On scofflaws

Taking yet another cue from their Bushco mentors, the Cons have announced that they believe themselves to be entitled to ignore laws which they don't like. In this case, it's Jack Layton's climate change bill, which has passed in the House of Commons, and looks set to become the law of the land soon:

The Conservative government says it will not be bound by a new climate change bill passed Wednesday afternoon by the House of Commons.

The private members legislation by NDP leader Jack Layton calls on Canada to set greenhouse gas reduction targets that are considerably deeper than what the Conservatives have proposed. Wednesday's vote came as Canada is engaged in international negotiations toward new global climate change targets that will kick in when the current Kyoto Protocol expires less than four years from now...

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said his government's 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels is an aggressive yet realistic goal that will not change because of today's vote...

Mr. Layton's bill calls on Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 80 per cent by 2050. It also calls on Ottawa to spell out interim targets for every five years between 2015 and 2050.

The bill passed the final House of Commons vote Wednesday afternoon 148 to 116. Mr. Layton signalled his thanks to the Bloc and Liberals afterward for sending the bill to the senate.

Now, it would be one thing if the Cons had tried to argue that the bill should be considered a confidence matter in its challenge to their weak reduction plans. And it's safe to say C-377 would never become law in that case - not just because the Libs would likely back down, but because in any event the resulting non-confidence vote in the House would presumably provoke an election before the Senate could pass the bill.

But rather than trying to use dubious-but-legal parliamentary tactics to determine whether or not the bill passes, the Cons have instead declared that they believe they're entitled to simply pretend it doesn't exist even when it's been passed democratically. Which offers yet another indication that the Cons' dedication to law and order stops when the law would be applied to them.

Risk and reward

While others are understandably scratching their heads as to what the Cons could possibly have been thinking in reigniting Cadscam, my impression is that there's a relatively obvious explanation. But that doesn't mean for a second that the move speaks anything but poorly to the Cons' motives.

In essence, the Cons' application for an injunction against any use of the tape looks like little more than buying a political lottery ticket. The cost of the effort falling on its face is likely relatively low: by choosing their timing in applying for the injunction, the Cons are betting that even if they take a momentary PR hit, the application will be long forgotten by the time any election rolls around.

(Note that the Cons' perception of safety may be just one more side effect of the Libs' telegraphing their political strategies, as a credible threat of a summer election might have made the risk far higher.)

In contrast, the Cons obviously recognize how powerful a message they might face based on Harper's words being used against him. And if the Cons were to hit the jackpot in their application, then they'd be able to go into the next election campaign without any fear of the Libs being able to make use of the recording.

Moreover, if Harper were able to successfully argue in the injunction application that the tape should be seen as unreliable, that would likely help to strengthen his position if he keeps up his lawsuit against the Libs. Indeed, strong enough language in an injunction decision might make it extremely difficult for the Libs to make use of the tape within the litigation - which could remove what otherwise looks to be a virtually inescapable need for Harper to personally testify as to the contents of the tape to have any hope of succeeding.

In sum, it seems relatively reasonable for the Cons to conclude that the chance to bolster their position when it counts made the application worth trying now. But what about the Cons' decision to call a press conference about it?

Well, that's entirely consistent with Harper's obsessive need to manage public appearances. The injunction application would almost surely be reported either way, and with the Cons making the first public announcement, they at least briefly placed the focus on alleged "doctoring" of the tape rather than either their attempt to stifle opposition, or the plain truth of what Harper was recorded saying.

Of course, it's in those two factors that the Cons' action - even if explicable based on the political risks and rewards involved - is itself a serious problem. If Harper genuinely sees himself as entitled to edit out of existence even his own words when those prove politically damaging, then it's hard to imagine what limit there could be to his willingness to suppress reality in the name of his political interests. And even in the face of the Cons' parade of scandals and gaffes, that may make for the single most important reason why a change in government is long overdue.

On market adjustments

Having already declared that they wouldn't be bothered to do anything about high fuel prices caused by "market forces", the Cons are now using the same excuse to deflect responsibility for yet another round of manufacturing job losses.

Now, it's not hard to see how the message might seem like a relatively easy way to escape a dangerous issue, particularly for a party which likely assumes that nobody will think to question the answer. But it's worth wondering whether the Cons may only encourage a stronger progressive counterbalance in the long run: if Canadians hear often enough that "market forces" are eroding their standard of living, won't there be all the more reason for them to conclude that they're best off challenging the all-too-common conventional wisdom that the market should trump all else?

On contempt

David Akin reports that the Cons are apparently refusing to allow any of their MPs to testify about the circumstances of Maxime Bernier's departure. But while the Cons are going to ever-more-comical lengths in trying to stonewall against investigation into what they've done wrong, this particular refusal to answer questions to looks to do far more harm than good for the Cons unless there's significantly more to the story than has gone public so far.

After all, however unlikely the Cons would be to offer any full account of what happened from their perspective, any appearance would at least allow them to try to repeat their own spin a few more times. But rather than taking the opportunity to rag the puck, the Cons are instead avoiding the whole process - meaning that the entire focus for now will be on the testimony of Julie Couillard, who's presumably not the first person they want put in the public eye.

And it's worth seeing as well whether the committee will seek to fill out its witness list with others who can provide insight into what happened without being under the Cons' partisan control. Presumably civil servants who don't hold the MP privilege being claimed by the Cons would be in at least as good a position as the cabinet ministers to describe both what's supposed to happen, and what actually did happen both during Bernier's tenure and at the time of his departure. And the more the opposition is able to get that story in front of the public, the more the Cons may end up wishing they'd taken the committee's invitation to appear.

On budget busters

Since its announcement in 2007, the Cons' auto feebate program has served as a monument to the Harper government's incompetence and warped sense of priorities. Ignoring both public and internal advice that the program was a woefully inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Cons not only pushed ahead with the program but loaded it up with pork for maximum inefficiency.

Then, when it came time to actually pay out the promised rebates, Canadians found out that the Cons hadn't actually bothered to put their announcement into practice. Which means that when the Cons axed the program for years after 2008, it might have been tempting to breathe a sigh of relief that the damage was at least done with.

Unfortunately, though, the Cons can always find some way to make things even worse than they may have appeared. And the CP reports that the bad news is still rolling in, as the program managed to go far over budget for 2007:

Internal estimates from Transport Canada forecasted the federal eco-rebate program would go over budget by at least $37 million – and by as much as $65 million – in its first year alone.

The Conservative government's 2007 budget earmarked a total of $160 million over two years for the program.

The estimates show the department expected to spend between $117 million and $145 million in the first year of the two-year scheme.

It remains to be seen just how much worse matters get. But it speaks volumes about just how ludicrous the Cons' management of the feebate program has been that the best-case scenario may be if their earlier bungling (particularly in failing to pay out the rebates in 2007) pushes consumers to avoid making use of the rebate such as to limit the damage to the 2008 budget.

Irresponsible

Following hot on the heels of John Baird's attack on any attempt to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Cons are apparently confirming that their theme this week is "Screw The Environment". Shorter Con proposal to excuse companies for killing or maiming migratory birds:
The real tragedy in incidents like the death of 500 birds in a Syncrude tailings pond this spring is that somebody might be held responsible. But we're doing everything in our power to prevent that from happening.

On hot air

If the Cons were looking to draw fire for their neglect of the environment, they could hardly have done better than John Baird's message today. As the rest of Canada debates the relative merits of cap and trade systems and carbon taxes, the Cons have apparently decided to signal their distaste for either means of actually reducing emissions, instead picking a fight with both Ontario and Quebec over their efforts to put the former together.

Of course, the problems with the Cons needlessly attacking Ontario in particular have already been well documented - and adding Quebec into the picture can only help to lose the Cons votes in the two provinces where they most need to try to pick up seats to have any hope of a majority. But Baird seems to have taken the image of bashing central Canada several steps further by coupling his unwarranted criticisms of cap-and-trade with inexplicable praise for Alberta's no-cap, no-trade, no-tax, no-meaningful reduction excuse for a greenhouse gas emissions strategy.

