LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

"I know that smoking tobacco a number of years ago was a lot more
acceptable than it is now. We know that there are fewer people using
it now. And we definitely don't promote it, so we won't accept it any
more." -- Saskatchewan Party MLA June Draude explaining why her party
accepted a $10,000 donation from Imperial Tobacco Canada in 2003.

Maybe it's time Brad Wall and his Saskatchewan Party caucus figured
out there's more to governing than calling the NDP hypocrites.

Sure, the NDP have been hypocritical. And one certainly has to look
no further than that back-page advertisement in the recent NDP annual
convention program that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana
so that, as federal NDP Leader Jack Layton puts it in the ad, "people
can enjoy marijuana in the peace and quiet of their own home, or in a
cafe, without the fear of being criminalized."

For a governing party that has added a "healthy living services"
minister to the cabinet, that is now running a campaign against binge
drinking and that has now introduced legislation enabling it to sue
tobacco companies, this ad was pure hypocrisy.

But if you're going to argue -- as Wall and the Saskatchewan Party
did this week -- that you should be governing on the basis of your
moral superiority, you'd better not get caught doing something even
more hypocritical.

And a lot of people would likely find it far more hypocritical for a
political party to take donations from tobacco companies and their
lobbyist while it is simultaneously complaining about the province's
long waiting lists for cancer surgery. Unfortunately, not many of
those people seem to inhabit the Saskatchewan Party caucus.

"That (Imperial Tobacco) money was before the last the election so
that was under a different leadership, so I think that's past,"
Draude told reporters Thursday after raising the NDP ad and then
finding out about her own party's tobacco contributions.

"I think what they've got to do is be really clear. Are you going to
be in favour of this or not in favour?" Draude said. "Are you
accepting money or not accepting money? What is the message you're
sending out to people? At the end of the day, that is what the
question is. What is the message?

"You can't have a mixed message. I admit that we did take money from
a tobacco company. We're not going to do it any more. I'm asking them
(the NDP) to be as clear."

But isn't accepting money from a tobacco company while some of your
own party members are voting against a public smoking ban also a
mixed message, ma'am? In fairness, maybe that's a question that
should be addressed by the party's leader.

"I think June answered the question," a terse Wall told later
reporters before launching his own tirade over "the hypocrisy -- the
double standard" of the NDP government.

But when did the Saskatchewan Party stop taking money from tobacco
companies and their lobbyists who buy tickets to the leader's dinner?

"It doesn't matter when we made that decision," Wall snapped. "The
decision is made."

So was this a past party policy?

"There wasn't a policy in the past that said we will accept money
from tobacco companies," Wall responded. "We just fund-raised and
companies supported the party. When I became aware that this had
happened, I made the decision we are not going to be doing this any more."

And when did your awareness occur?

"My awareness occurred today (Thursday) that we received the $10,000
donation," the Saskatchewan Party leader said.

Wall explained that he doesn't "pore over the list of donors from the
last election" because "there's a certain importance to not knowing
who provides this party money."

This comes as a huge relief, because one would hate to think all
those donations to the Saskatchewan Party from implement
manufacturers and others lobbying to change union certification and
decertification laws had anything to do with party policy. (Heck, it
might lead one to suspect those union contributions to the NDP's 2003
campaign had some relationship to former labour minister Deb Higgins'
announcement three years ago that her government was going to
implement available-hours legislation.)

"Does anyone have any questions with respect to the fact that, on the
one hand, the government of the day -- and the (Saskatchewan Party)
Opposition by the way -- is saying that second-hand smoke and public
smoking is a danger and we ought to be moving against it and moving
to de-normalize tobacco," a haughty Wall quizzed reporters Thursday.
"And yet they're, seemingly, moving to normalize marijuana, including
accepting a giant ad in their booklet from a group that wants it
(marijuana) to be smoked in cafes? I think that's a reasonable question."

It sure does seem like a reasonable question, sir. And we
addle-brained reporters do welcome a politician's assistance on what
questions we should be asking you.

But, we sometimes come up with our own imaginative questions: "Does
that parade of cancer victims through the rotunda know you're taking
money from tobacco companies and their lobbyists?" "Where was your
abhorrence for second-smoke when Yogi Huyghebaert, Bob Bjornerud, Allan

Kerpan and Greg Brkich all voted against the province's 2004 indoor
smoking ban?"

"Wasn't smoking unacceptable a few years prior to 2003 -- like in
1966, when the U.S. Surgeon General first linked smoking to cancer?"

Frankly, it would have been more impressive had Wall demonstrated a
little contrition and said: "I'm sorry, we screwed up. We're taking
that $10,000 in tobacco company blood money and donating to the
Canadian Cancer Society."

But I guess when you're ahead in the polls, you don't have to be contrite.

All you have to do is stand in the rotunda and call the other guys
hypocrites . . . and hope no one figures out you're being a little
hypocritical, yourself.