On liabilities

It's been difficult enough for opposition MPs to try to wring any meaningful information out of a government which has made a habit of responding to questions with lawsuits rather than bona fide answers. But a decision by Parliament's Ethics Commissioner raises serious questions about the ability of opposition members to do their job:

A Liberal MP has been barred from asking questions on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair in Parliament, raising fears that a libel chill is set to extend into the House and committee rooms on the Hill.

Up until this week, Liberal MP Robert Thibault had been one of the opposition party's main questioners on the cash dealings between former prime minister Brian Mulroney and businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

However, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has barred Mr. Thibault from raising the issue further in Parliament because Mr. Mulroney has launched a $2-million lawsuit against Mr. Thibault for allegedly libellous statements on CTV Newsnet on the matter.

Ms. Dawson ruled that according to the conflict-of-interest code, Mr. Thibault now has a "private interest" in the controversy and he cannot debate or vote on issues related to it.

In the absence of the lawsuit, Mr. Thibault could have continued to say anything on the matter in Parliament, given that parliamentary privilege protects MPs from being sued for what they say in the House or at committee.

However, the Ethics Commissioner said the conflict-of-interest code, as it stands, clearly affects Mr. Thibault's rights as an MP.

She found that Mr. Thibault was wrong to participate in the ethics committee's probe of the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, including asking questions directly to Mr. Mulroney last December. Mr. Mulroney announced his intention to sue last November and filed the suit in January.

"I am of the view that lawsuits claiming damages that have been instituted against an individual constitute a liability," Ms. Dawson's ruling said.

"His participation in the work of the Committee could reasonably be seen to be potentially influenced by his private interest, thus interfering with his public duties and functions and clearly creating a situation of real or apparent conflict of interest," she said.

What's worse is that the Cons have already been less than shy about using SLAPPs to distract or shut down opposition - even when there was no direct consequence to continuing a line of questioning after such a claim had been filed. Now, Dawson's decision raises the prospect that any future lawsuit can force opposition MPs to keep quiet under penalty of punishment by the Ethics Commissioner even if the claim itself is frivolous.

It remains to be seen whether the opposition responds by looking to amend the ethics code to avoid the problem. But that itself would seem problematic in giving the Cons an opening both to slam the opposition for limiting the definition of a conflict of interest, and to justify far more serious conflicts of their own. Which means that opposition MPs will face a tough choice whether to take a needed public stand to preserve their ability to properly hold the government accountable - or accept the risk that the Cons will render that even more difficult in the future.

The nuclear option

When Berlynn posted last week about the possibility of the Wall government pushing for a nuclear reactor within the province, my initial take was that the Sask Party would have to be crazy to make that their main issue. And while SaskPower's report on possible reactor sites may be stirring up debate, I'm not sure it changes the political calculus at all.

As I've noted before, the argument for nuclear development is at best a tough one politically for lack of any natural constituency which would back the construction of a reactor. Obviously the would-be profiteers would have a strong incentive to push any project, but even voters most concerned about economic development can recognize that other, better options are available.

After all, SaskPower's report only confirms that Saskatchewan's demand for electricity isn't great enough to justify a nuclear plant on its own. Even with the proposed Lake Diefenbaker site singled out for its relative proximity to areas which might actually use the electricity, it's still clear that a significant chunk of any power generated would have to be exported (and wasted in part through long-distance transmission). Which would make Saskatchewan an odd place to put a nuclear reactor even if one is prepared generally to accept the risks that come with one.

Perhaps more importantly, in a province where contractors are already in short supply and high demand, a nuclear megaproject would divert a significant portion of the province's construction capacity. Which would make a reactor more likely to serve as a barrier to economic diversification than to help the economy in the long term.

In sum, the case for a reactor is both weak on its own, and likely to be made by only a few isolated actors. Conversely, though, any nuclear project only figures to serve as a flashpoint for opposition to the Sask Party.

As I noted in commenting on Berlynn's post, at least two groups would have obvious reasons for coalescing in opposition to nuclear development. Environmentalists will naturally point out the risks of nuclear power generally as well as the waste issue, while supporters of the Crowns will have every reason to be wary of any plan which would involve privatizing power profits.