As a result, Baird's position not only shows just how far the Cons are from the real debate over Canada's choices in dealing with climate change, but also reinforces the image of Harper's government as firmly in the pocket of the oilpatch rather than willing to even look at national interests. And the opposition parties will be happy to have that example to point out as an indication of why it's long past time to end the Cons' stay in power.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Leftdog and Steve V, among others, have taken the time to point out that Lukiwski didn't even bother to respond to an invitation to this year's gay pride parade. But if we take a closer look at who Lukiwski may really have been apologizing to, his refusal to do anything to engage with the gay and lesbian community makes a lot more sense:

Let me conclude by saying that there is absolutely nothing I could say inside or outside of this assembly that would be an adequate apology to those people whom I have hurt. I deeply regret and I have deep remorse for my words of 17 years ago. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues in this House that I will spend the rest of my career and my life trying to make up for those shameful comments.

Now, it's fair to say that if Lukiwski intended to make amends toward the gay and lesbian community, then he'd reasonably be expected to go out of his way to attend events like the gay pride parade - to say nothing of showing the common courtesy of responding to invitations or otherwise making the effort to talk to some of the groups who have reached out to him.

But note how careful Lukiwski was to avoid naming "those whom I have hurt", or saying what exactly he'd do to make up for the offence. If one looks at the "hurt" as referring instead to the political damage caused to the Cons by having part of their party's real mindset revealed, then Lukiwski has been a model of remorse - indeed, what better way to show one's penitence for allowing careless honesty to surface on tape than to hide away and keep one's mouth shut?

On detachment

Based on the abominable fiscal track records of right-wing governments in Canada, the claim that the Cons or other similar parties should be trusted as economic managers tends to be a laughable one at best. But if we needed any more reason to doubt the Cons' competence in even evaluating the country's economic conditions (let alone acting on them), it can be found in this week's headlines.

After all, reports this week indicated that economic perception and reality are both at low points. Yet rather than even recognizing the potential for a problem, the minister charged by the Cons to handle federal finances could only brush off the possibility that there's even a problem with addressing.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Flaherty has been isolated from economic reality by a party determined to believe in its own infallibility. But the larger the gap grows between what the Cons claim to see happening in the economy and what Canadians can observe for themselves, the more reason voters will have to want to replace Harper and company with somebody more attuned to what's actually happening around them.

No surprises

I, for one, couldn't be much less surprised to find out that one of the newest star American political analysts is also one of the leading figures in baseball's sabermetric movement. But is it too much to hope that the minds behind Hockey Analytics or Behind the Net could end up similarly revolutionizing the kind of information available in analyzing Canadian politics?

Contrasting strategies

The Guardian reports that in an effort to boost his image as a leader willing to listen, Gordon Brown has started responding to critical letters from the general public by calling up random writers to address their concerns. In related news, the Harper government is considering answering critical letters from the Canadian general public by calling up random writers to denounce them as Taliban-loving Communist sympathizers who hate Canada.

Properly classified

It's noteworthy enough that the Harper government's public perceptions are in a well-deserved free-fall - with satisfaction levels dropping 13 points over the last 6 months, and two-thirds of respondents recognizing that the Cons have done a bad job when it comes to accountability. But what does it say when even Sun Media can only classify news about the Cons under its "Crime" section?

On fabrications

The Star reports that the Cons continue to have just as much disdain for facts when it comes to relatively small issues the as they do with respect to their current scandals. This time, it's expense records that look to have been altered without any reasonable explanation to avoid the Star's criticism:

The Conservative government has twice altered expense records for international trips after the Star questioned their high cost.

The records in a publicly available website were changed – thousands of dollars removed in one case and a lengthy journey shortened in another – for trips by then-foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier and Brian Jean, parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport...

In Bernier's case, the Star raised questions about a report on the Foreign Affairs website showing he spent $22,573 on airfare for a trip to Laos via Paris to attend a two-day conference last fall. The Star found he could have travelled there comfortably for $7,000.

Within a few days of the story's publication on May 16, the expense report on the website was changed. The airfare now reads $13,919. It's unclear why it was changed.

Bernier's former spokesperson, Neil Hrab, suggested a previous office manager in the minister's office had made a clerical error. Hrab would not release any documents and said the Star could make a request under the federal access-to-information legislation.

While Bernier's airfare mysteriously dropped, the $18,500 airfares of his "policy adviser" and "senior policy adviser" did not. Bernier resigned from cabinet this week.

Another series of expense reports questioned by the Star involved Jean, the Tory MP from Alberta, who is the parliamentary secretary to Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon. The Star raised Jean's 15-day trip to Paris last September for a five-day conference, the 23rd World Road Association Congress. Jean's flight was listed at $7,515, his accommodation at $4,969 and his meals at $1,412. Jean's assistant travelled with him on a much cheaper flight – $1,848 – and stayed for only eight days. Her expense report was not altered.

Several weeks ago, the Star asked the transport department why Jean took 15 days to attend a five-day conference in Paris. It took a while, but spokesperson Karine White said the "finance department" had made a clerical error. She said four days had inadvertently been added – on paper – to Jean's trip. It was 11 days and one involved an overnight flight.

The records on the website were changed immediately. The airfare remains the same; the dollar value of meals went up slightly; but the main change was that with fewer days on the trip, the per-night hotel cost for Jean rose from $355 to about $500 (hotel rates for Canadian government officials are typically discounted by about 25 per cent).

The most charitable possible interpretation is that the Cons were careless in reporting the listed expenses to the point where it took the Star's attention for them to actually set matters right. Which would itself offer plenty of reason for concern that the Cons' public disclosures are less than accurate at the best of times.

But particularly based on the Cons' refusal to provide any documentation to support either the original numbers or the altered ones, it looks equally possible that they simply revised the reports to include numbers which they figured would appear more acceptable. And if so, then a seemingly systematic policy of throwing poor explanations at the wall in hopes that something will stick would seem to offer ample reason to doubt anything the Cons have to say.

Grounds for dismissal

One of the most interesting questions surrounding Maxime Bernier's resignation is that of just what it takes to get booted out of the cabinet of a PM who seems utterly incapable of acknowledging error. Today, Jane Taber provides the answer - and not surprisingly, there doesn't appear to be any level of ministerial incompetence that the Cons won't accept if they can avoid paying too high a political price for it:

Mr. Bernier submitted his resignation Monday morning, after learning that his ex, Julie Couillard, had given a potentially damaging interview to the French-language TVA network stating that he was careless with confidential documents.

He was told to wait it out. Still, he was pulled out of meetings throughout the day and was absent from a meeting of the cabinet's priority and planning committee, the cabinet's most important and powerful committee.

The powers-that-be wanted to assess just how bad the interview by Ms. Couillard would be. The waiting game was all about media strategy.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to leave Monday night on a trip to Europe. A Bernier friend said the government didn't want its foreign affairs minister to be forced to step down just before the Prime Minister was about to set out on the world stage. Nor, however, did it want the whole thing to blow up while the Prime Minister was in the air.

"They [senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office] had anticipated that this was coming [the Couillard interview] and Bernier had said, 'Listen, I am ready to resign,' " the friend said. "And they had said to him, 'Don't do it yet. Let's just confirm that this is what is going to happen because we don't want this to blow up before Harper gets on a plane and goes to Europe.' "

In other words, the Cons weren't prepared to view any combination of Bernier's incompetence, his carelessness with classified documents (which Taber discusses in more detail), and the scandal surrounding Julie Couillard as providing sufficient reason to remove Bernier from the cabinet. Instead, it was only the calculation that firing Bernier would serve as better political damage control than continuing to lie in his defence that finally forced Harper to pull the trigger.

If there's any good news, it's that the combination of Bernier's departure and the reemergence of the NAFTA leak scandal looks to be serious enough to make any efforts at damage control ineffective. But the Bernier timeline offers ever more evidence that Harper isn't interested in assessing his cabinet on any basis other than his party's political benefit - which raises reason for suspicion that the scandals which have already gone public may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Update: More from Paul Wells.

