuable professional service to the Province of Saskatchewan under governments previous to Romanow's.

70.73.4.197 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Frontier Centre link is an interview with a former NDP cabinet minister in the Romanow Government (Janice Potter/MacKinnon), and she describes the privatization of Cameco shares. The Frontier Centre is a pretty centrist organization, unlike, say, the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy (which is a left-wing organization), the Council of Canadians (left-wing), or the Fraser Institute (right-wing) or the Praire Centre Policy Institute (right-wing).

If an interview with one of the privatizers herself isn't acceptable...then I can't fathom what is.

Just found it on SourceWatch, which describes its general stance as "neoliberal". 86.148.154.46 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

70.73.4.197 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody actually seems to understand legally why it was done (the recent court settlement with a former civil servant). Civil servant was fired (not according to procedure either, that's one hit) for a suspected crime (sexual assault). It doesn't matter if he did it or not, because according to our legal system since he was found innocent, he didn't do it in the eyes of the law. Therefor the firing was based on something that didn't happen legally, so the firing was unjust in the legal sense, and the government can't stand in civil court saying they fired him for something that was never legally proven, but disproven. The government had no case of defense for the firing. Settling would cost them less than a long drawn out court battle would have (and I'm talking taxpayers). Of corse, the Sask Party will use it in the next election anyways because the average joe doesn't understand how the law differs from conscience. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No defense for firing? This was a man who was found guilty of sexual harassment by a government investigator, and then later convicted in a court of law. If you have information that is not in the public domain, such as the secret legal opinion obtained by Lorne Calvert's government concerning the firing of Murdoch Carriere, then I would implore you to table that opinion here (or on the internet). Otherwise, all that can be concluded is that it is sheer misconduct and bungling on the part of Calvert and his government that led to the payment of $275,000 plus additional sums relating to pension credits to a convicted felon with ties to the NDP and to a cabinet minister.

Table the legal opinion if you have it, or tell your cronies in the party to convince Calvert to table the opinion under the immunity of Parliamentary Priviledge. Otherwise, your beloved leader and party will continue to fall victim to the criticisms that have been levelled against it, and will not be able to credibly defend itself.

70.73.4.197 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

From CTV [2] In a criminal trial last year, Carriere was convicted of two counts of assault against women who worked for him and given a six-month suspended sentence. He was acquitted on two counts of sexual assault. Acquitted is as good as "never happened" in the law. He sued for defamation because the government said he was fired for sexual assault which he was acquitted on, so they smeared his good name without proof (we're talking legal still). It doesn't matter if it seems wrong morally, and it is a tad, but the court is about legalities, not morals. I'm also not a member of the NDP. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A court wasn't even allowed to adjudicate this process, so how can you make reference to 'the court is about legalities'. This matter never made it to court. In a legal proceeding, the public would be able to see a ruling from a justice of the court. However in this process, the public isn't even able to see even a legal opinion that perhaps would have shown that the government, as you postulate, would have lost the case and been liable for substantial damages.

The real shame here for Calvert is the fact that Carriere wasn't summarily dismissed with cause when the results of the harassment investigation became known to the Deputy Minister, then, Terry Scott, instead, receiving a promotion to the position of special advisor. If the harassment investigation wasn't done in a credible manner, then this is a question the government needs to be held to account for as well.

The fact that what should have been a simple dismissal with cause turned into a long and drawn out legal process potentially involving defamation is an absolute embarrassment for Calvert and the NDP. Any woman, man, or young member of the NDP should be hanging their heads in shame for being associated with this sort of reprehensible conduct.

Will I add the paragraph back in? Probably not, even though I can attribute every comment made there with a credible reference from the media, from Hansard, or from decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench.

70.73.4.197 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that if he sued for defamation (like if the government said he was fired for sexual assault and isn't convicted of it), then he has the winning argument because it's been established that he is innocent of it. I believe that usually a person is usually suspended ("administrative leave") or something if being investigated instead of fired just in case something like this happens where they're found innocent. You can't fire someone for something they "didn't do".

If you can source it, then by all means include it. Even though I support the NDP, I will not remove material that is cited and NPOV. Like the paragraph: Calvert's government is currently embroiled in a scandal relating to the payment of over $275,000 to a disgraced civil servant found to have sexually harassed several women by a government investigator, and then later convicted of assault by the law courts would have to be something more like Calvert's government is currently embroiled in a public scandal relating to the payment of over $275,000 to a former civil servant found to have sexually harassed several women by a government investigator (needs a citiation that it was found by a government investigator), but later aquitted of sexual assault and convicted of common assault by the law courts. (cite here, news story or something) Calvert's leadership is being called into question by the Saskatchewan Party, especially in light of several misleading statements made by NDP members of the legislative assembly in response to questions. (need a cite here, like a news story and not to the Sask Party's website). The refusal of Calvert to release a legal opinion concerning the government's position with respect to the disgraced ex-civil servant has been described as 'troubling'. (again needs a credible citation, not to the Sask Party's website). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, common assault (which he was convicted of) is only a misdemeanor, not a felony. Calling him a felon would also violate WP:BLP, since he was only convicted of a misdemeanor. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, we have what are known as 'indictable offenses' and 'summary offenses'. Assault is a dual offense, to wit: it can be proceeded either by indictment, or through the process for summary offenses. So technically, unless you know whether the charges were proceeded upon by indictment or not, we really can't make the distinction.

