Mostly competent government

Since the examples are piling up and pogge is nowhere to be found, let's quickly list off the latest examples of the kind of management Canada's corporate press so strongly endorsed.

Promises made with no funding or follow-through solely for the purpose of eliminating consumer rights as an election issue? Check.

And needless and wasteful duplication of polling which either reflects a complete lack of coordination between departments, or a deliberate attempt to split up the costs? Check.

But in fairness, let's note that the Cons have shown at least some capacity for learning: for example, taking from the Brian Mulroney experience that...they should listen less to the public. Which surely figures to end well.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Scott Brison is partly right in dismissing the Con-based talk about a possible agreement with the NDP on the budget. But the story only seems to have gone anywhere because the Libs themselves have been so eager to parrot the Cons' spin that the NDP would support the Harper government notwithstanding that its position has been clear on the Cons' corporatist focus:

Mr. Mulcair said the NDP wants future corporate cuts to be more targeted to ensure companies are investing in jobs and productivity.

“If the budget includes the same type of blind, across-the-board corporate tax cut that the Conservatives have been doing in the past, it is highly unlikely that the NDP caucus would ever be able to support such a budget,” said Mr. Mulcair.

- John Ibbitson's year-end review of the Cons nicely highlights Stephen Harper's seven-dimensional ultrachess at work:

The morning of the vote, Lawrence Cannon arrived at the United Nations absolutely confident that Canada would win a temporary seat on the Security Council, according to someone who was close to the situation. His diplomats had assured him they had more than enough written and verbal commitments to win one of the two seats up for grabs.

When Canada came up short on the first round of voting, the Foreign Affairs Minister “was absolutely astounded,” according to one source. So certain were the Canadians of victory in the first round, they lacked a strategy to build momentum in the second round. The delegation sat there, dumbfounded, as votes drained away.

And once again, it's well worth wondering whether the Cons' hubris may well result in similarly surprising results at home.

- Yes, I understand the appeal of using anti-tax language against the Cons. But can we agree that a message that the CPP and EI should be seen as "common villains" might not be one that deserves repeating?

- And finally, Preston Manning offers up a short story about the Underpants Gnome Privatization Theory of Health Care. I'd suggest that he stick to his day job, but he's probably doing less damage as long as he's writing extremely short fiction.

Soaked

Shorter Lawrence Cannon:

In keeping with our continued commitment to transparency on Afghanistan, we vehemently refuse to comment on documents which could possibly call our talking points into question.

The reviews are in

John Moore offers a reminder of which federal party and leader has had the right idea all along when it comes to the future of Afghanistan:

Afghanistan is not Europe. And the Taliban are not the Nazis. Afghanistan is a Godforsaken country of largely illiterate peasants loosely affiliated with rival tribes and gangs. If every last member of the Taliban was magically lifted from the land it’s possible nothing would change. This isn’t Holland waiting for western liberation. It’s a country so riven with violence and instability that citizens show loyalty to no one lest they find themselves on the wrong side should the fighting ever stop.

So yes, sometimes you have to talk to the enemy. In fact post-WW2 realpolitik has shown sometimes you even have to get into bed with the enemy.

So almost four years after Layton suggested talking with the Taliban the minister acknowledges this is now official policy. For a guy who was labeled a soldier-hater and a Taliban-lover Jack Layton is remarkably gracious about the turnaround. I asked him recently if he was planning to ask for an apology and he demurred. “As long as the right thing gets done I don’t really care”.

There’s another lesson the Conservatives could learn from the NDP leader. He’s man enough to set partisanship aside when his rivals are actually getting something right.

The bill comes due

The inevitable consequences of Conadscam (remember that?) are just now starting to materialize. And not surprisingly, the Cons are panicking at the realization of what they've wrought by making up their worst excuses yet. Shorter Cons now that several of their cabinet ministers are in danger of being prosecuted:

As a matter of free speech, we're entitled to make up whatever numbers we want in reporting our electoral expenses.

Must-reads of the day

You shouldn't need me to point out that Paul Wells' latest posts on Rights and Democracy are worth a look. But if you need a sample...

What to conclude from all this? I take it as a sign of progress. That last time the Conservatives sicced a notorious separatist with a shaky ethical past on a politically-motivated witch hunt, they had the separatist do the witch hunting. Now they are farming the witch hunt and the separatist-hiring out to different branches. Diversity is good!

On non-consultation

Lawrence Cannon has a rather interesting definition of consulting with Canada's political parties - at least, if his spin on what's to come with Rights and Democracy is any indication:

Interviews to select a new president are under way, and opposition parties will be consulted once a successor to Mr. Beauregard has been chosen.

So just as soon as it's too late to change anything, the opposition will be told which Con hack has been put in charge. Don't you feel better about Rights and Democracy's future knowing that cross-partisan interests are being protected with such care?

Just so we're clear...