On private decisions

Via Rabble, CUPE comments on both the problems with P3s in general, and the National Post's refusal to allow anybody who supports public ownership of public goods to balance out its own pro-P3 stance:

The subject of P3s has garnered increasing media attention in the past few years as more and more projects are pursued and as various concerns mount from all sides. All the while, CUPE has been identified as the country’s most prominent and credible opponent of P3s, by any standard. Yet our voice – and those of countless other P3 critics – is absent from the discourse currently perpetuated by the National Post.

The new justification for P3s is that they transfer risk from the public to the private sector which is the better risk manager, they say. P3 promoters use even more financial chicanery to justify this argument, but downplay the need for public bailouts when P3s fail. The UK government's $4 billion bailout after the Metronet P3 failure should be cause for alarm, but has been all but ignored here in Canada, like so many homegrown P3 failures. Besides, the recent sub-prime financial meltdown and the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper scandal demonstrate just how little faith we should have in the superiority of the private sector’s risk management.

P3s pose a threat to public services – no wonder the private sector is all over them.

But never mind that for now. Mind that any challenge of P3s was curiously kept from the National Post’s ‘report’ – perhaps because when we come after P3s, we come with the very facts the privatization lobby prefers to ignore.

It's worth remembering that it isn't only in the media that any sense of balance is currently lacking. Indeed, the Harper Cons' 2007 budget included over a billion dollars worth of funding specifically targeted for P3s, along with a requirement that other levels of government pay homage to the P3 concept before receiving a penny of federal infrastructure money.

From that starting point, it figures to be an uphill battle to point out the obvious problems associated with P3s - particularly when major media outlets are actively shutting out one side of the debate. But with the effectiveness of public services at stake, there's still a substantial need to raise awareness of the issue. And with luck, enough public reminders as to the importance of publicly-owned services will force even the likes of CanWest to acknowledge the serious pitfalls associated with a push toward P3s.

On talent pools

Shorter Jonathan Kay:
Maxime Bernier is living proof that our current elected government includes utterly unqualified and incompetent ministers. And as far as I'm concerned, the obvious solution is a wholesale transfer of responsibility to unelected appointees, rather than electing a government which actually considers intelligence and competence to be important.

Scratching the surface

For all the talk about Maxime Bernier's ignominious and long-overdue removal from cabinet, I'm surprised there doesn't seem to have been much comment on what the reason for his departure might have meant at the time:

Maxime Bernier has resigned as foreign affairs minister, after he acknowledged leaving sensitive government documents out in the open -- apparently at his former girlfriend's home.

Sources told CTV News the documents included classified information for last April's NATO summit in Romania. One sensitive document contained details about NATO's military strategy in Afghanistan.

Bernier learned that he had left behind the documents Monday night, but didn't tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper until Tuesday afternoon. He then resigned from his cabinet post...

Couillard told Quebec broadcaster TVA that the sensitive document had been left at her home in mid-April.

"Maxime came to my house and the document in question was left at my house," she said. "For now, what I can tell you is that the document made me feel very uncomfortable. I was referred to a top lawyer in that field, who told me ... what was the proper legal procedure (to return it)."

Now, it's difficult to take Bernier at face value in his claim not to have had any clue that he'd left the documents behind until this weekend. But it's still worth asking the question about what impact his leaving the documents behind would have had at the time.

After all, for Bernier to be telling the truth now, it would have to be true that in at least one major foreign summit, Stephen Harper's choice to represent Canada's interests was so clueless that he didn't manage to notice that he was lacking of what would seem to have been essential background documents. (Next up on the Wheel of Excuses - "When they said to look at the military strategy for Afghanistan, I thought they meant the lunch menu.")

And indeed, that would suggest that nobody else around him would have been observant enough to notice the problem either - since if anybody had noticed the materials were missing and raised the question of where they'd gone, there'd be no excuse for Bernier or anybody else to claim that today's news wasn't known earlier.

Of course, there's another alternative - being that the problem might have been at least suspected for some time but covered up. But even that alternative would involve at least as much incompetence as dishonesty, given that Couillard apparently had to figure out what to do with the documents for herself rather than being contacted by anybody retracing Bernier's steps.

Either way, it seems clear that the problems within the Cons' government go far beyond Bernier's carelessness alone. And Bernier's resignation should only be the beginning of what needs to be done to check on just how much damage he and his party have done.

Update: As Kady O'Malley notes, the story is in fact that the briefing notes were left at Couillard's home weeks after the actual NATO summit. Which would avoid some of the questions above, but raise an even larger one as to how that sequence of events could possibly be explained.

On alternatives

Leftdog highlights a pattern within the Cons where one MP hires a family member of another MP for constituency or ministerial work using parliamentary funds. And it's worth wondering whether the apparent nepotism is based more a desire to provide additional public funds to MPs and their families, or instead on a lack of other qualified members to fill the positions. Either way, though, the part of the story which most deserves to be pointed out is that at least one federal party doesn't allow the same type of practices within its ranks:

The hiring of family members is not a new phenomenon on Parliament Hill. In the early 1990s, two Progressive Conservative MPs were found to have employed each other's daughters, effectively skating around the prohibition of directly hiring children. An RCMP investigation cleared them of wrongdoing. More recently, then-Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien was accused of nepotism when his daughter, a lawyer, was appointed to a federal position on a 2010 Olympics organizing committee - an allegation his office rejected.

In Opposition, the Harper Conservatives railed against patronage and cronyism they claimed was endemic in the Liberal governments.

"They've been touters of public virtues and they do have that burden of having to be purer than Ceasar's wife," said Parliamentary expert Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University...

Manitoba New Democrat Pat Martin said his own son landed an eight-week summer job for another NDP MP in 1998. Two years later, then-leader Alexa McDonough intervened to stop an MP from hiring a colleague's relative and created a party policy against the practice, Martin said. He says he agrees with the approach.

"Nepotism and patronage are two of the same species," he said. "It's that who-you-know kind of politics that makes Canadians gag." While hiring other MPs' relatives may be allowed under House rules, it "doesn't pass the smell test," he said.

In other words, while the Cons railed against the Libs' cronyism in opposition, they've once again lost any concern for the misuse of the spoils of power now that they stand to enjoy them. And indeed at least a couple of their supporters have tried to draw specious distinctions as to why Con nepotism is entirely appropriate, or even criticize the fact that the story was even reported.

But while anybody hoping the Cons would do better than the Libs in the ethics department may have reason to be bitterly disappointed, that doesn't mean they have to be resigned to that level of politics.

After all, the NDP hasn't only pointed out the problems with funneling money to family members when other parties have done, but has also set the bar for itself at the level which it demands from its competitors. Which means that Canadian voters rightly cynical about the Cons and Libs can take heart that one federal party both stands by its ethical principles, and does more than than the bare minimum to keep its operations clean.

Truth in labelling

I suppose it was inevitable that some Con-friendly media outlets would try to pretend that Stephen Harper's labelling announcement this week would accomplish more than it actually will. Enter the Calgary Herald, which tries to argue that consumers should use country of origin as a proxy for safety in deciding what food to buy:

Imagine a parent who goes to a grocery store, picks up baby food labelled "Made in Canada," only to later discover the bottle was made in Canada, but the contents were provided and processed in a Third World country known for egregious health and safety violations.

Parents would be aghast to find out that the product fed to their child was from a region where food safety was nowhere near the Canadian standard, especially given one main reason they purchased the product was because they thought it was safe.

The reality of vastly different food inspection and safety standards around the world then means it makes perfect sense for the Stephen Harper government to update requirements on what food can be labelled as a product of Canada...

The new standards require that any label claiming a food product is a "Product of Canada" necessarily needs to have all or virtually all of its contents be Canadian. That includes ingredients, the processing and the labour used to make the product; an exception has been made for some foreign content to be included in a Canadian product and labelled as such if minor additives or spices are not available in Canada.

Now, it's worth noting the danger that the exceptions might substantially undermine the rule even on the Herald's own terms. Surely if an additive isn't available precisely because it doesn't past muster in Canada, then the fact that a product can be labeled as a "product of Canada" anyway based on a lack of domestic availability can't lead to any great amount of consumer comfort.

But the problems with the Herald's take go far beyond that. In effect, the Herald seeks to give the Cons a pass on the lack of any meaningful effort to monitor products coming into Canada for inspection or safety standards. Instead, it wants to place the onus on consumers to look for a single designation which on its face has nothing to do with food safety as their lone signal that a product is safe for their consumption.