I believe, just briefly reading R. v Carriere at the Law Society's online judgement database, that there was a preliminary hearing. Aren't preliminary hearings usually associated with charges that are proceeded upon by indictment by the Crown? I believe that summary offenses go directly to Provincial Court (if being tried by judge alone), or Queen's Bench (if the accused elects a jury trial, or if the charges are proceeded upon by indictment).

70.73.4.197 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add...in Canada, the distinction is not 'misdemeanor' and 'felony', the distinction is 'summary offense' versus 'indictable offense'. Summary offenses are, of course, ones that are far less serious, and rarely involve incarceration.

70.73.4.197 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here's another one I found [3]. Carriere sued the government and several newspapers, alleging an investigator's report about the case had been leaked to the media... It's possible the key issue was breach of confidentiality or privacy with respect to the leaked report, rather than wrongful dismissal. If he could prove that in a law suit, he's get a lot more money than what was settled. Leaked reports (yuck). Government's got to be more careful with that. The environment minister made a very cryptic statement and that harmed way more then it helped. When he said it's for "years of work" instead of just something like "we screwed up and leaked a report". Saying they screwed up is bad, but it makes them look less bad then "we gave a convicted person money for years of work". -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I think the interview is a fine source although what the minister said does not support the entire sentenced that it originally sourced. Second, whatever the situation with this one civil servant, it doesn't belong here in my opinion. This is an article about the party of a long time. We don't need to include every little incident that happens over the course of their existence. I don't live in Saskatchewan so I don't know the exact situation but it sounds like either way it is much to minor to include here. Possibly in the Calvert article but I'm not sure I'd support that either. --JGGardiner 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Mr. Gardiner, I can see your point of view, and I realize the folly of polluting articles with so much information that they become useless.

However, it is with a lot of concern that when I delete similarily extraneous information in the articles of either Brad Wall, Grant Devine, or Saskatchewan Party the information is merely added back in hours later.

I will pledge to keep the Sask NDP article relatively clean if you guys, in turn, pledge to keep the Saskatchewan Party article relatively clean of political attacks and weakly supported innuendo. I mean, as wikipedians, we all want to uphold high standards of encyclopedic journalistic integrity, correct?

70.73.4.197 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a good idea generally to make your own editing practice contingent on other users' behaviour. As for me, I just wanted to give my opinion on the discussion at hand. As far as I can recall I haven't edited any of the articles which you mentioned. --JGGardiner 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have to say, in an ideal world, it'd be simpler if we could just demand that regional political articles be edited by people with no connection - in this case, say, Icelanders or Tibetans - since no-one with regional connections appears capable of unbiased work. In the absence of that option, I think it will help if those of us who have a genuine commitment to Wikipedia standards require that everything from now on be cited (most of these Saskatchewan political articles have zero citation and ought to be aggressively tagged and edited as such). 86.145.93.175 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, this Norwegian with no prior knowledge of the existence of this party or their people has done his two reverts. In my opinion, words like in a disgusting show is the hallmark of not NPOV, and the kind of thing I regard as typical for vandalism. Greswik 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

okay, so the reference was de-POV'ed and will be restored as its referenced and sourced. 70.73.4.197 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NDP and scandals

The NDP government is now embroiled in a number of scandals including the Murdoch Carriere sexual harassment affair, and a scandal involving the cover-up of theft of caucus and taxpayers funds.[4]

I agree with Greenjoe that this is not sufficiently verified. It comes from a highly partisan source - a hostile political campaigning website - whose portrayal of events might well be biased. What do other sources with a different viewpoint say on the same subject? Tearlach 11:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Carriere was really blown out of proportion (see the above thread), but still considered a "scandal" by the SK party. Theft of caucus funds is in the news right now, but not really a government scandal since it has to do with their own caucus (but the papers are all over it and opposition is calling for resignations blah blah ect). Theft of taxpayers funds is news from a year ago I believe from Community Relations department (or something similar) and Env. department, but both were just employees and didn't really have anything to do with the government (except that they were in power at the time, but yelling by opposition blah blah ect again). I would be in favour of a complete ban on external links to all party sites and affiliates just to keep NPOV (the only exception should be on the article about the party to their home page because it's relavant). If you can't find a news source, it's either party propaganda or people don't like how the news source portrays it. (I'll be at WP:EL proposing that now). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saskndp.jpg

Image:Saskndp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rational taken care of (I think). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1944 in Regina

What was the name of the Calgary-born lawyer who worked on this and later had his office just south of the Hotel Sask on Scarth Street? Masalai (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saskatchewan New Democratic Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522151715/http://ca.geocities.com/geheimsaskatoon/1933nr.html to http://ca.geocities.com/geheimsaskatoon/1933nr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"first socialist government in North America"

The cliche that the Saskatchewan CCF government was the "first socialist government in North America" is often repeated. However, this overlooks the Mexican Revolution and overlooks the Party of the Mexican Revolution government of Lázaro Cárdenas which among other things nationalized the oil industry and other sectors, instituted land reform, welfare programs, and amended the constitution to require all children to receive a "socialist education" in school. While his successors and the successor party, PRI, moved to the right I don't think it can be seriously doubted that the 1930s government was socialist in nature, certainly as if not more socialist than Douglas's CCF government. Nixon Now (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ryan Meili Saskatchewan NDP billboard, Regina, 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Maintenance Template

I removed the maintenance template as, to the best of my judgement, the issues it addressed (additional verification and POV dispute) were meritless and went without discussion on the talk page.

Please correct this if I have done this in error.

FranticPedantic (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC) FranticPedantic