On glass houses

Omar Alghabra might want to have a word with his party's leader - or vice versa. Omar Alghabra:

The EI debate: Canadians are being deprived a meaningful debate

It is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate with the Conservatives and Stephen Harper. They are more interested in one upmanship games than articulating what it is that they stand for.

Michael Ignatieff:

Although Liberals believe the EI bill "falls radically short of serious employment insurance reform," Ignatieff said they want to expedite its passage.

Alghabra:

It appears that the Conservatives have no vision and don’t know what they believe in. They are mostly interested in humiliating their opponents rather than engage in policy debates.

Ignatieff:

The Liberals have offered to speed passage of Tory EI legislation, hoping to rob the NDP of its rationale for propping up the Harper government.
...
The move is clearly designed to embarrass NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has said his party will prop up the government at least until the EI reforms are implemented.

"We don't want to give Mr. Layton any alibis," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.

And in case there's any doubt, I'd fully agree with the strategy of seeking to pass the bill quickly as a means of getting help to workers. But shouldn't the Libs have at least some shame about using their criticisms of the Cons as a blueprint for their own actions?

(Edit: fixed wording and link.)

Unhealthy

The Cons' excuses for answers in yesterday's Question Period look to have been even more lacking in substance and plausibility than usual - perhaps on the assumption that nobody would notice thanks to Deceivin' Stephen's latest attempt to provoke election speculation. But even with some fierce competition from his colleagues, Tony Clement once again manages to stand out in delivering the most nonsensical responses of all:

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, MDS Nordion testified in committee today that it informed senior natural resources officials of the shortage in nuclear isotopes. Guess when? It was on November 22.

It conveyed a great sense of urgency and it warned of a global shortage of isotopes, yet the Minister of Natural Resources claims he did not know until December 3 and apparently he did not bother telling the Minister of Health until December 5.

Why did the Minister of Natural Resources put Canadian lives at risk because of his incompetence?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we have heard everything from all sides from Liberal opposition members. One week they are saying we did not act soon enough and on another week they are saying we should have acted sooner...

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the more that minister emphasizes the fiasco, the deeper the hole he digs for himself.

We learned today that MDS Nordion knew on November 21. We know now that natural resources knew on November 22, but the minister claims he did not know until December 3.

We also know that the nuclear medicine industry knew on November 27, yet the Minister of Health claims he did not know until December 5. Who is telling the truth? Exactly what level of incompetence is needed before one is kicked out of cabinet?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
I guess, Mr. Speaker, that this week the Liberal opposition question is: why did we not act sooner? Last week it was: why did we not act?

The question is this. When is the opposition going to show leadership on that side of the House? One week it is, why do we not act and the next week it is simply, why do we not act sooner?

That's right: the Cons' idea of a "gotcha" is to trap the opposition saying first that the government should have acted sooner, and then...that it should have acted sooner. And even the later correction doesn't make any particular sense, as there's no reason why it would be inconsistent to say both that the Cons acted too late and that they did too little to prevent an isotope shortage.

But let's give Clement some credit for indirectly answering at least one of Alghabra's questions. After all, this is just one more indication that no amount of illogic or incompetence is enough to force Stephen Harper to admit that one of his cabinet ministers isn't up to the job.

On enablers

As JimBobby and others in the progressive blogosphere have suspected for months, the Cons and their minions are floating trial balloons about privatization at AECL. But while it's no great shock to see the Cons pushing for a selloff, it's disturbing to see that the Libs don't seem the least bit interested in challenging the idea:

(Harper-appointed former AECL chair) Mike Burns says the Crown corporation that he used to oversee is losing money in the isotope business and is having problems bringing the new Maple reactors online. He says the solution lies with private industry.

"Nobody is happy. Government is not happy about putting the money in, Canadians aren't happy about having to pay. We've got out of the airline business, we've got out of the petroleum business ... That's what we should be focusing on," Burns sold Sun Media...

"Isotopes are a little business in which we lose a lot of money," said Burns.

"(AECL) needs more private sector content in the company to make it work," he said, explaining that Crown corporations cannot borrow money to invest.

Burns said an ideal solution would be to follow the model of the French nuclear company Areva which is a publicly traded company in which the French government owns 90% of the shares but the corporation is free to borrow funds against future profits.

Omar Alghabra, the Liberal Natural Resources critic, said a public-private partnership was a possible solution to the current atomic crisis.

"There are certainly good arguments for privatization but a decision like that should not be taken lightly," he said.

So what's wrong with Alghabra's response? First and most obviously, he looks entirely happy to play along with the Cons' assertion that their mismanagement should be classified as an "atomic crisis" which requires some drastic action.

But even if one assumes something needs to be done, it's worth noting the utter disconnect between the supposed problem and the proposed solution. After all, if isotope production is indeed a money-losing enterprise, then it stands to reason that a focus on turning a profit will only ensure that it becomes less of a priority. In contrast, a public decision to make needed funding a priority would be the only practical way to ensure that isotopes are actually available in the future.

Of course, the Cons can be expected to present "solutions" which funnel money into corporate hands without actually solving anything. But if the Libs are willing to accept the Cons' reasons for doing so while (at best) quibbling over implementation issues, then it'll be all the more difficult for progressives to ensure that Harper isn't able to decimate the public sector.