For the long haul

I'll leave aside for now the merits of Michael Byers' proposal for an NDP name change, as well as the positive signs for the NDP pointed out in Lawrence Martin's column today. But it's definitely worth noting that just weeks after Byers chose the NDP over the Libs in the face of direct appeals from both, he's already publicly showing a strong interest in building the NDP in the long term - both in offering suggestions in how the NDP can brand itself, and in what sounds like a concerted effort to bring an increased activist base into the fold.

Of course, it remains to be seen both how Byers will fare in Vancouver Centre, and what role he'll end up playing in the longer term. But it does seem clear that the NDP's star candidates are focused on far more than merely getting into the House of Commons themselves - and that can only bode well for the prospects of building the party for the future.

On mad government

Alison points out the connection between the ongoing reality of BSE in Canada and the Cons' choice to eliminate any federal testing as part of their compulsive attacks on government. But there's another part of the calculus which makes the Cons' decision all the more ridiculous (warning: PDF):

The economic implications (of BSE) for the livestock sector, meat and animal feed manufacturers, and the vast array of service sectors, such as trucking, sales yards and brokers, which provide support to the livestock industry, are
widespread. For the overall Canadian economy, it is estimated that for each $100 million in exports by the cattle sector, $80 million is added to the national gross domestic product (GDP) (at market prices), $228 million is generated in total output, $41 million is added to labour income, and 3,000 jobs are created. Therefore, the potential negative impact on the Canadian economy from a $2.5 billion loss in cattle and calf exports due to BSE translates into a $2 billion loss in GDP, a $5.7 billion decline in total output in the Canadian economy, a $1 billion decline in labour income and a loss of 75,000 jobs.

According to a report prepared for the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the direct economic cost to the Canadian livestock industry by early 2004 was estimated at nearly $3.3 billion. An additional loss in equity to the cow-calf sector was estimated at $3.0 billion, for a total economic impact from BSE of $6.3 billion.

Now, it's precisely the testing regime now in place which has ensured that later cases of BSE haven't resulted in quite such severe consequences. And it's clear that the private interest in avoiding the worst possible results wasn't enough to ensure that similarly thorough testing took place before the 2003 outbreak.

But for the Cons, the danger of billions of dollars in economic damage is apparently seen as a small price to pay for being seen to hack away slightly at the federal government. And some of the rural voters who otherwise support the Cons ought to take a far closer look at how willing Harper and company are to jeopardize their well-being for a ridiculously small cost reduction.

On hidden dangers

Pogge and impolitical have already weighed in on the substance of the Cons' plan to gut food safety inspections. But there's an equally important story to be told in how and why the changes are coming about:

The new system, part of a push to trim the agency's budget by 5%, was approved last November, but a public announcement "has been deferred owing to significant communications risks," according to the confidential Treasury Board document obtained by Canwest News Service.

Just from this limited description of the process followed by the Cons, a couple of points stand out.

First off, let's note that while pogge is right to point out that the SPP-based push toward corporate regulation was supported just as much by the Libs as by the Cons, the picture is slightly different for this story. After all, this particular move is a direct result of the one of the Cons' policies which has received far too little discussion.

As noted in the article, the cuts to monitoring and regulatory changes are both an immediate consequence of the Cons' arbitrary demand for cuts in the federal civil service. And while the results in the case of food safety may have a particularly obvious effect on Canadians, the Cons' plan is to ensure that the same is done - with similar outcomes sure to follow - in other departments as well.

Mind you, the difference between the Libs and Cons in power doesn't reflect at all well on the Libs' actions in opposition either. From my standpoint, the story also offers an important reason why any strategy such as the Libs' which involves lengthening the amount of time Harper and company stay in power can only be considered a dangerous one in terms of policy as well as politics.

Moving on to the process that made the changes public, the article also highlights why some of the damage done by the Cons may not yet be known - and indeed may not become clear until long after they're removed from office.

It's bad enough that the Cons didn't bother to consult with affected parties before approving the change. But it's especially significant that eight months after the Cons actually made the decision to radically revamp food safety inspection, they still had no apparent intention of making that fact public based on the "communications risks" which would follow from having to actually defend their choices to Canadians.