But in addition to those two groups, plenty of others will have reason to want to join up in opposition - whether it's rural municipalities and businesses who would rather see economic development fostered across the province rather than focused on a single point, residents concerned about the danger to water within Lake Diefenbaker and other sources, proponents of other types of power, or others who join into the fray.

And if that type of coalition ends up spending the better part of the next three years opposing the Sask Party in its largest and highest-profile project, it only stands to reason that the same actors will be both highly motivated and well-positioned to end Wall's term in office in 2011.

Not that that's stopped at least one cabinet minister from suggesting that the Sask Party would want to commit to a reactor during its first term. But faced with the choice between pushing an issue which is bound to bring together the strongest possible opposition and focusing his attention on measures which won't do as much to harm his chances of a second term, I still find it surprising that Wall would even consider choosing the first option.

On wedge issues

The Globe and Mail reports that the Libs are laying the groundwork for a carbon tax/tax shifting proposal to be their policy centrepiece in the next federal election. What's most interesting about the framework being discussed now, though, is that it provides just as strong an opening for the NDP as for the Libs in drawing a distinction from the Cons' status quo:

Stéphane Dion is poised to unveil a carbon-tax scheme and attempt to neutralize any political damage by offering corresponding personal income tax cuts of between $10-billion and $13-billion to working Canadians, senior Liberal sources say.

The Liberal Leader wants this major environmental policy to be the centrepiece of the party's election campaign platform, according to the sources, and is anxious to reveal it this summer to give Canadians a chance to digest the idea before a federal election.

The plan, according to sources, would shift the 10-cent federal excise tax on a litre of fuel at the pumps into a broad-based carbon tax that would also apply to other fuels, such as for home heating. Sources say that the plan would not add more taxes to gasoline.

But the key is that the money raised – estimated as much as $17-billion – would be returned to middle-class and working Canadians in personal income tax cuts, making it revenue neutral. There could be corporate tax cuts as well.

Let's note first the most obvious critique of the plan, as it would necessarily impose a burden on either individuals or businesses who currently rely on carbon-based fuels and don't have the money sitting around to compensate with new equipment. My initial hunch is that the divide would likely break down along urban/rural lines, with city-based Canadians likely having far more alternatives available (and thus likely coming out ahead in the shift), while rural-based ones would face far more difficulty in adapting.

Now, the Libs could conceivably try to tweak their proposal to avoid this result. But for those of us who want to see Harper removed from office, such a dividing line could prove to be a feature rather than a bug.

After all, the NDP likely wouldn't mind targeting a campaign message toward those who would stand to be most directly harmed by the Libs' plan. Having already taken up the cause of pointing out how gas-price gouging affects Canadians, the NDP would be well-positioned to emphasize that its price-regulation proposal would reduce the costs of the same fuels which the Libs would plan to tax. And on the balance, the NDP would stand a strong chance of gaining more from the Cons by campaigning on more affordable supplies in rural areas than it would lose to the Libs in the cities.

Meanwhile, the Cons would have little option but to argue for a status quo where high fuel prices serve only to pump money into the oil and gas industry. At best, they might try to counter by cutting existing gas taxes. But the NDP could bash that as simply putting more money in the pockets of oil companies, while the Libs would presumably respond by emphasizing the environmental implications of actually encouraging more energy-burning.

In sum, a ballot question based on fuel prices - with the Libs' platform appealing to those who don't use many carbon-based fuels, while the NDP holds the promise of a more affordable approach for those who do while pointing out different means of reducing our emissions in the long term - could easily leave the Cons bleeding support from all sides. And that's the kind of shifting that many Canadians would be glad to see.

Ever more radioactive

The CP reports that while the Cons have refused to answer questions about their position on nuclear power at home, they've been less than shy internationally. And indeed, the Con government may now hold primary responsibility for the potential proliferation of uranium enrichment technology due to the Harper government's apparent desire to push more nuclear development on Canadians:

The Canadian government has been campaigning internationally for months to add this country to the small, tightly circumscribed club of nuclear enrichment states.