Yet even that system could only be effective to the extent one assumes the Canadian regulatory system is able to do its job of both inspecting Canadian production effectively, and bringing to light any problems. Which is problematic in light of the Cons' consistent attempts to exercise political control over regulatory agencies: can any Canadian consumer feel entirely assured that an agency facing a government which has eagerly declared war on civil servants who come to inconvenient conclusions, or whose communications are under the thumb of the PMO, is able to ensure that Canada's products are as safe as they should be?

In sum, this week's announcement offers at best a poor attempt by the Cons to be labelled as consumer-friendly. But no reasonable standard could justify applying that label to a government which has worked both to suppress product information, and to undermine Canada's ability to provide the level of regulatory effectiveness that the Herald considers so important.

On target audiences

Shorter BigCityLib:
If one assumes that corporations (a) don't pay taxes, (b) can't effectively be regulated and (c) don't have any greater ability than individuals to make large capital investments, then a carbon tax that hits individual consumers the hardest makes perfect sense. And in the name of winning the crucial Fraser Institute vote, I highly recommend that the NDP accept those assumptions without question.

On negatives

One follow-up note on this week's leadership polling: as much as coverage of the poll went off course in refusing to mention the two national leaders who are actually viewed positively by respondents, it also seems to have missed one of the more important points involving Stephane Dion as well.

While the decline in Dion's approval rating to a meager 10% received more attention, it's another boost in his disapproval rating which looks to cause more serious problems for the Libs. With 60% of respondents disapproving of the current face of the party, it stands to reason that the Libs will have an awfully tough time even painting themselves as an option for more than the remaining 40% of possible voters - making their margin for error virtually nonexistent in trying to put together enough votes to cut into Con support.

Of course, the Libs' answer will presumably be to try to direct attention toward anything but the party leaders. But that figures to be an uphill battle given the tendency of campaign coverage to focus on the leaders' every move. And based on the obstacles facing the Libs in their attempt to overcome the leadership deficit, Canadians looking for the best chance of toppling the Harper regime may be best served rallying behind a leader who doesn't start on the wrong side of a majority of voters.

Loose lips, sinking ship

I've spent plenty of time commenting and and criticizing the muzzle on the Cons' cabinet (and party as a whole). But let's note that Stephen Harper may have good reason to refuse to let anybody speak for themselves if Maxime Bernier's latest stunt is any indication of the cost of loosening the leash.

Shifting sands

Susan Riley discusses the parties' respective positions on the Libs' planned carbon tax:

The NDP leader has been at pains, lately, to emphasize his plan for tackling climate change - notably, tough caps on greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon trading system. Not that he is changing course. In a speech yesterday on poverty, he added a last-minute swipe at Dion: "Advocates of a carbon tax suggest that by making the costs for certain things more expensive, people will make different choices. ... But Canada is a cold place. Heating your home is not a choice."

That is a time-honoured message...It is also the strongest argument against a carbon tax: It hurts those on fixed incomes, those dependent on fossil fuels to heat their homes, farmers and small town dwellers with no access to public transit. Before you force people to change their behaviour (one of the goals of a carbon tax) you should ensure they have a choice.

Now, the NDP's position shouldn't come as much surprise. But Riley's take on why the Libs have decided to push the carbon tax approach offers an interesting point of comparison:

In fact, the strongest selling point for a carbon tax - one that apparently changed Dion's mind - is that it can be implemented fairly quickly. It could start the tax-shift toward rewarding sustainable, instead of wasteful, behaviour on an individual level, while government works out a regime for big industry. As it is, a cap-and-trade system (which Liberals also support) has been debated for more than a decade. There are already carbon markets in Europe and some experimental projects in North America, but Dion argues it will take years to implement a functioning market here, and that global warming requires urgent attention.

Even leaving aside the obvious point that much of the foot-dragging took place under the Libs and Dion, it's worth remembering that a cap and trade market was also part of the amended C-30 agreed to by the opposition parties, and that Layton's own C-377 also includes the groundwork for a cap and trade system. Which means that it's entirely possible to set up such a market through opposition cooperation even with the Cons trying to stall any progress.

But even accepting the point that urgent action is needed, a plan to influence consumer-level behaviour through massive increases in the price of needed goods looks to have plenty of downsides worth criticizing. And while the NDP's point about the unfairness of putting the onus on those with the least means to make radical changes offers one reason why any benefits are outweighed by the costs of a carbon tax, there's also reason to doubt that a carbon tax would serve its intended purpose in any event.

After all, as Dion pointed out himself during the Libs' leadership race, there's little reason to think that theoretical future price increases caused by a carbon tax would be expected to result in wholesale changes in behaviour where actual increases based on oil prices haven't. And with real fuel costs having gone through the roof in the time since the leadership race, the evidence is only stronger now for the view that price signals alone won't get the job done.

In contrast, a concerted effort toward a more efficient Canada along the lines of the NDP's Green Agenda hasn't yet been tried. And if the focus indeed stays on the parties' respective environmental plans, the NDP will presumably be glad to point out and explain how its solutions would lead to positive results in the short term.

Which isn't to say the Libs can't make some argument for their own carbon tax as a potentially quick fix. But there's every reason for the NDP to both doubt its environmental effectiveness, and point out the social costs of imposing deliberate price shocks on those least able to deal with them.

On disapproval

While the headlines have focused on Stephane Dion's woeful 10% approval number, the latest Angus Reid poll also shows that a minimum of 58% of all respondents don't approve of the leadership of either Dion or Stephen Harper. So isn't it long past time for pollsters to start offering a few more choices beyond the ones who obviously aren't winning public support?

Update: MCG notes in the comments that the full breakdown (note: PDF) includes basic approve/disapprove numbers for the other federal leaders. Layton leads the pack at 34% approval nationally, and is tied with May at a net +3% approval - compared to -10% for Harper and a stunning -50% for Dion.

But let's not let the poll structure off the hook, as Layton and May weren't included in polling in qualities and characteristics, or on the "best PM" measure where "neither" ties the combined score for Harper and Dion.

On poor information

In just the past couple of months, the Cons' government has voted down mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods, and fought to prevent international labelling standards to include more complete information about a given food's health content. Which makes it glaringly clear that the Cons couldn't care less about putting information in the hands of consumers concerned about what's actually in the food they buy.

But have no fear - as long as you're in the class of consumers more concerned about the standard at which a product can be labelled as "made in Canada" than with the actual contents of their food, the Cons are prepared to require the labelling you want.

Update: Canwest's report adds another twist, as Harper's announcement today is timed so as to undercut what the Commons agriculture committee has already been doing on the same topic:

Mr. Harper's announcement circumvents a process currently underway in the Commons agriculture committee, which launched a study into Product of Canada labelling months ago.

Next week the agriculture committee is scheduled to debate and review its draft report on the Product of Canada label.

Which raises a few serious questions. First, was the committee about to reach a decision which the Cons saw a need to preempt? Or alternatively, did Harper simply want to take all the credit for something along the lines of what the committee would have reached through multi-party work? And either way, will opposition members now have yet another reason to avoid working with Con committee members lest any effort at honest discussion be used against the other parties by the Cons' central command?

On predictable performances

In a stunning plot twist, the federal Cons have announced their support for the Saskatchewan Party's Senate election plan which happens to mirror their own.

Stay tuned for more dramatic episodes of Political Pantomime Theatre, including the federal Liberals' shocking response to Elizabeth May's endorsement of their carbon tax.

A golden opportunity

Others have rightly expressed concerns about Pierre Poilievre's attack on sex reassignment surgery. But let's look on the bright side of Poilievre's asinine suggestion that the federal government should withhold health funding which might be used for a medically necessary procedure based solely on his personal prejudice, as the issue looks to be a perfect one to galvanize all kinds of opposition messages about the Cons.

The article points out two possibilities which are surely worth plenty of discussion: not only does the demand offer another example of bigotry-based social conservatism rearing its ugly head, it can also be cast as the blatant attempt to micromanage provincial spending.