As a result, but for a media inquiry into something which the Cons concealed, consumers who count on effective federal regulation as part of their assurance that food products are safe may have ended up making choices based on a system which the Cons had already gutted.

Faced with such a stark example of the type of decision which is verifiably being concealed because the Cons perceive the avoidance of "communications risks" as more important than actually allowing Canadians to be informed as to what the federal government has done, there's all the more reason for concern about what else the Cons have done in office which they see as too harmful politically to disclose. And the only way to push for a more reasonable standard from future governments is to make sure the Cons pay at least as much of a political price for their deception as they would have if they'd tried to push the same policy with appropriate public input and knowledge.

Silenced

Since the National Post's spin makes this sound far more significant than is actually the case, let's take a moment to set the record straight. Based on the text of the story, nothing actually suggests that the recording industry has "won" a disputed case, or that any court has "ruled" on peer-to-peer file sharing. Instead, Big Copyright is apparently trumpeting a consent injunction (i.e. one granted only because the other party chose to agree to it rather than even mounting an argument against it) as something that it isn't.

Which isn't to say there isn't one part of the story worth highlighting for its practical implications:

Mr. Brulotte, a 28-year-old resident of St-Jérôme, north of Montreal, is also ordered to refrain from making any comment regarding the dispute "that may be prejudicial" to the record companies that sought the injunction.

Can we count on Ezra, Steyn and their band of merry Human Rights Commissions haters to be the least bit interested in the freedom of expression implications of this order? Or is it only the opportunity to play free speech martyr - with the added bonus of slamming a moderately-resourced government entity rather than large corporate ones - that makes them the least bit interested in what speech is limited?

No cause for celebration

Shorter Benny Peiser:
Kudos to the G8 for playing chicken on greenhouse gas emission reductions rather than actually trying to work with developing countries. I only hope the two groups of countries are both reckless enough to follow through with a head-on collision.

So hard to say goodbye

Apparently at least some commentators just aren't quite ready to give up on Quebec's margarine colour regulation as their main argument to criticize the idea of active government based merely on the fact that it no longer exists. Shorter Colby Cosh (by reference to William Watson):

The margarine colour example serves as living proof that we need to be extra-suspicious of regulations to make sure corporate interests can't lobby for a regulatory philosophy which ultimately helps nobody but themselves. But don't take my word for it: ask the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Or...

On budget busters

Sadly, the Sask Party's obsession with nuclear power hasn't yet led to much substantive debate as to why on earth Saskatchewan would want to bind itself either to privately-funded power generally or a nuclear reactor in particular. But Konrad Yakabuski offers a perspective from a province which should already know better on the latter point:

Okay, so nuclear plants don't produce greenhouse gas emissions. And their other advantages are what, exactly?

Well before any of the planned nuclear plants get built - but possibly long enough after it will be too late to stop them from going up - the economics and logistics of wind energy, solar power and carbon capture will have evolved favourably enough to have changed the game.

"Within three to seven years, unsubsidized solar power could cost no more to end customers in many markets, such as California and Italy, than electricity generated by fossil fuels or by renewable alternatives to solar," according to an article in the June issue of The McKinsey Quarterly.

So why bet on a horse - nuclear power - that eats budgets the way Homer Simpson downs doughnuts, and leaves behind the most deadly waste known to man - waste for which there is still no permanent disposal solution?...

That great sucking sound you hear is proposed or in-the-works nuclear plants blowing their budgets everywhere. Areva's first EPR project, in Finland, is two years behind schedule and at least $1.5-billion over budget. Its second, in France's Normandy region, is headed in the same direction, after construction stalled for several weeks recently.

It's not just the skyrocketing price of basic materials, such as concrete and steel, that's driving costs upward. So-called third generation reactors - such Areva's EPR and Atomic Energy's ACR-1000 - are still works in progress. And the two decades during which nuclear power faced desert-like prospects has left the industry grappling with a severe shortage of skilled workers.