But the diplomatic arm-twisting only came to light less than three weeks ago, when the United States announced it was dropping its insistence on a ban on uranium enrichment technology to non-nuclear states.

Anonymous negotiators at the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna emerged to say the American demand had been shelved primarily at the insistence of Canada, which wants to build uranium enrichment plants.

Who knew?

As it turns out, a great many people — but few in Canada and certainly not the news media whose job is to inform the public about federal policy.

Canada's interest in uranium enrichment is controversial because enrichment is the critical step needed in bomb building.

For those wondering how the Cons would respond to the news finally becoming public, however, have no fear - as they've responded with their usual commitment to transparency and full information:

In the wake of the Vienna meeting, requests by The Canadian Press for interviews with Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn or Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier were summarily rejected.

Foreign Affairs said it might be able to arrange a background briefing with officials. But almost two weeks later, the request remains stalled somewhere in the Prime Minister's Office or its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.

While it's never a surprise for the Cons to keep their plans hidden from the public, it's noteworthy that they've taken such a strong position abroad on an issue that they've gone out of their way to hide from at home. And the example of uranium enrichment technology can only force Canadians to ask just what else the Cons have tried to push internationally which might be completely unacceptable to Canadians if the Cons would allow for public debate.

Buying silence

Shorter Con defence purchasing policy:
Never mind price, quality or reputation - our number one requirement is a bidder's willingness to keep its mouth shut.

Losing the blame game

The CP reports on just how thoroughly the Cons' anti-Ontario strategy is backfiring:

The Canadian Press-Harris/Decima poll conducted in the first week of May shows that while Ontarians lay the blame for the poor economy on the door steps of both the federal and provincial governments, when push comes to shove, more choose Ottawa as the bigger culprit.

The survey found that 62 per cent of Ontarians believe the Harper government is not doing enough to help the province from falling into have-not status, whereas only 50 per cent say the same thing about Premier Dalton McGuinty.

If the poll proves anything, it's that the Cons have failed utterly in attempting to inoculate themselves against responsibility for Ontario's relative decline. Instead of shifting any blame onto the shoulders of the McGuinty government, the Cons have at best ensured that both levels of government would be linked to the continued downturn in manufacturing and other key sectors. And the links only seem likely to grow stronger if worse times are in store.

Of course, based on the Cons' latest excuse for an attack on Jack Layton, it looks more and more like the Cons are happy to keep insulting Canada's most populous province to pander elsewhere. But considering that Harper's already-tenuous minority was based on his party managing to win 40 seats in Ontario - many of those by small margins - there's plenty of reason to think the Cons have the most to lose if the battle continues.

Listed

I'll take a moment to remind readers of last year's debate over Bill C-31, when the Cons, Libs and Bloc ignored repeated warnings about the dangers of distributing sensitive personal information to political parties based on the belief that voter lists could never fall into the wrong hands. And if the Cons had applied their current no-amendment rule to the bill which came back from the Senate, there's every reason to think birthdates would in fact be included in the default information available to anybody who could get their hands on an electoral list.

Why might this be worth remembering? Oh, no particular reason.

No defence

A Treasury Board spokesman has confirmed my suspicions about the likely effects of the Cons' decision to shut down the CAIRS database:

A spokesman for the Treasury Board, which oversees Ottawa's access policy, said CAIRS was initially intended to be an internal tool, and that users can now obtain the information by going to federal agencies one by one.

Of course, the obvious result is to make the process for providing the same information more burdensome than it would otherwise have been - for both requesters who will have to make requests to each and every federal agency for the same data they could once get from a single source, and for the agencies who will now have to manually assemble and provide data which was once readily available.

Based on that background, it's particularly comical that Deceivin' Stephen couldn't find any better defence for the decision than to claim that it would somehow reduce "costs and delays" associated with making the information available. But then, on this topic like so many others, the Cons' next honest or believable public statement will be their first.

Another nail in the coffin

Paul Wells points out (and translates) Le Devoir's latest discovery from Conadscam. And if the information already in the public eye didn't seal the Cons' fate, the internal e-mails released today look like they'll do the job: not only had the Cons' central office decided to spend the money in question without ever consulting with the ridings who were supposed to have "incurred" the expenses, but officials then argued internally over which ridings should be tied to the scheme.

