On coalition-losing

I'll stand by my conclusion that the NDP's focus for now needs to be on making inroads in Quebec. But the Cons have made it mighty tempting to look to the West first with their inexplicable - and thus far unexplained - decision to cancel the planned transfer of a fleet of hopper cars to a coalition of grain farmers:

The new federal Conservative government has scrubbed a long-anticipated sale of 12,000 grain hopper cars to a coalition of farm groups.

Western farmers had struck a $205-million agreement-in-principle with the former Liberal government just before the federal election.

But Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced Thursday he will not proceed with the deal, which had been 10 years in the making.

The government will maintain ownership of the cars instead, and will cap the amount rail companies can charge farmers for maintenance.

"A decision had to be made. We made a decision," Cannon said outside the Commons.

"I think it's in the best interests of Canadians. It's also in the best interests of the people that are involved."

Of course, it helps to defend one decision with a stronger argument than "It's done. We did it. And we won't tell you why." And needless to say, the actual people involved are far from agreeing with the Cons' conclusion as to their best interests:

Sinclair Harrison, president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, which negotiated the sale with Ottawa, said he felt betrayed by the announcement...

The National Farmers Union said Thursday its members wanted some ownership stake in the transportation of their products...

The other problem, Boehm said, was that farmers had a plan to replace aging cars. The government made no mention in its announcement of how it will ensure that railways maintain the same-sized fleet.

On the surface, the decision seems to run contrary to anything the Cons could possibly want to accomplish. After all, it leaves the cars in government hands when a group of private operators was willing to take over. And it certainly doesn't seem to be meeting with a positive response from the Cons' rural base.

Moreover, it's hard to see how anybody stands to benefit from the decision: the railways presumably won't be too happy with the reduced maintenance rates, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling benefit for the government in maintaining ownership of the cars. We'll see if some interest affected leaps to the Cons' defence, but on the surface there's no apparent reason why anybody would.

With all those negatives, only two flimsy explanations seem to present themselves as to why the Cons would undo the deal.

First, it could be that the Cons decided that the deal fell into the category of "things which are inherently evil since the Libs had something to do with them". I tend to have my doubts on this one: it seems to me that the opportunity to take credit for the end result would be a more compelling interest than trying to avoid Chretien cooties.

More dangerously, perhaps the Cons don't want to create a positive example of what farmers can do as a united group for fear that it'll affect the Cons' plans to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. This seems to be at least a plausible belief for Harper and company, but it could easily backfire. I have to figure there's a non-trivial chance that the Cons' action will drive the members of the Rail Car Coalition to make sure the Wheat Board is defended by an even more concerted effort, and of course the NDP will be waiting to present itself as the defender of farmers' ability to band together to improve their lot.

One way or the other, the Cons have wasted no time in showing that farmers' needs won't be any better served under Harper than they were under the Libs. And the pattern of Lib inaction followed by Con destruction is one that the NDP will be able to point out on this issue among so many others.

Update: Alex Atamanenko is on the case.