In the United States, the escalating cost of nuclear power has led Warren Buffet to reconsider the idea. In January, Berkshire Hathaway-owned MidAmerican Energy Holdings suspended plans to build a nuclear plant in Idaho saying it "does not make economic sense." Still, Congress is offering loan guarantees and tax credits worth billions to electricity providers that take the nuclear plunge. If that doesn't work, Areva's running a television ad using the 1980 disco hit Funky Town to get North Americans to buy into a new nuclear age.

The ad may make some nostalgic, but it only reminds us that nuclear power, like our disco phase, may be a memory best kept repressed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like many Canadian provinces have learned any lessons - either based on their own past experience, or based on a continud global pattern of nuclear power costing far more than originally claimed. And for Saskatchewan, the Wall government's determination to push a nuclear megaproject with no regard for the consequences can only bring back memories of a time slightly further on in the '80s from which the province has just recently recovered.

On selective division

Yessiree, I'm sure any day now Deceivin' Stephen will be proudly appearing at the grand opening of a moderate Christian church while an anonymous surrogate informs "militant Christists" that Harper is "fully prepared to ignore them" and side with other factions within the faith. After all, surely he wouldn't want to tip off any bigotry by blatantly discriminating among religions, right?

The end of an era

The National Post reports that Quebec has repealed its regulation on margarine colour. While the move may be a small one in its immediate effects, it may have far-reaching implications: now, those shilling for TILMA and other anti-government agreements will have to find an entirely different example to beat into the ground as a rare case of an internal trade barrier, rather than being able to repeatedly cry "margarine!".

The far end of the spectrum

Shorter Terence Corcoran:
It utterly baffles me why the federal government would auction off space on the wireless spectrum for prices which providers are more than willing to pay, rather than simply handing it to telecoms for free.

On half measures

While the Cons once again run around trying to take credit for supposed progress in G8 talks about greenhouse gas emissions, the Globe and Mail reports on what the agreed statement actually says. And like most of the Cons' claimed accomplishments, this one amounts to something between less than meets the eye, and nothing at all:

The G8 declaration itself, in fact, puts that goal in the strained and fuzzy language of bureaucratic negotiations.

It asserted the G8 would “seek to share” with all countries in UN climate talks “the vision” of achieving at least a 50 per cent reduction in emissions and “together with them, consider and adopt” the goal.

And it doesn't say what year the starting point is, so it's not clear what level of emissions they want to cut in half, and each country can choose their own start year.

In other words, the goal of a 50% cut in emissions by 2050 hasn't even been substantially accepted within the G8. Instead, the actual agreement is merely to put the number on the table in the upcoming Copenhagen talks - with an unstated implication that the G8 countries won't actually accept the number even at that time unless developing economies do the same.

In reality, then, it would be generous even to call the G8's statement as "aspirational", since there doesn't appear to be any agreement even to aspire to the goal. Instead, the statement looks to be better classified as a conditional willingness to agree to targets at the UN wrapped in a future hypothetical.

But rather than taking an even remotely plausible look at the statement, the Cons are now pushing the idea that such a feeble excuse for an agreement amount a group of the same countries which agreed fully on Kyoto over a decade ago should be classified as "big steps forward". And that should offer another strong indication of just how little distance the Cons are willing to travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Louder than words

Remember back when Stephen Harper was trumpeting his claimed commitment to Arctic sovereignty? Apparently word didn't make it through to anybody responsible for ensuring that sovereignty, as the Globe and Mail reports that both the Canadian military and the RCMP showed little more than total disinterest in an Arctic patrol exercise last summer:

The Canadian Forces have come under fire in an internal report highly critical of military leaders' lack of interest in an Arctic sovereignty protection exercise last August.
...
The report on Operation Nanook, obtained by The Globe and Mail under the Access to Information law, was written by a Forces directorate that helped organize the August, 2007, Arctic exercise.

It says Canadian military leaders didn't place a high enough priority on the operation, and it singles out for criticism Canada Command, the military organization given the task of defending this country.

The report says Canada Command failed to issue a set of orders that had been planned to help disseminate instructions on Operation Nanook.