But one can go further based on the health-care context of Poilievre's demand. Remember the ridicule that then-U.S. Senator Bill Frist rightly faced for his attempt to diagnose Terri Schiavo from the floor of the Senate - offering a hint at just what the public thinks about having politicians try to play doctor.

From this angle, Poilievre's demand can only be seen as several times worse. Not only does he (unlike Frist) lack medical training to be able to give any informed opinion about the procedure in question, but he's trying to overrule the medical profession as to the use of a particular procedure for all types of patients without even pretending to consider individual circumstances.

Finally, as an added bonus, Poilievre's bizarre choice of hobby horses can only serve to highlight the Cons' general disinterest in the health system. Remember that the Cons have outright refused to enforce the Canada Health Act as it stands; a demand that they suddenly start finding such ridiculous bases to withhold funding now only offers an ideal opportunity to point out their usual neglect.

And while the Cons' likely response is that Poilievre is merely a single MP mouthing off for himself, that defence doesn't figure to gain much traction. Not only has the Cons' micromanagement of their MPs' every move been well documented, but the message is coming from an MP whose own party insiders have painted him as a useful parrot and nothing more. As a result, the Cons can't plausibly hope to disavow the request (or at least not without giving the demand even more press than it would receive otherwise).

In sum, there's every reason to point out the problems with Poilievre's remarks. But heinous as they are on their face, they may ultimately have a positive effect in reminding Canadians what the Cons really stand for.

Update: As pogge notes, we can also add pointless attacks on Ontario to the list.

On regression

So much for the Sask Party pretending to have evolved past its Elwin Hermanson phase, as it's now planning to take up the cause of electing senators. Needless to say, that plan was conspicuously absent from any of the party's stated policies or intentions until they had a majority to impose it on the province - leaving plenty of reason for concern just where else Wall and company plan to operate out of old Reform/Alliance platforms rather than their own.

Though I suppose one can look on the bright side: if the Sask Party keeps up that trend, it'll surely be an interesting experience to see a provincial referendum on whether to change Wall's first name to "Brick".

On chopping blocks

The Cons' stay in office has been marked by a combination of dubious cuts to valuable programs, and irresponsible funding practices which make it tougher for programs to keep running. Now, the Canadian Press reports that the Cons are offering the worst of both worlds when it comes to funding for HIV/AIDS support initiatives - as they've not only declared an intention to cut existing programs, but also can't be bothered to at least give reasonable notice of what they plan on continuing to fund:

Community organizations that support people with HIV or AIDS say they're being kept in the dark about federal government plans to cut millions of dollars in funding.

Groups worried about having to lay off staff and ditch programs have been asking the government for months to provide a firm amount — province by province — on how much will be cut, said Susan Cress, chairwoman of the Alberta Community Council on HIV.

The government has announced that a total of $26-million will be redirected from HIV-AIDS initiatives to efforts at developing an HIV vaccine, but support groups don't know when those cuts are coming or how much may be taken from them...

Ontario's funding was slashed by 30 per cent last year, while Quebec organizations stand to lose 24 per cent of their funding this year, he said. Alberta's money has only been extended for six months and support groups have been told that some type of cut will follow when it runs out...

While front-line AIDS workers are dismayed at the thought of cutting important prevention programs, they say they're more shocked at how the government has handled the matter.

“I have been in this field, doing this work, for 23 years. And we have never been handled this way, or managed this way, or treated this way,” said Michael Sobota, who has been executive director of AIDS Thunder Bay since it was created in 1985.

“The continued delays in decision-making make us all very, very worried about the existing grants that we have — that the clock is ticking on them.”

Needless to say, it's as true for social programs as it is for infrastructure development that the Cons' strategy is only ensuring that programs are less efficiently delivered in the end. Instead of being able to either plan to try to replace funding, or at least transfer responsibilities from programs losing federal support, Canada's AIDS workers are instead left under a general cloud of uncertainty. And that can only make it tougher for every group affected to plan past any existing funding agreement, or to hold onto staff who have any option to move to a more secure position.

Which means that the Cons have found a way to make matters worse even beyond their already callous decision to slash funding for HIV/AIDS programs. And both community organizations and anybody else who might have to rely on the Cons' ability to provide predictable support have every reason to see a more responsible government in power at the earliest opportunity.

On fixes

I've noted before that the Libs' carbon tax plan leaves plenty of room for the NDP and the Cons to each stake out their own territory on energy prices. But while the Ottawa Citizen goes out of its way to pretend that the Cons' do-nothing stance is effectively the only option, it can't help but to report that the NDP's position looks to have a lot more resonance with voters:

A large majority of Canadians -- 70 per cent -- believe either the petroleum sector or OPEC illegally fixes prices, according to a Compas poll for the Citizen. The poll is deemed accurate to within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The numbers suggest one clear winner, said Compas president Conrad Winn. "For the NDP, it's loud and clear: They can't lose by attacking oil companies."

Again, the article appears critical of the prospect that any voter or party would have anything less than total faith in oil producers or laissez-faire economic theory. But whether or not oil producers manage to avoid outright illegal activity, there's little room for doubt that Canadians are duly skeptical when they're told that there's no choice but to believe the parties whose profits and political influence have both been skyrocketing thanks to higher prices. Which means that there's every reason for the NDP to frame its message around the ability of those actors to shape the cost of energy.

Meanwhile, a Con party still firmly rooted in the oilpatch can't hope to pass a laugh test with a similar tactic. As a result, its range of options is likely limited to either outright backing the status quo, or perhaps taking up Taxpayer Federation-style stunts surrounding the taxes which make up a small portion of current prices and are entirely independent of the factors driving price increases.

Either way, it looks to be the NDP whose solutions both fit better with where Canadians see responsibility falling, and make more sense in having the potential to lead to sustainable cost containment. Which means that if the Cons succeed in making gas prices into a ballot question against the Libs, it's the NDP that stands to benefit the most.

On loopholes

Not surprisingly, the Cons are out to lunch in complaining that an extension for the payment of Libs leadership debts which is explicitly permitted by the Canada Elections Act somehow constitutes preferential treatment. But there is a serious question to be raised about the terms of any extension which seems to have escaped public notice so far.

The Chief Electoral Officer's authority to grant an extension is found in the following section:

435.26(1) On the written application of a leadership contestant, of the contestant’s financial agent or of a person with a claim to be paid for a leadership campaign expense in relation to a leadership contestant, the Chief Electoral Officer may, on being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so doing, in writing authorize the payment, through the contestant’s financial agent, of the amount claimed if
...
(b) the payment was not made in accordance with subsection 435.24(1).

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer may impose any term or condition that he or she considers appropriate on a payment authorized under subsection (1).

Section 435.24(1) requires that all expenses be paid within 18 months after the end of a leadership contest. As a result, it couldn't be much more clear that Elections Canada has the authority to permit leadership contenders to repay any outstanding loans after the end of the 18-month period if "reasonable grounds" for the extension are present. (And indeed I'd argue that it's likely better for Elections Canada to grant an extension to permit legitimate repayment, rather than simply allowing the original lender to write off the loan as uncollectable - especially when that results in a question of what Ken Dryden's "normal accounting practices" are in loaning money to himself.)

But there's a catch worth pointing out, particularly in the context of the Chief Electoral Officer's authority to impose terms and conditions on any repayment. Take a look at the provisions of the Canada Elections Act defining the contributions permitted in a leadership contest:

405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceed
...
(c) $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

...

(5) For the purposes of this Act, contributions made to a leadership contestant within 18 months after a leadership contest are deemed to be contributions for that contest.

Note that the dollar amounts have been reduced since the Libs' leadership campaign started, so the actual contribution limit applicable to the contest is in fact slightly over $5,000. But the more important wording (from section 405(5)) hasn't changed since the bill which first imposed personal contribution limits in 2003.

From what I can tell, it's at least arguable that section 405(5) sets out a time limit as to when contributions to a leadership contestant are counted for the "contest" in question: donations made before that 18-month period are counted, and conversely donations made afterward are not.* Which would make sense to parallel the 18-month limit on paying claims associated with the contest, since it's assumed that all financial matters are cleared up by then.