Not that this will stop the Cons from trying to deflect, minimize and obfuscate as they have so far. But the gap between the Cons' public pretense and their documented actions just got even wider - and neither the individuals behind the scheme nor the party as a whole figure to avoid their day of reckoning much longer.

Laissez-faire politics

The Hill Times reports on the Libs' hopes that a summer road trip will erase all memory of their propping up the Cons. But what's more important from the article is the Libs' continued insistence that they can count on matters beyond their control to set them up for the next federal election:

After last week's national caucus meeting, Liberal sources told The Hill Times that it's highly unlikely they will trigger an election. It's chiefly because, the sources said, the economy is continuously slowing down which in case of an election would be politically disadvantageous for the Conservatives. As well, Liberals said there's an expectation that Elections Canada could proceed with criminal charges against some of the Conservatives on the so-called "in and out" election financing scheme. Due to these two reasons, sources said Liberals want to wait until the fall as it could give them a political advantage in the next federal election.

Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Ont.) refused to rule out the option that there won't be an election this spring or summer but hinted that his party would prefer to wait.

"There's so much going on with the economy and all these ethical issues and all that ... the leader will decide when he believes all this has come to what I would call the perfect storm," said Mr. Wilfert in an interview with The Hill Times.

It's no wonder that the NDP has been able to gain ground by actually taking the lead in opposing the Cons, rather than hoping that someone or something else will do the work involved in proving to Canadians that Harper and his party need to be removed from office. And voters will have all the more reason to make the NDP their preferred alternative once they realize that Dion and his braintrust have no intention of ending the Libs' tradition of dithering even if they do somehow luck their way into power.

On class war

Shorter Lorne Gunter, joining in on CanWest's pity party for the wealthy:
Statistics Canada's report on income shows that increased inequality in employment income has been balanced out by progressive taxation and social programs. Which somehow proves my point that we don't need progressive taxation or social programs to reduce inequality.

On double-dipping

Following up on this morning's post, let's note that if the Cons did indeed "double-dip" to try to claim both national-level and riding-level rebates for the same polling expenses, expense reports filed with Elections Canada suggest that the Cons would have inflated the riding-level numbers beyond the actual cost of the national polling in the process.

The Winnipeg Free Press identified transfers from candidates' campaigns to the national party totalling $854,000 under the heading of "election surveys or other surveys or research", while the Cons' party return lists only $697,105.00 in expenses under the same category. Which means that if the dollar values refer to the same material, then the Cons would have received rebates totalling $860,952.50 for their initial expenditure: $348,552.50 at the national level, and $512,400 at the riding level. Or in the terms discussed in this morning's post, the Cons would have claimed and received $1.24 in rebates for every dollar spent on surveys and research.

Of course, that kind of return on investment seldom materializes without some significant risk. And it remains to be seen what the Cons' electoral manipulations may wind up costing them.

CAIRSless

Plenty of bloggers have discussed the Cons' decision to kill CAIRS, a program which lists the wording of all access-to-information requests made to the federal government. But I haven't yet seen any detailed discussion of how eliminating the program figures to actually change the public's ability to access government information - and it's worth noting that the effect might be slightly different than it seems at first glance.

In particular, the elimination of CAIRS won't do anything to change the federal government's obligation to provide the same information when it's requested. Assuming the Cons won't somehow try to declare that the contents of access requests are now exempt from disclosure in some way (and that may well not be a safe assumption), it'll still be open to the website currently maintaining a public CAIRS database to continue to do the same.

What does figure to change, though, is the difficulty in gathering the same information. In particular, there won't be a central source from which a government-wide list of requests can be obtained. Instead, it'll be necessary to either contact each department for its list of requests then compile that information to make it available, or request government-wide records from a single source who would then be required to contact other government sources for the full information.

Assuming that researchers have found CAIRS to be a valuable tool, I'd expect somebody to keep requesting the information. But what happens once the requests are made?

Remember that a number of federal departments are already under fire for being unable to respond to access to information requests in a timely manner. Now, the employees responsible for information requests will face an extra burden in trying to manage requests based on the information previously recorded in CAIRS - and of course with no hint that the Cons will make up for that extra burden with any added resources.