“[It's] a sad testament to the lack of interest in this operation and its associated training events displayed by the superior HQ that directed it to be conducted in the first place.”
...
The report also complains about inadequate participation by the RCMP, which has policing responsibilities in Nunavut. The military was forced to use stand-ins for Mounties during part of Nanook, even though the RCMP is a key agency in fighting drug smuggling and this was one of the scenarios practised.
...
An RCMP spokesman blamed lower-than-normal staffing across Nunavut last August. “Human resources levels across the Division were 25 per cent below normal and ongoing operational issues and day-to-day community policing needs took precedence over the exercise,” Corporal Greg Cox said.

It's not clear how much input the Cons themselves would have had into the amount of effort put into the exercise. But it seems obvious that a government which saw Arctic sovereignty as something genuinely worth pursuing would have ensured that all parties involved recognized the importance of the patrol, rather than apparently showing no interest in the job (not to mention leaving the RCMP with insufficient resources to participate).

Instead, Canada's Arctic sovereignty looks to be just one more addition to the list of policy areas where the Cons' professed interest is flatly contradicted by their record in office. And that continued conflict between the Harper government's words and actions offers plenty of reason to continue to doubt any of the former.

Safe predictions

Shorter Bush/Baird tag team on the prospects for a common front on greenhouse gas emission cuts at next week's G8 summit:
Speaking as the parties who refuse to even consider any emission reduction targets, we have a crazy hunch that no unanimous agreement will be reached.

A deepening pool

Scott Piatkowski adds one more name to the list of star NDP candidates named this week. But what may be more interesting than the addition of actor/writer/producer David Sparrow to the slate is the type of riding where Layton has been able to recruit the latest wave of additions.

In particular, Don Valley West looks to make for fairly difficult terrain for any NDP candidate. Not only did the NDP rank third in 2006 with under 10% of the vote, but the history of the riding shows nothing but distant third- and fourth-place finishes. But even with that, the NDP has managed to recruit a candidate whose resume looks to stack up nicely against his competitors.

And while Edmonton East is easily the NDP's second-best target in Alberta (and a riding where Ray Martin managed to triple the NDP's general Alberta support in his last run in 2000), it's still probably not a riding which figured to be much of a magnet for a top candidate absent a strong recruiting effort.

Of course, the bigger-name candidates like Michael Byers and Anne Lagacé-Dowson will be making their runs in ridings with obvious pickup opportunities. But it isn't only the NDP's main targets that appear to be enjoying an influx of new talent. And as a result, if the NDP is able to move its national numbers enough to start putting more ridings in play, its candidates should be more than up to the task of making the most of the opportunity.

No improvement

Of all the criticisms levelled at Sandra Buckler during her stint as Deceivin' Stephen's communications direction, I don't recall "insufficiently partisan" ever coming up. But apparently that's the issue the Cons were most concerned with in naming Corn Cob Kory as her replacement and otherwise revamping the PMO:

Sources say Mr. Giorno has already promoted or fired some staff in an effort to gear up the PMO for the next federal election, which could come as early as this fall. The objective has been to replace "bureaucratic" aides with more overtly political staff, said one Conservative source.

The government is expected to be more proactive at hammering home its political message under Mr. Teneycke, who is believed to have played a major role in the government's recent attacks on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's plans for a carbon tax. Relations with the parliamentary press gallery might not necessarily become more friendly, but reporters will no longer receive little or no response to requests for comment, said the source.

"The PMO's going to become a lot more political. It's going to be a lot more aggressive . . . Every single story, we're going to try to get our say in."

Now, there were certainly problems with the previous strategy of simply stonewalling any request for comment. But it's difficult to see how the new plan of attack will do much other than to make the Cons seem ever more petty and self-absorbed.

After all, if the media wanted the Cons' spin on an issue (as distinct from what would presumably be a more official response from the PMO), wouldn't it make sense that it would be seeking that information from the party office rather than Canada's executive branch? And does anybody but the most deluded of Harper cult followers think that the same old spin will be better received coming from the PMO instead?

Duly named

There's little reason to think Kory Teneycke's appointment as Stephen Harper's communications director will result in his being seen any more positively than the now-departed Sandra Buckler. But it would be a shame if his future battles with the press resulted in anybody forgetting about his stint lobbying his partymates on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association.