But if an extension is granted without conditions, then donations made after the 18-month period wouldn't then count toward the statutory contribution limits. That means that by running out the clock on their outstanding loans and then seeking an extension, the Libs would be able to raise money to pay off their remaining debts without any regard for contribution limits.

Now, I'd think it would go without saying that an extension of time for repaying loans shouldn't serve as a back-door means of evading other requirements of the Canada Elections Act. Which is where the Chief Electoral Officer's discretion to add conditions to any repayment comes in, as it would hopefully be a fairly simple matter to attach a condition that future contributions used to repay the outstanding loans will continue to be counted for the purposes of the contribution limits.

Of course, there are still broader questions which should be asked about the rules which ought to apply to campaign loans - both in terms of the ability of campaign lenders to write off loans, and the availability of loans to begin with. But it's still worth making sure that the law as it now stands doesn't effectively offer the Libs' leadership candidates a get-out-of-debt-free card due to their own failure to repay their campaign loans on time.

*The other possible interpretation of section 405(5) - which I'd think is about equally plausible - is that it acts only a deeming provision which doesn't implicitly remove later donations from the scope of a contribution for a particular contest. If that's the case, then the extra conditions wouldn't be needed to maintain the usual contribution limits.

On politicization

Shorter Colby Cosh:
I can't imagine stronger evidence of a partisan judiciary than five judges appointed or promoted by Liberals overturning a Liberal law.

Opinions for sale

The Globe and Mail reports on Canada's own pay-for-play story, as a federal contract with the Conference of Defence Associations (renewed by the Cons in 2007) actually requires that the think tank meet annual quotas for media appearances:

The Department of National Defence sets quotas for how many times a year a military think tank it subsidizes must appear in the news media, a contract made public at the request of the NDP shows.

Critics say the five-year, $500,000 deal with the Conference of Defence Associations crosses the line from promoting debate to paying for supportive commentary - especially troubling when the Harper government is trying to sustain public backing for the Afghan mission...

A contract the Conservatives tabled in Parliament this week says the department considers the CDA's key goals to include the need "to consider the problems of National Defence" and "to support government efforts in placing these problems before the public."

The March, 2007, contract says the grant is part of a program to ensure an "independent voice for discussion and debate on security and defence issues outside of the academic sphere." It sets out 13 "expected results" for the CDA, including the requirements to:

"Attain a minimum of 29 media references to the CDA by national or regional journalists and reporters;"

"Attain the publication of a minimum of 15 opinion pieces (including op-eds and letters to the editor in national or regional publications)."

As noted in the article, the CDA's history goes back far before Harper's stay in power. (Though I'd be curious to see where the language requiring the CDA to "support government efforts" comes from, as well as whether the Cons' control over messaging has led to any change in the CDA's focus.)

That said, it's worth noting in particular the Cons' convenient decision that only some types of messages deserve publicly-funded advocacy.

Between the DND itself and the defence industry, there's no lack of voices or dollars with a strong interest in supporting the types of messages which the CDA has generally conveyed. Yet the Cons seem to have no qualms about requiring that the CDA use public money to advocate for its cause.

In contrast, one of the Cons' first acts in power was to go out of their way to prevent any public money from being used for advocacy on women's issues - which results in substantially silencing voices which don't enjoy the benefits of a massive government department or major corporate interests.

It may be worth questioning what role the government should be playing in funding "independent" third-party groups at all (rather than justifying their longer-term visions for themselves). But it's clear that the Cons' selective funding has only made matters worse by ensuring a one-sided "debate". And that should offer reason to distrust both the Cons and the groups they're funding.

On parallels

Aaron Wherry documents just a few of the many examples of the Cons' distaste for facts - as well as the lack of as much media pushback as would be expected in the face of a government which cares so little for the truth. But a few more columns like these may be just what the doctor ordered to prod Canadian media into avoiding the same state of denial now inhabited by its U.S. equivalent:

(W)here the Bush administration manipulated a complicit media leading up to the war in Iraq, the Harper government has benefited from a complacent press here. At the height of the election financing controversy, one national news anchor lamented on air that the issue was too complex for the public to be interested in. Relatively few members of the press gallery bother to attend daily question period, and being the first to declare that a scandal is not a scandal seems to have become something of a competition among many of the country's columnists. Indeed, the daily fibbing of the government's ministers is rarely reported at any length. No doubt because many reporters long ago resigned themselves to covering a system of spin and deception. (They are not alone in this regard. A recent poll showed only 25 per cent of Canadians hold much respect for politicians. Just 49 per cent showed similar regard for journalists.)

But, if the Prime Minister still employed a national science adviser, he might ask for a lesson in the laws of action and reaction. The irony of the Bush era is that while many Americans still believe the "truths" peddled by the White House, the President's approval rating has languished in the low 30s for months. It helps that his greatest deception is demonstrated in a disastrous war. But it is surely not lost on most of the population that Iraq represents not the exception, but only the most obvious of half-truths. "I think," MacIvor says, "[Americans] have a sense that they've been taken for fools." If Canadians don't feel similarly so foolish, it is not for lack of effort by the Harper government.

(Edit: added title.)

Selective corrections

A couple of weeks ago, CanWest launched an all-out attack on both Statistics Canada and media outlets who reported its findings on national income without discussing an alternate interpretation of the data. Which would seem to suggest that CanWest should be similarly keen to question whether StatsCan's reporting on GDP numbers might be misleading in failing to consider their relationship to actual income.

So I can only assume there's been some kind of mistake.

The cost of distrust

As Impolitical points out, the news about the Cons' "defence strategy" looks to have taken Harper another step further toward his ideal form of public communication - which from all available indications consists of having unnamed officials taking a select group of friendly journalists to an undisclosed location to say (off the record) that they're unable to comment. But the Leader-Post reminds us that even on the rare occasions when the Cons offer any public information, it's never safe to rely on their word - as the City of Regina is finding out the hard way:

A Regina MP said he is "very confident" federal funding for the IPSCO Place revitalization will soon start flowing, despite concerns that the multi-million-dollar project may be on hold until the fall...

Earlier this week, Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco stated that despite the federal government's announcement of $20 million for the project back in September, the funding has yet to come through, resulting in at least a one-month delay to the project that was to begin May 1. The delay will add at least $1 million to the project's price tag -- an extra cost that must be covered by the city.

Fiacco stated that since the funding still required Treasury Board approval and for a contribution agreement to be reached, he was informed by Transport, Communities, and Infrastructure Minister Lawrence Cannon's office that the funding may not come through until fall.

On Wednesday, Fiacco said he was pleased to hear ground could be broken on the project well before fall. While disappointed that he had yet to speak to Cannon about the situation, Fiacco said he had spoken to Lukiwski several times in the past couple days.

"We're at the stage now that I'll wait to make sure we have the cheque in hand so we can indeed get a shovel in the ground," said Fiacco.

Now, it's noteworthy enough that the Cons' excuse is a need to carry out "due diligence" a full eight months after they first announced that the funding would be provided. In particular, it would seem obvious that any remotely responsible government should have done the bulk of its homework before making public declarations of support - rather than going PR-hunting first, then considering the project's merits later.

But Fiacco's response is even more striking. Having already been burned to the tune of a million dollars, Regina (presumably not alone among other Canadian actors) has understandably reached the point where it doesn't see the Cons' word as being worth a thing. And if the project is actually being held up entirely pending a federal decision rather than going ahead based on funding from the other levels of government, it would seem that the city is far from convinced that the Cons will keep their word in going through the approval process at all.

Of course, if other actors are so rightly suspicious of the Cons' unreliability that they need to see cash up front to bother talking to the federal government, that'll only make it tougher for needed joint efforts to take place. Which offers plenty of reason for municipalities and other levels of government to want to put a more trustworthy government in power.

Let the textual reinterpretation begin...

...as it took less than a day for the price tag on Stephen Harper's prophetic vision to increase by $20 billion. But for the Cons' defence industry cronies, this is probably considered more an example of manna from heaven than a test of faith.

Focused partisanship

The Globe and Mail reports that a series of federal focus groups led to a conclusion that the Cons are failing miserably in trying to present their message. But while it's a plus to know just how far out to lunch the Cons are, it's worth backing up a step to question whether the research should have been done on the public dime to begin with.

