Browsing by Author "Smith, David E."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Open Access
SIPP Briefing Note Issue 17 November 2006
(Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2006-11) Smith, David E.; Whyte, John D.
SENATE REFORM Is This the Beginning?
Open Access
SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 12 Spring 2006
(Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2006) Maxwell, Judith; Richards, John; Peach, Ian; Smith, David E.; Marchildon, Gregory P.; Marshall, Jim; Morgan, Jeremy; White, Jodi; Olfert, Rose; Fulton, Murray; Fontaine, Lorena; Whyte, John D.; Johnston, Elsa; Clay, Sharon; Mahmood, Nasir; Peel, Alyssa
With the arrival of spring, the university community begins to wind down in expectation of the arrival of summer. SIPP, too, has begun to move into summer mode, and our events and publications are giving way to planning for 2006-07. We have done much to be proud of in 2005-06 and I am looking forward to another active year in 2006-07. Having just finished a highly successful conference on Aboriginal justice issues, I am particularly excited about our 2007 conference, “The Constitution Act, 1982 and Canada’s Continuing Constitutional Evolution”, which will be held in honour of the 25th anniversary of the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Open Access
SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 13 Fall 2006
(Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2006) Burch, Fred; Whyte, John D.; Smith, David E.; Peach, Ian; Driedger, Otto; Crowley, Brian Lee; Fafard, Patrick
With the arrival of autumn, the policy community is active once again. Our university partners are abuzz with students and faculty, the House of Commons has begun its autumn sitting, and the Saskatchewan Legislature will also open soon. The policy agenda for the fall is broad and varied, and this issue of Policy Dialogue reflects the wealth of research and analysis going on both at the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy and our friends and colleagues in Saskatchewan and across the country. I want to thank everyone for their contributions and hope you find this edition an enjoyable, stimulating read. If you have any comments, we hope to hear from you at sipp@uregina.ca.
Open Access
SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 14 Winter 2007
(Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2007) Bell, Patricia; Whyte, John D.; Axworthy, Chris; Smith, David E.; Burch, Fred; Penikett, Tony; Marshall, Jim; Charlebois, Sylvain; Langenbacher, Wolfgang; Paul, Linda; Poitras, Derek; Furtan, Hartley
It would seem a federal election is in the air. While in their early days, the federal Conservatives approached the task of governing from a fairly rigid, even ideological, perspective, their governing style has become increasingly politically astute and responsive as they have become more experienced at governing. Now, with an election pending, we are not only seeing campaign-style advertisements designed to weaken any momentum the Liberals may have generated from their leadership, but we see a government that at first seemed ideologically antienvironment providing $1.5B for responses to climate change. As the editorial cartoon on our website this month suggests, everyone in the House of Commons seems to have turned green these days!
Open Access
SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 17 Winter 2008
(Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2008) Whyte, John D.; Irvine, Andrew D.; Smith, David E.; Elliott, Patricia W.; Albritton, William L.; Schwartz, Sheldon; Bonli, Rupal; Marchildon, Gregory P.; Diaz, Polo; Sauchyn, Dave; Lapp, Susan; Hurlbert, Margot; Cameron, Dan
The title of this periodical is Policy Dialogue. It could just as easily have been Policy Debate but that would have been inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of this publication. Debate is, generally, a zero-sum game. The purpose of debate is to win the argument on its merit – the evidence produced and the logic – and the style of presentation including the points you can score off your opponent, humorously or otherwise. It is stylized combat with little quarter given to your opponent or your opponent’s argument and assumptions. At its best, debate can produce new arguments and new ways of seeing existing problems but, at its worst, debate encourages evidence to be exaggerated and the truth twisted. At its most boring, debate simply raises old arguments in the same old ways. For all of these reasons, policy debate often generates more heat than light. You don’t have to look far to see examples of this, including the current debate over climate change, the subject of four of the essays in this issue of Policy Dialogue.