So to ensure that his trip through the lobbying revolving door doesn't get lost as he takes up his new role keeping meaningful information out of the hands of the media, I hereby dub him Corn Cob Kory.

Worth a thousand words

The Ottawa Sun reports on the ridiculous degree of secrecy cloaking the selection of a location for the National Portrait Gallery. As noted by NDP MP Paul Dewar, the Cons have gone so far as to refuse to publicly name the members of the committee responsible for choosing a location - making for even more extreme steps than usual to ensure that nobody is able to get a word in other than the Cons and their hand-picked cronies.

Which isn't to say there's a total lack of good news: thanks to being unburdened with any need to deal with input from the public, the committee has also had time to put together the gallery's first special exhibit. Watch for A History of Conservative Transparency wherever the gallery ends up.

Spin cycles

It's been awhile since the NDP unveiled a high-profile candidate outside Quebec. But the news that Michael Byers will seek the NDP's nomination in Vancouver Centre offers yet another indication that Layton and company are doing extremely well in the candidate recruitment department - as can be seen from the Libs' desperate attempts to spin away its impact.

To listen to part of the Libs' response, Byers is a terribly controversial candidate who will prove toxic in Toronto if one takes a couple of lines out of context from a 2006 interview. Which is presumably why the Libs themselves tried multiple times to recruit him, including through a personal plea from Stephane Dion.

Mind you, the Libs do have an excuse up their sleeve as to why that effort failed: according to them, Byers wanted the Libs to "remove any competition" for a riding nomination. Which would be a heck of a lot more plausible if he hadn't chosen to run for a party which doesn't even have a candidate appointment process to offer that kind of non-competition.

In sum, while the Libs are trying to minimize both their previous desire to have Byers run for them and his future impact, it seems clear that Layton and the NDP have once again won out in a direct contest for a star candidate. And that success may only hint at the NDP's ability to similarly win over voters when the next election rolls around.

Predicting the inevitable

David Akin notes another interesting Con response to Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada, as MP Rod Bruinooge is complaining that he no longer wants to bother with the institution.

Let's see...right-wingers declaring that since an obviously apolitical institution fails to adequately reflect their prejudices, they plan to take their ball and go home. Can the Conservatorder of Canada be far behind? And will it manage to be even more entertaining than the last such effort?

Hypothetically speaking

Dr. Dawg points out that the list of Con MPs piping up about Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada includes Ken Epp. But it's worth noting just what Epp had to say:

However, Tory MP Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park) said the pro-choice supporters have "gone too far."

"As far as I'm concerned it is indeed controversial," said Epp, who has a private member's bill before the House of Commons that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child's mother is the victim of a crime.

Epp also questioned the objectivity of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as head of the Order of Canada advisory council. "Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," he said.

Now, from my perspective Epp's argument raises a couple of fairly significant questions - which essentially need to be directed at Harper in light of his well-known message control.

First, is Epp really claiming that the mere fact that an Order of Canada appointee is associated with an issue renders the Chief Justice of Canada too biased to deal with that issue? If that interpretation is correct, then the full list of appointees would seemingly result in McLachlin C.J.C. being unable to rule on anything more significant than a parking ticket.

Of course, it doesn't stand to reason that Morgentaler's appointment affects judicial impartiality any more than Buzz Hargrove's appointment disqualifies McLachlin from hearing labour law cases. But even if one grants Epp the charitable interpretation that he knows he's wrong, it's still noteworthy that the Cons' message is once again centred on inflammatory and patently ridiculous arguments against the fairness and impartiality of independent bodies.

Second, and more significantly, there's the question of just when Epp anticipates a case which raises abortion issues coming before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'll note in that respect that Dr. Dawg focuses in on how Epp's new message casts ever more doubt on his honesty in claiming that his C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. But let's take the analysis a step further and grant Epp his own claim for now.

After all, since there's currently no outstanding legal conflict involving abortion, the only way it figures to find its way in front of the Supreme Court of Canada is if new legislation is passed in the meantime. If Epp is right in claiming that C-484 doesn't actually involve abortion, then what do he and the Cons know about other plans for legislation that would bring the issue back before the courts?