...in trying to look busy to avoid accountability for their decision to take a two-month holiday, the Cons couldn't come up with more than 13 audio-free seconds of footage of Harper and a few of his minions sitting around a table. And they couldn't even generate that much without prominently featuring Rob Nicholson looking directly into the camera and shifting uncomfortably.

Which raises obvious questions: how long did five senior cabinet ministers spend around the table trying to impersonate serious decision-makers? A half an hour? The better part of December? And what happened in the rest of the time to make this the best footage the Cons could come up with?

Update: In comments, Malcolm points out another highly unusual aspect of the "meeting":

The only kind of minister who briefs the PM without officials in tow is a stupid minister. If this was a real security briefing (as opposed to a method acting workshop?), there would be military, RCMP and Public Safety folk in the room.

On standards of proof

Shorter Lawrence Cannon:

My main concern about the apparent reality that the Con government is complicit in torture is the quality of evidence supporting the accusation. And I've got self-serving hearsay to prove it.

Shocked...

...is what I'd be if the Cons weren't regularly taking private positions siding with corporate interests over Canadians in general despite their public pretense to the contrary. Which means that their dishonesty on airline passengers' consumer rights comes as no surprise at all.

Burning question

Is it all that shocking that the Cons were indifferent to the prospect that Abousfian Abdelrazik might be killed by a foreign government when they're publicly giving the go-ahead to the deaths of other Canadians abroad?

(Edit: added label.)

The reviews are in

Chris Selley:

Quite apart from the absurdity of the condition, Foreign Affairs itself had until recently been petitioning to have Abdelrazik’s name stricken from that list, citing all-clear verdicts from CSIS, the RCMP and Sudanese intelligence. Also, the blacklist doesn’t prevent anyone on it from returning home. Nevertheless, Mr. Cannon made it official yesterday: "I denied Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport on the basis of national security,” he said. No further explanation was forthcoming.

What the hell is going on here? The idea that Foreign Affairs is digging in its heels simply to avoid being seen to back down implies a lack of foresight and a level of sociopathy that I’m not willing to ascribe to Cannon, or to most cabinet ministers for that matter...

In case it actually needs to be said, the government knowing or suspecting something about a Canadian citizen isn’t enough to essentially exile him. Ottawa’s incredibly churlish behaviour on this file—endlessly setting conditions, then arbitrarily changing them when they’re met—brings the very foundations of government and citizenship into disrepute. It has to stop.

Scary thought for the day

From Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, every other country that had nationals in Guantanamo fulfilled their basic obligations and got them out, every country but Canada.

Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler says that attempts over the past year and a half to speak to senior officials at the Prime Minister's office or in the Department of Justice or the Department of Public Safety have met with the same closed door. This is no way to treat a Canadian.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to raise the issue of Omar Khadr when he meets with President Obama next week?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, officials in my department have carried out regular discussions with both the defence and the prosecution in this case. I also want to point out that consular services have been offered to this individual. He is being treated as any other Canadian citizen in detention would be treated.

Now, it seems fairly obvious that Cannon is far off base. But considering the lengths the Cons have gone to in refusing to assist Khadr, how damning would his claim be if it's true?

Just so long as I'm the dictator

Shorter Lawrence Cannon:
I'd find it far easier to do business internationally if it weren't for pesky nuisances like "democracy" and "responsible government".

The Pork Barrel Steam Train

Your latest example of the Harper government's patronage-first approach in action: at the request of one Con MP (Lawrence Cannon), another Con MP (Jean-Pierre Blackburn) rewrote the rules of an economic development program intended to develop infrastructure in poorer parts of Quebec in order to funnel $2 million to a steam train operator in Cannon's riding which wasn't included in the program's mandate.

No word yet about any response from the regions who were supposed to be on the receiving end of the money. Or from the Cons' Reform base which split from the Mulroney PCs over exactly the same type of behaviour. But it would seem to me to be worth the opposition parties' effort to make sure the Cons' latest example of putting political interests over proper administration of federal programs doesn't go unpunished elsewhere.

Alone in the world

The Harper regime obviously isn't wasting any time trying to shape Barack Obama's stay in office. But for all the misleading talk about the Cons' plans fitting in with Obama's, there are plenty of important differences - including one in particular where Bush's departure will put the Cons offside from the U.S. (along with most of the rest of the world):

U.S. environmentalists argue that Ottawa's approach to climate change is inconsistent with a serious effort to reduce emissions, and insist the oil sands represent the kind of dirty sources of crude oil that a new administration should be most worried about.

“The trend in the United States is a much greater focus on lower-carbon fuels and promoting energy efficiency,” said Liz Barratt-Brown, a senior lawyer with Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

“That approach does not bar tar sands, but it would make it much more difficult for refiners and blenders to lower the carbon content of their fuels if they are relying more on high-carbon supplies from Canada.”

California has already passed regulations that require gasoline marketers to reduce the carbon emissions from their fuel sources, and require them to account for those emissions right back to the production source.

