On sugar-coating

We've seen this all before. When word about the TILMA first started reaching a national audience, every apologist for the deal managed to simultaneously develop a deep concern about hay-stacking and margarine regulations, an equally deep concern that other Canadians shouldn't bother worrying about matters as dull as hay-stacking and margarine regulations, and a devout belief that the TILMA would deal with only those regulations and nothing more. Which led naturally to a barrage of commentary questioning how anybody could possibly care enough to oppose the TILMA.

Of course, the whole argument was ludicrous based on the actual terms of the TILMA. Whatever the merits of dealing with hay and margarine alone, the fact of the matter was that the TILMA was designed with a scope wide enough to threaten literally any government action. And from a practical standpoint, the pro-TILMA argument was patently dishonest, as every minute spent trying to push the broad agreement was a minute which could have been far more productively spent actually reconciling non-controversial regulations.

Fortunately, both the text of the TILMA and the well-cooked evidence which supposedly supported it were both made subject to public scrutiny. And as a result, enough reality seeped into the discussion (at least in Saskatchewan) to stop the TILMA from spreading east of Alberta.

But if there's anything a Con won't do, it's to acknowledge that a strategy has failed. And so, when it comes to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Deceivin' Stephen himself has taken on the role of pretending that the whole process is beneath any public attention or question, with an even more innocuous-sounding example:

Harper said it was important to work together, giving an example of a business leader who manufactured jelly beans but had to maintain separate inventories because the content rules were different in Canada and the United States.

"Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean? You know, I don't think so," he said.

Unfortunately, so far Harper hasn't faced even the slightest challenge in his attempt to minimize the SPP: even some columnists who should know better have accepted the spin without question rather than applying the tiniest bit of scrutiny to Harper's diversion.

Which is a shame, since Harper's attempt to characterize the SPP process is at best misleading. Surely even the most Kool-Aid-addled Harper supporter, if pressed, would be forced to acknowledge that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico haven't entered into an extensive, multi-year set of high-level meetings and consultations based on candy-related issues alone. Which means that Harper's decision to change the subject to jelly beans is at best a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real issues - whatever those may be.

Of course, in the case of the SPP, there are plenty of questions about just what the real issues are. In contrast, the text of the TILMA was at least open for public analysis once it was signed by B.C. and Alberta - meaning that those concerned about the agreement could deal directly with what its proponents had actually developed. In contrast, nothing about the SPP process has been made the least bit accessible to anybody but the participants - which can only give rise to reasonable suspicions about what's going on that's being hidden from the public.

In that respect, it may well be true that the current SPP discussions aren't currently addressing the thorniest possibilities, such as currency integration and bulk water exports. But if the leaders were genuinely concerned about speculation about such talks, then the obvious answer is for the leaders involved to open up the SPP talks to demonstrate just what is going on - rather than to make obviously misleading statements about what's happening, and then blame the very people who are being denied information for not having concrete evidence behind their concerns.

So why haven't the leaders involved acted on the desire of even some SPP supporters to see the process opened up? As best I can tell, they likely see it as easier to cast aspersions against specific opponents rather than actually having to justify the process as a whole. As long as the main question is a matter of trust or distrust as to what's actually going on, the political fallout is likely to be negligible: those likely to be suspicious of the negotiators anyway may get all the more frustrated, but the lack of substantive information flowing either way ensures that the the battle is largely fought to a draw.

In contrast, there's substantially greater political risk if public attention instead narrows to the concrete issues. For example, Harper would face the task of trying to publicly defend policies which many Canadians - including those who might otherwise be willing to consider a Con vote - will have serious reason to doubt. And even the nearly air-tight SPP process has let out some major ones such as no-fly lists, weaker pesticide standards, and unquestioned acceptance of politicized data.

Unfortunately, mainstream coverage of the SPP has neither called out Harper for his diversion tactics, nor reported widely on the issues which have already been identified as part of the SPP process. Which may well be exactly the result the Cons have been counting on all along - but which only ensures that Canadians will have ever more reason to worry about what Deceivin' Stephen is hiding from them.