Thoughtful

Shorter Gary Mason:
Don't let politicians do your thinking for you. After all, that's my job.

If you're after substantive discussion about the options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in stark contrast to Mason's column), Devin has what you're looking for.

Simple answers to flawed questions, bargaining table edition

From Norman Spector:

Who best can defend Canadian interests in negotiating a successor agreement to Kyoto that would include China, India and the United States: hard-ass Stephen Harper (as Foreign Minister David Emerson has called him), or dreamy-eyed Stéphane Dion (who named his dog Kyoto)?

On behalf of those of us who are more interested in Harper's track record than the spin from his underlings, a hearty "neither of the above".

Building anger

Earlier this year, word came out that the Cons' much-ballyhooed infrastructure program was serving only to keep Regina's IPSCO Place renovations on hold, as the Harper government was evidently too busy trumpeting its own "accomplishments" to get around to actually funding projects once the photo ops were out of the way.

It took another month for the Cons to actually get around to approving that particular project. But today, the Star reports that every other municipality which has relied on federal funding is being punished even more for trusting the Cons:

In his 2007 budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty promised a windfall for Ontario towns and cities – $3.1 billion to help pay for highways, water projects and public transit.

Fifteen months later, municipalities have yet to see a dime.

The money, part of Ottawa's Building Canada Fund that earmarks $8.8 billion for infrastructure nationwide, has been tied up while the federal government negotiates the details with Queen's Park.

Ontario cities aren't alone in waiting. Money from the Building Canada Fund has yet to go to cities in Quebec, Alberta or Manitoba because Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon is still negotiating the required framework agreements with those provincial governments as well.

Municipal officials say they've now lost two construction seasons because of funding delays and some fear next season could be in jeopardy, too, unless hurdles are soon cleared. That's causing mounting frustration, as the backlog of work grows and project costs rise...

As best the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can figure, only one municipality in Canada has actually had a project approved for funding under the program – a $20 million commitment for an arena complex in Regina.

Consultations with the provinces and cities over how the fund should be managed actually began two summers ago, according to federal officials. And money for the fund, to be doled out over seven years, was formally announced in the March 2007 federal budget...

Pat Vanini, executive director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, cautioned that even once the framework agreement is signed with the province, other sub-agreements must be hammered out as well, including deals on how funding will be split between big and small communities.

Obviously a significant part of the story is the Cons' continued devotion to government by press conference, with no interest in doing the work to actually deliver what they've taken credit for. And it's particularly striking that the IPSCO Place debacle itself apparently didn't push anybody to try to get anything moving elsewhere.

However, it's also worth noting how much of the delay seems to have been built into the process by the Cons themselves.

In principle, there's no reason why a province-wide framework to divide up seven years worth of funding would be needed before a dime can flow to a project which has already been agreed to by all three levels of government. But the Cons have instead chosen to hold each project hostage until far larger and thornier questions are dealt with. And that choice, combined with the lack of federal movement in resolving those same questions, virtually ensures that funding won't start moving anytime soon.

In addition, a process which requires a broad-reaching agreement with any province also invites the Cons to play favourites as to which provinces will see their agreements completed first...though at least one can largely say that nobody's yet receiving much preferential treatment.

It remains to be seen how long it'll take before frustrated provinces and municipalities start taking matters into their own hands and simply deciding that promised federal funding isn't worth waiting for. But for now, it seems beyond doubt that the Cons' refusal to make good on their promises and announcements is the single most important obstacle to much-needed infrastructure renewal.

Unpersuasive

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
If I'm willing to put my unprovoked attacks on Ontario behind us and pretend to be nice, surely that's a good enough reason for the province to take my orders now.

Open issues

The Globe and Mail's coverage of the latest shift in Strategic Counsel's poll of public concerns focuses on the problems caused for the Libs by the fact that the environment has dropped to #3 on the list of the most pressing issues facing Canada. But it's worth noting that the three main concerns seem to offer three different issues of roughly equal concern - each of which can easily be linked primarily to one of the national parties:

As the cost of filling the tank hits uncharted heights – and is predicted to go even higher – a wide-ranging survey conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests energy prices are on par with the sagging economy when it comes to Canadians' worries.