Mr. Obama's campaign platform promised a similar approach, which has also been included in climate-change bills that have been introduced in Congress.

Ms. Barratt-Brown noted that, unlike U.S. plans, Canada's approach does not include a firm cap on emissions, but instead uses an “intensity target” which regulates emissions on the basis of production levels.

Needless to say, there's no apparent reason why Obama would want to undermine his own emission reduction plan by allowing the Cons to dictate the terms of any climate change deal. Which means that if the Cons do manage to get Obama to talk about the kind of deal they're now pushing, they'll soon face a choice of either admitting that their approach all along has been woefully inadequate, or scuttling their own talks due to an insistence on letting the oil sands off the hook for emission increases.

Internal considerations

There's been plenty of talk about the Cons' cabinet shuffle. But so far I haven't seen much more than hints at what strikes me as the most likely impact of the new structure: while the changes figure to do little to modify how the Cons govern, they may do plenty to consolidate Stephen Harper's hold on power within the party.

The most obvious example, picked up to some extent by the CP, is the decision to put Jim Prentice in Environment. But the story there isn't merely some slight perceived demotion for the most obvious heir apparent to Harper.

After all, the Cons have made clear all along that they don't plan on introducing anything but weak, loophole-ridden "intensity" targets as their means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. But it's Prentice who will not not only have to introduce the final regulations, but also take ministerial responsibility for the first couple of years when some targets actually take effect. And while the Cons' plans stood little chance of getting much done at the best of times, it's particularly improbable that Canadian industry will meet targets which are tied to output during the course of an economic downturn which will make it difficult to invest in new technology or increase production.

Which means that Harper has ensured that Prentice will spend the next couple of years under heavy opposition fire, and likely wind up personally wearing the failure of a policy which was never designed to succeed.

And that may not even be the most damaging effect on Prentice's future. While the Cons' plan is doomed to fail, it also needs to be presented to the public in a way which at least pays lip service to the reality of climate change. Which in turn will hurt Prentice's standing with the denialists who form so much of the Cons' western base.

So in one move, Harper has simultaneously ensured that both the opposition and a substantial chunk of the Cons' core support will end up turning against his most obvious possible successor.

Who else might otherwise have been able to launch a credible challenge to Harper? I'd think that next in line would have been Lawrence Cannon, who's likely the lone Quebec MP who might be seen as having the heft to potentially convince voters from the province to abandon the Bloc. But as has already been noted, Cannon has been moved against his will to a position which will keep him too focused on international affairs to focus on building a personal power base.

And as an added bonus, the MP with the next-best chance of making the same type of case, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, has also been shuffled out of a position which would seem to allow him to connect with voters to one which is seen as both a relative insult, and one which leaves little room to build any popularity.

So who ended up in the plum positions which would seem to offer a platform for advancement? Well, Jim Flaherty remains in Finance. But whatever his ambitions might be, any minister who's gone out of his way to insult his home province can probably be ruled out as a real leadership threat. And John Baird takes over the pork opportunities linked to Transport and Infrastructure - when he isn't busy accompanying the current leader's wife to social events.

Which means that it's a real challenge to try to figure out who might have the best chance of making a future case for leadership based on a current ministerial role. Rob Nicholson remaining at Justice? Tony Clement at Industry? Jason Kenney at Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism? Christian Paradis remaining at Public Works?

What does seem safe to say is that if those are Harper's biggest internal threats, then he can likely hold onto the Cons' leadership as long as he wants it. And considering how little impact individual ministers have been allowed to have in actually managing their portfolios, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that's the main reason why Harper set up the cabinet how he did.

Some perspective

Lawrence Cannon may not be happy about being put in Foreign Affairs. But imagine what the hundred-odd Con MPs who likely want the position think about being passed over for somebody who doesn't.

On negative inferences

As embarrassing as the Bernier report may seem to be, it's worth noting how useful some of its logic may turn out to be later on.

After all, the report's basis for assigning blame almost entirely to Julie Couillard was her refusal to be interviewed for the benefit of the investigation in the absence of any obligation to do so. Which lines up rather nicely with the tactic being taken by Con MPs caught up in Conadscam, who are apparently planning to refuse to appear before the Ethics Committee which is investigating the scandal (with its own report presumably to follow).

Like Couillard, the MPs under investigation are entirely within their rights to refuse to defend or explain their actions. But based on exactly the reasoning which the Cons apparently found to be entirely valid when it comes to Couillard, the MPs caught up in the scheme - including Stockwell Day, Lawrence Cannon, Christian Paradis and Josee Verner among others - can expect to join Couillard in facing a public inference of guilt until they do so.

Standard imports

Shorter Lawrence Cannon:
I'm looking forward to introducing our Made-In-Canada vehicle emission targets. There's just one holdup: can anybody confirm that Washington, D.C. is part of Canada?

(Edit: typo.)