At best, it would seem likely that federal departments could plan to collect the same information manually in order to have it available once it's requested. But from this angle, it looks like the height of inefficiency to dismantle a centralized and automated system in favour of requiring departments to manually collect the same information based on the virtual certainty that it'll be requested.

And if any department doesn't think ahead far enough to collect the information in advance (or otherwise decides it would rather drag out the process than provide the information), the result will be a delay in making the information available to the public.

As a result, and again assuming that the Cons won't try to break from the past by withholding the wording of access requests, the CAIRS decision seems to fall more in the category of throwing a monkey wrench into the works of the federal government, rather than that of a radical move toward added secrecy. But either way, it looks to be a symptom of Con views which are antithetical to effective government.

On services rendered

It looks like Walkswithcoffee was right on target in commenting on this post about Conadscam, as other in-and-out transactions are being called into question for what looks like good reason. With that in mind, let's note the two major issues raised by the latest allegations.

First, as discussed by Cameron, is the question of substantial transactions being dated after the election itself. It would seem obvious that the intention of allowing candidates time after an election to supply their returns would be to permit the inclusion of transactions legitimately related to the election which were overlooked initially - not to allow them to throw money back and forth to try to change the substance of how money was actually spent.

Indeed, the potential for abuse if the situation were otherwise would be obvious. Remember that each party may only be reimbursed for local expenses in a riding where it obtains 10% of the vote: if expenses could legitimately be reallocated after the fact, then parties would be able to rig up transfers after the vote takes place to make sure all their expenses took place in ridings where that threshold was achieved.

Second is the question of Elections Canada rebates - and it's here that there may be an important distinction compared to Conadscam as discussed so far. To date, the major issue with the Cons' ad expenses was the level at which expenditures were claimed: money which was in reality spent at the national level was claimed at the local level in an effort to circumvent the national expense limits.

In other words, Conadscam involved the Cons pretending that a single transaction took place between riding associations and suppliers rather than the national party and suppliers. That would result in a higher level of rebate (60% at the riding level rather than 50% at the national level), but there's no indication that the rebate was the primary motivating factor - and certainly the potential for rebate abuse is relatively small compared to the dangers associated with exceeding the expenditure limits.

In contrast, today's allegations present the first serious question about double-dipping when it comes to rebates. In effect, the allegation is that the Cons first spent national money on polling from a third-party supplier, presumably claiming that amount at the 50% rebate level. Then, the Cons' national party would bill riding associations for providing the same poll - securing a 60% rebate at the riding level without adding any additional service into the mix.

Which means that if the amount charged to the riding associations matched the amount originally spent, the Cons would receive $1.10 back for every dollar originally spent on polling. (And of course there's no particular reason why the amounts couldn't have been inflated even further by increasing the amount charged at the riding level.)

Now, the issues involved in the polling scheme are largely the opposite of those raised by Conadscam: the scheme would actually boost the amount spent under the election spending caps for the purpose of inflating the available rebates.

But that's where the timing may be particularly significant. A campaign coordinating both kinds of schemes could shuffle money around ala Conadscam to leave itself the ability to spend beyond any limit applicable during the campaign, then transfer money around after the election was done with to maximize the available rebates once the limits were no longer a concern.

We'll see if the new in-and-out scheme is laid out by the same kind of damning evidence already available when it comes to Conadscam. But for now, it looks like the Cons' 2006 campaign was planned to make a mockery of Canada's election rules - which would offer plenty of reason for Elections Canada to keep the Cons under the microscope.

(Edit: typo.)

On serious distortion

Shorter National Post blitz against Statistics Canada's report showing that the lowest-earning quintile of full-time workers have seen a 20% decline in their average earnings since 1980:
It's reckless and misleading to try to discuss national income trends by relying on just one number. That is, unless you rely on the single number which supports our preferred spin.

(Edit: typo.)

On motivating factors

Jane Taber's column on the first quarter fund-raising numbers adds a bit more information about. And what's particularly noteworthy is the type of appeal which seems to work best for the NDP compared to the Cons.