Remember that the Cons have already faced questions about commissioning publicly-funded research for partisan purposes. But it doesn't look like they've changed their practices at all, as the new focus groups couldn't be much further from dealing with legitimate policy research:

The Harper government is having a hard time convincing Canadians that it is different from Liberal predecessors when it comes to managing the public purse, market research conducted for Ottawa shows.

It's an image problem for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who swept into office 25 months ago with vows to clean up Ottawa and rein in spending after the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

"Arguably, most of what we heard suggests that participants have reverted to seeing this government as indistinguishable in many key respects [from] the previous one," says a January, 2008, report prepared for the Treasury Board, which vets federal spending.

The reaction was poor.

"On the whole, participants reacted negatively to most of the messages tested; testifying to the difficulty Treasury Board Secretariat may have in convincing Canadians of the benefits associated with this new approach," said the report, prepared by Patterson, Langlois Consultants.

The report also warned Ottawa to assume that Canadians are not broadly aware of the Harper government's agenda and achievements. "The tested messages may be susceptible to the erroneous presumption that awareness of the government's agenda is building."

The Conservatives frequently blame the former Liberal governments' 13-year tenure when they face criticism.

But the research report warned this doesn't work.

"When an acknowledgment of problems is accompanied by any detectable attempt to lay blame or pass the buck, the behaviour is seen as consistent with that of previous governments," the report said.

From the article, it looks like the Cons sought to claim a "new approach" to federal budgeting as an excuse to draw a contrast to the previous Lib government.

But aside from the lack of indication that the Cons have actually taken any new approach worth testing, the subject matter of the focus group doesn't leave much room for argument that any such approach was being evaluated. In particular, the article's repeated references to contrasts between the "new government" and "previous governments" - rather than to budgeting approaches - serves only to highlight that the purpose was to buy the Cons information about how to contrast themselves from the Libs, rather than to actually develop and communicate budgetary policy.

Of course, it's good news that the Cons are wrong in assuming that Canadians are buying the message they've tried to sell. But there's no reason why Canadian citizens should be stuck with the bill for letting the Cons know that they're not winning anybody over. And the Cons' continued insistence on using public resources for their own gain offers yet another example of why Canadians are right to be wary of their claims to have changed anything for the better.

On consistent differences

Following up on this post, the other noteworthy (if equally misguided) attack on the NDP has come from the Cons, as Harper and company have made a sad attempt to escape the obvious effect of the parties' respective positions on gas prices. But even the examples pointed out by the Cons serve only both to point out the NDP's consistency, and to highlight the Cons' contrasting disinterest in dealing with either high gas prices or greenhouse gas emissions.

Here are the "facts" relied on by the Cons:

* According to economists, under the NDP supported Liberal Bill C-288, gas prices would rise 60% above today’s prices. Jack Layton and all NDP MPs present voted FOR this bill (Division No. 112, February 14, 2007)
* Federal NDP leader Jack Layton wants the federal government to force oil companies to rationalize price rises (Vancouver Sun, May 8, 2004).
* “Green Taxation Reforms: The NDP has emphasised the need to change existing tax laws and tax credits that artificially lower the true costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.” (NDP Action Plan, previously posted on NDP website)
* “Stop tilting the marketplace towards unsustainable fuel and, over four years, shift government subsidies away from unsustainable fuels towards renewable ones. The first step is to reverse the tax reductions for fossil fuel industries” (NDP Kyoto Plan, previously posted at: http://douglas.ndp.ca/kyoto/en/taxpa.php)

Let's start with the last two, which can be easily dispensed with. First, they both refer on their face to cutting subsidies and benefits to the oil and gas sector to avoid "artificial" prices of any kind. Second, that exact type of action is not only something that the Cons themselves seek to take credit for doing, but something which they've also tried to criticize the NDP for voting against (when packaged into the Cons' reactionary budgets).

Which means that the Cons are criticizing the NDP...for holding a consistent position against oil and gas subsidies which they themselves claim to share.

What about the NDP's proposal to require oil companies to "rationalize" price increases? Well, their recent campaign against high gas prices has been based on substantially the same issue. So this doesn't serve to show any inconsistency - only to emphasize that the NDP is the lone party which recognizes that regulation may be needed to keep the oil and gas industry from exploiting consumers.

It might be noted that this is in particularly stark contrast to the Cons. Harper and his minions nominally claim to be against forcing seniors to choose between "filling their refrigerators, filling their prescriptions or filling their gas tanks" - but make an exception when that's caused by "market forces" (not to mention the occasional giveaway to big pharma).

Finally, let's deal with the first point which the Cons seem to think they're making. And listing the NDP's vote on C-288 manages to make for most ridiculous Con criticism of all.

Keep in mind that C-288 required only that the federal government come up with a plan to meet Canada's Kyoto targets, making no mention of a carbon tax whatsoever. And indeed none of the opposition parties ever suggested at the time that a carbon tax of any kind should be included as part of the plan - let alone as the whole thing.

In response, it was the Cons who pretended that the required emission reductions should be reached only through a carbon tax. By excluding any other means of reducing emissions (including the regulatory strategies which they now claim to support), the Cons generated inflated numbers as to the cost of meeting our international obligations - including the same 60% number which they now seem to be relying on.

Which means that the Cons are pointing to their cherry-picked numbers - themselves dependent on the Cons' choice to rely on a carbon tax which the NDP has never supported - as evidence that the NDP has somehow contradicted itself by continuing to argue against a carbon tax now.

Once the Cons' spin is untangled, the real picture is one which the NDP will be happy to emphasize. While the Libs and Cons have established track records of failing to protect either consumers or the environment, the NDP alone can point to a consistent record of supporting both reasonable prices for Canadians and real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which makes it understandable that the Cons seem concerned that the NDP will successfully claim both issues for themselves.

On hazards

If we needed more evidence that the NDP is nicely positioned to make plenty of other parties nervous, more has surfaced in the last couple of days based on some interesting attacks from federal competitors.

For now, let's note that the Bloc apparently felt the need to use a statement by one of its members to take a swipe at the NDP for being the only federal party to join the rest of the developed world in recognizing the health dangers of asbestos.

Now, I'm not holding my breath waiting for an outpouring of discussion about how the NDP has smoked out the Bloc and forced it to abandon its environmental voters. But it's still noteworthy that the Bloc recognizes that the NDP poses a serious enough threat to warrant such direct attention - particularly when that means highlighting a stand which the NDP is presumably happy to contrast against the other parties' efforts to pander to the asbestos industry.

On false prophets

For those who held out hope that the Cons' brand of cult conservatism would stop at a mere Stephen Harper portrait gallery, matters have managed to get worse. From now on, Canada's national defence strategy consists of parsing the Glorious Leader's prophetic vision of Canada Firstness.

Mind you, the Cons would likely be perfectly happy if Canada's political scene turned into nothing more than a debate among procurement theologians as to which type of fighter plane is the Chosen One. But there seems to be plenty of room for doubt that a decision to try to base 20 years of military planning on a single staged "vision" will persuade any current Harper agnostics to put their faith in the Cons.

Update: For more, see Greg rightly pointing out that the paperless strategy sounds more like a joke than a real development; Robert on the Cons' dubious choice of titles for their prophecy; and Aaron Wherry on how the defence strategy (like many other claimed Con accomplishments) is all in Harper's head.

On issue selection

A quick memo to Adam Radwanski: just because the Libs are virtually certain to claim that environmental policy begins and ends with their flavour of the month (in this case a carbon tax) doesn't make it so. In addition to its track record as the strongest environmental party in Parliament, the NDP still has a comprehensive Green Agenda to campaign on - which, along with the Libs' woeful track record, should give the NDP plenty of opportunity to hold (and build) support in the environmental community.

Not that I'd dispute for a second that the NDP figures to try to expand its current coalition to include Canadians who stand to be disproportionately affected by high fuel prices, whether those are caused by tax policy or simply a continuation of the status quo. But the NDP still figures to have plenty to offer to voters who agree on the end of emission reductions but don't see a carbon tax as the preferred means - and adding a renewed populist message to their existing environmental position offers the potential for the best of both worlds.