Remember this post from last week, where the NDP mentioned which fund-raising appeal had helped bring in the most contributions:

An NDP fundraising appeal that asked, "Who will stand up to Stephen Harper's agenda?" proved a winner for the party.

"We'll stand in our places and vote against him – and face him in an election if we have to," the email read.

That effort won the party donations that totalled five figures, twice as much as other recent fundraising missives.

In contrast, here's what spurred the Cons' base into the most action:

For their part, the Conservatives say a fundraising campaign in which they criticized the CBC drove a significant number of donations into their coffers.

"It was overwhelmingly our single biggest fundraising initiative," said a Tory official. Late last year, party campaign director Doug Finley sent out a letter asking for money after reports that a CBC reporter supplied questions to a Liberal MP during a committee hearing.

"It demonstrates a huge level of suspicion amongst grassroots Canadians about the Liberal Party and the CBC," the official said.

Now, it's striking enough that the Cons' base was most motivated by a narrow gripe about the CBC rather than any agreement or disagreement as to any party's policies. Needless to say, that's in stark contrast to the NDP's appeal based on opposing Harper's broad agenda.

But what's even more significant is the continued gap between the will of the grassroots as expressed in their fund-raising response, and the public face put on by Deceivin' Stephen.

After all, Harper and his inner circle largely stayed out of the public fray in the CBC dispute - presumably in large part because for all the money their party brings in by bashing the CBC, they can't afford to do so personally due to the impact that would have on voters. That disconnect between what the Cons' base wants to see from the party and what the Cons pretend to be in public hints at best at some serious tension within the party, and at worst at what Canadians can expect if the Cons ever win a majority.

In contrast, the message which achieved the most fund-raising success for the NDP is the same one which the party has gladly presented to the public as its central theme ever since the Libs starting propping up the Harper government. Which means that unlike the Cons, the NDP doesn't face a fundamental conflict between its base and the voters it's trying to reach out to. And that can only help the NDP's cause in both raising funds and winning new voters going forward.

On contributions

While there's been some attention paid to the latest federal fund-raising numbers for the first quarter of 2008, let's point out just how it is that the NDP has pulled into a solid second place in the fund-raising standings.

Previously, the NDP has consistently tapped a fairly large base of support for relatively small donations. (See the 2007 numbers listed at the link.) And that generally led to results such as those in 2007, when the Libs raised more money than the NDP despite having barely 2/3 as many donors.

But for the first quarter of 2008, the NDP has actually managed to pull ahead of the Libs on a per-donor basis ($84 to $83) - in the process also topping its 2007 average of $75 despite each contributor having three more quarters in which to boost their donations. And all that while maintaining a healthy lead in the number of contributors.

Of course, a single quarter's fund-raising numbers may only say so much - particularly when the NDP had an even better first quarter last year which didn't carry over to the rest of the year. But the new comparative advantages over the Libs have to bode well for the NDP's ability to compete on other terrain as well.

Clear communication

It hasn't taken long for the Cons to try to backtrack somewhat from their draft communications plan which would force even independent officers of Parliament to have their public communications vetted by Deceivin' Stephen's inner circle. But it's worth noting both that the Cons' clarification still looks to create problems for even the offices which should most obviously be excluded from the plan, and that the proposal still looks seriously problematic even if it's going to apply more narrowly.

First, let's take a look at what the Cons have said with respect to the Auditor General and other offices which would fall under the policy:

Treasury Board officials claim it's a misunderstanding as they try to "simplify" the government's communications policies. And they insist that the statutory independence of these agencies would trump any new guidelines.

"I can assure you that we respect the independence of the officers of Parliament and this government would not do anything inconsistent with the independent role of those officers," Treasury Board President Vic Toews told the Commons yesterday.

In March, he sent a letter to officers of Parliament saying that he accepts that not all Treasury Board policies can be applied to the independent agencies. He said disputes would be handled on a "case-by-case" basis.

His spokesperson, Mike Storeshaw, said that the new communications policy "will respect and maintain the independence of agents of Parliament like the (auditor-general), as they always have."

If there's anything we've learned from the Cons' stay in office, though, it's that the Cons tend to read what they want in the law rather than what's actually there - and Conadscam offers a prime example of the Cons refusing to acknowledge that their interpretation could possibly be fallible.

Based on that background, there's a serious risk that the Cons will handle any "disputes" by sticking to their own interpretation of what an office should be able to say, and forcing independent offices to go to court to affirm their ability to say a single word more. And while it might suit the Cons just fine to mire Canada's independent watchdogs in litigation rather than being able to do their jobs unimpeded, it should be obvious that the effect would seriously affect the ability of those offices to hold the Cons accountable.

Moreover, the Cons' "case-by-case" handling of disputes looks like it could relate to specific communications "products" rather than offices as a whole - meaning that every press release which the Cons would like to see re-worded would be the start of a new battle.

So the Cons' plan still figures to cause problems even for the likes of the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner (i.e. independent entities whose main functions include determining whether the government is hiding information which should be made public).

But let's turn to a broader question which seems to have been missed so far. Even leaving aside offices which are independent by statute, what valid explanation can there possibly be for the Privy Council Office demanding to vet every single press release or public contact coming from every single entity related to the federal government?

From what I can tell, this is the most ridiculous example yet of Deceivin' Stephen's obsessive micromanagement. And it should be fairly obvious that such a requirement will make it more difficult for every branch of the federal government to get anything done - particularly since there's no indication that the Cons have given any meaningful thought to whether the PMO has the ability to handle what would figure to be a significant amount of material.

Of course, it's not entirely clear just how much of the plan is an extension of what the Cons already have in place, and how much has already been in effect for some time. But from Sheila Fraser's testimony, it looks like an already secretive government is trying to put in place wording designed to expand Harper's control even further - and to force even arm's-length bodies to fight for any ability to inform the public. And if the Cons see a need to formulate their communications guidelines on the basis that they can't afford to have any government office speak openly and honestly, there doesn't seem much reason to dispute that conclusion.

On non-accomplishments

With the stench of scandal rapidly enveloping the Harper government, it might be easy to lose sight of just how useless the Cons have been while in power. But the Cons themselves took the opportunity to remind us in yesterday's question period, using one of their allotted questions to try to take credit for the Manitoba NDP's announcement that it will put $92 million of provincial money into creating new child care spaces.

Suffice it to say that the Cons can plausibly claim about as much credit for the spaces as I can for the 'Riders' Grey Cup win. (And even that might be on the generous side, since unlike the Cons I didn't tear up an agreement intended to reach the end result.)

Since the Cons have cleared out federal coffers to the point where they can't can't afford to spend money on meaningful new initiaties, they don't figure to have much more to run on than what they've done to date. But even the Cons apparently recognize that they have so little to their credit as to need to latch on to a provincial NDP government's accomplishments. Which signals that while the scandals may offer plenty of reason to doubt the Cons' fitness for office, it's the track record in office that offers the most pressing need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power.

On opportunities

Last weekend, I noted that there's some reason to suspect that the NDP is taking steps toward a more open form of politics than we currently see on the federal scene. Crawford Kilian is less hopeful, but offers an analysis of what any party could stand to gain by moving past narrow scripting:

If Canadian politicians study Obama too, they must realize that becoming a two-way, interactive democracy will require big changes -- and probably the biggest will be personnel changes at the top.
...
Canadian politicians will eventually figure out how to apply Obama's armoury of communication skills to our own battles. Some party will realize it needs a new leader -- not a web-savvy Trudeau or Mulroney, but a person of our own time who understands both us and the media we use as a communicating community.

That party will stay in power in this century the way Mackenzie King's stayed in power in the last.

The lack of any strong moves in the direction of a more interactive political model strikes me as especially surprising in the context of the current federal stalemate - which should seemingly leave every party looking for the next great possible advantage, rather than clinging to a status quo which nobody's particularly happy with.

Particularly with the Cons and Libs clinging to their nominally risk-averse strategies in hope that the other will stumble in an election campaign, though, the door is wide open for the NDP to present a stark contrast to the one-way messaging of Harper and Dion. And the opportunity is one which the NDP should be happy to take.