Power to the people

I've dealt with a few of the obvious pitfalls of tying Saskatchewan's future to private nuclear power in a couple of previous posts. But since it can never hurt to look at the effects of similar policy choices elsewhere, let's see what Rafe Mair has to say about the effects of privatized power generation in B.C.:

The Campbell government is issuing water licenses for privately owned power plants on rivers and streams all over B.C., creating power. BC Hydro is compelled by the Campbell government to buy this power at a price that will bring enormous profits for the private producers.

Before the Campbell government took over, BC Hydro, a Crown corporation, produced and distributed 90 per cent of our power requirements, giving B.C. homeowners and industries the lowest power costs in North America.

When BC Hydro made money it went to the government as dividends providing money for schools, hospitals and the like. Under the Campbell government plan, we will pay amongst the highest costs in North America and all the profits will go to shareholders, most of whom don't even live here. Not only is this a license to print money, but the rivers and streams will be badly abused, fish will be at great risk, roads will be built and transmission lines erected and the wilderness will no longer be a wilderness.

These private companies aren't competing in the market place -- they are private monopolies on the dole, big time, from taxpayers' money.

While the type of power generation rumoured for Saskatchewan may be different, the likely results would be substantially the same: less accountability for how power is generated, less Crown revenue streams to fund the province's social priorities, and inflated prices to the government's industry cronies borne by the province as a whole. Which can only add Saskatchewan residents concerned about any of those issues to the list of citizens with strong reasons to oppose any private intrusion onto SaskPower's territory.

On conflicts of interest

Following up on this morning's post, let's note that the Cons' choice of messengers sent out to deliver their position that Canadians should pay no attention to the ideology behind their war against the public sector may also be of interest. While Geoff Norquay was identified by CanWest only as a "Conservative strategist", he also holds a couple of other roles which deserve to be pointed out:

Top Conservative lobbyists Geoff Norquay, of Earnscliffe Strategy Group, and Ken Boessenkool, of Hill and Knowlton, are volunteering for Imagine Canada as it targets political parties for help for the charitable and non-profit sector.

Mr. Norquay, who meets with Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) frequently, is going to go to bat for Imagine Canada on its platform, and with Mr. Boessenkool, and intends to meet with Mr. Harper to discuss the issue.

That's right: the same person sent out to speak on behalf of the Cons is also currently engaged in lobbying them. And it might be noted that Norquay's effort to divert money into the non-profit sector fits nicely with the Cons' theme of undercutting public institutions.

The undeclared war

CanWest reports on the Cons' ongoing war against federal institutions. But while there may not be much new to say about the actual battles, the Cons' poor explanation for the war as a whole deserves to be put under the microscope:

Conservative strategist Geoff Norquay says the Liberals have constructed "a splendid little narrative" out of events that should each be considered separately on its own merits. He said all governments have tensions with regulators, that firings that have taken place were justified and all governments have shut down institutions "that have outlived their usefulness."...

Since Harper won a minority government in the winter of 2006, there have been at least 15 firings, resignations, shutdowns and showdowns with federal watchdogs, advisory bodies and government agencies.

Among them are the Elections Canada fight, the firing of the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the top two officials of the Canadian Wheat Board, the shutdown of the Law Commission of Canada, and the resignation of the chair and advisory panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Several senior environmental and scientific positions were eliminated and several officers of parliament - the ethics commissioner, the chief electoral officer and the information commissioner - retired after high profile run-ins with Harper's government.

In addition, Auditor general Sheila Fraser recently exposed a government plan to require her agency and other officers of Parliament to vet their communications through the prime minister's office. The government appears to have realized this is a step too far and backed down.

In each case, the government has had a unique justification for tackling an institution.

It accuses Elections Canada of waging "a partisan vendetta" because it is investigating suspected Conservative party election financing violations but not practices by other parties the Conservatives say are the same.

It fired Linda Keen, the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, on grounds she did not take medical isotope supplies into account when she closed an Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. nuclear research reactor for a safety update. Critics say it was not up to Keen to secure alternate isotope supplies and she was a scapegoat for government incompetence.

Norquay says all governments have periodic tensions with some regulators and the Conservatives are no different. He says the Law Commission of Canada was closed because it had outlived its usefulness, that the Wheat Board president was fired because he refused to implement government policy, and that all of these events are unrelated.

Again, it's worth keeping in mind the lengths which Stephen Harper has gone to in order to impose top-down control over the government - a process which is only going further with time. Which can leave no doubt that Harper's handprints are all over the skirmishes with the civil service.

And of course, the Cons themselves have tried to pitch the idea that Harper's every move is based on his own shrewd strategy. (Though for now, Tom Flanagan still stands alone in being willing to talk publicly about what the end goal actually is.)

All of which would seem to leave absolutely no room for the Cons to now argue that it's unfair to consider the big picture that they're aiming for. But that's exactly the argument that they seem to want to make: having publicly sold the story that their every move is a product of Harper's strategic plan, they now want Canadians to believe that it's unfair to link their actions back to the obvious controlling mind and mindset behind them.

Naturally, it would suit the Cons just fine if Canadians were gullible enough to believe that their war against public institutions could be explained by sheer coincidence. But the Cons have offered no reason why they should be taken at their word - and every reason to think that it'll take a change in government to end the hostilities.

Nuclear instability

Randy Burton points out a couple more major problems with any plan to build a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan, as the current state of power regulation in Alberta would make such a project just as risky economically as environmentally:

(I)t's not as simple as Wall calling Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and some northern U.S. governors and making a deal. There are also some very complicated market factors to deal with in Alberta, which operates in a deregulated open market for power.

Where there used to be three power producers in Alberta, there are now about 20 different companies competing to offer electricity to the province's larger customers, including commercial and industrial users which together account for about two-thirds of the Alberta market. Local utilities also buy power on the open market to sell to residential users...

Power producers assume the risk of finding markets for what they produce and government is not controlling the pace of new construction. This makes nuclear a particularly risky option in Alberta, because the time frames for constructing a generating plant are so long.

It's relatively easy to build gas-fired plants, so what appears to be a huge demand for power 10 years from now could shrink dramatically, depending on the actions of conventional power producers...

What to do about the risks inherent in the Alberta market is another question.

This is where interprovincial co-operation comes in. So far, the Alberta government has shown no inclination to intervene in the Alberta electricity market to ease the way for nuclear. But it also has a big greenhouse-gas problem that is only going to get worse.

A nuclear plant in Saskatchewan could potentially supply emissions-free power to Alberta and relieve Stelmach of the problem of selling the concept to a population that appears to be less comfortable with the idea than the Saskatchewan population.

Of course, there's little to no evidence to support the assertion that "the Saskatchewan population" is remotely comfortable with the idea of tying itself to nuclear power. But let's leave that aside to point out the implications of Alberta's current power scene.

Both Burton and the pro-nuclear talking heads gloss over the danger of Alberta doing anything other than setting aside a substantial chunk of its anticipated demand for the anticipated supply. But it should be clear that even if a Saskatchewan market would mitigate part of the downside risk, a nuclear plant which is counting on selling half its output to Alberta would face serious difficulties if other plants offer enough capacity in the meantime to render it redundant.

That possibility of other sources coming onstream sooner would be no less real for a project based in Saskatchewan than Alberta. And indeed, there would be far less incentive for Alberta to stick to a current agreement about future power purchasing if any resulting losses would be felt in another province.

Which means that any scheme to construct a nuclear reactor which depends on supplying power to Alberta would leave Saskatchewan entirely at the mercy of Alberta's government. And that could have any number of dangerous side effects - whether it be Ed Stelmach demanding that Brad Wall give in to his plan to drag Saskatchewan into the TILMA, or a future Alberta government having second thoughts about making use of the power supply (or simply seeing an advantage in threatening to use other suppliers in order to win lower rates).

Not that Wall and his ilk would likely mind seeing Saskatchewan's hands permanently tied in order to offer some profit potential for would-be nuclear operators. But the province as a whole can only be all the more suspicious of any plan which can only be sold by overlooking such obvious dangers.