The environment, last year's top issue, has been pushed to No. 3, with just 16 per cent of Canadians surveyed saying they now consider it their primary concern...

In Canada, 18 per cent of respondents said the rising cost of gas was the most important issue. That was equal to the percentage in this country who named the economy as their No. 1 concern. In the past three years, gas prices have rarely been mentioned by people surveyed by the Strategic Counsel; the highest number was 4 per cent in July of 2006.

The article doesn't discuss the effect of gas prices and the economy taking over the top two spots. But the difference between respondents more concerned with one rather than the other might also track potential voter pools for the NDP and the Cons.

After all, the Harper government's declaration that it isn't interested in dealing with fuel prices and other increasing costs of living to the extent they're cause by "market forces" would seem to leave the field wide open for the NDP to win over voters who rank gas prices as the primary concern. And given that a similar focus seems to already be working for the B.C. NDP, there's every reason for the federal party to figure it's best served keeping up the same focus.

Meanwhile, all concerns about plausibility aside, the Cons have tried to turn economic management into an area of strength, particularly based on their choice of attacks on the Libs' carbon tax scheme.

All of which suggests that the current parity in the top three issues may be matched by a similar level of opportunity for each of the parties to grab hold of the issue which favours it most. And if we're indeed headed for a fall election, it wouldn't be surprising to see the party which most effectively carries out that task winning the most support as a result.

Mind you, none of the party links will go without at least some challenge. The NDP will of course point its comparative track record on the environment, the "Tory times are tough times" line figures to be a difficult one for Harper to answer in trying to run on economic management, and the Cons have tried at least somewhat to take on the NDP's concern with gas prices.

But there's little indication so far that any of the parties have managed to prevent the others from branding themselves based on the three top issues of concern. And from here on in, the smart play looks to be for each party to push its own issue to the forefront, rather than getting caught up trying to challenge opponents' credibility on the others.

Never enough now

Shorter Macleans response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission's dismissal of a complaint against it:
Sure, it's well and good that we were found to be on the right side of the law. But is it really too much to ask that someone declare us to be above the law altogether?

On secrets and lies

Shorter Maxime Bernier, trying to explain how a minister responsible for some of Canada's most sensitive information could possibly be ignorant of Julie Couillard's past:
Infiltrator? Why, I hardly even knew 'er!

On notice

Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz points out the latest sign of the Bush administration's habit of running the U.S. government like a small-time scam operation. This time, the White House decided to avoid an analysis which the Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to provide by refusing to open the e-mail which enclosed it - leaving the message in "e-mail limbo, without official status".

What I have to wonder is just how much further Bushco will travel down that path by the beginning of next year. Will attempts to serve habeas corpus applications on behalf of Guantanamo detainees be met with "We're sorry, the United States of America moved and didn't leave a forwarding address"? Or will Bushco decide that its "inherent jurisdiction" includes the ability to refuse to receive news that it's time to leave office in 2009?

A well-defined role

As part of her entertaining live-blogging of the Cons' latest Cabinet shuffle, Kady O'Malley wonders whether James Moore's promotion to a Secretary of State position means that he'll no longer be the Cons' attack dog on the Cadscam file. But I'd think that his new responsibility for Official Languages is entirely in keeping with his Cadscam role. After all, what position could possibly give Moore a better platform to continue his longstanding push to drain the words "financial considerations" of their normal English meaning?

On soft support

For all the discussion that the Harris-Decima poll on Canadian attitudes toward a carbon tax has spawned, I'm surprised one point seems to have slipped through the cracks. Based on the poll's party breakdown, the second-lowest support for a carbon tax was found...among Green Party voters, with under half indicating their approval.

This after the Greens have been flogging the carbon tax issue for years, and with Elizabeth May calling for three times the level of tax being pushed by the Libs.

Now, I'm not aware of any particular groundswell among the Greens' candidates or supporters to reverse course on the carbon tax itself. So the issue doesn't figure to be one which will actually tear apart what party structure May may have cobbled together.

But it's still striking that the Greens' current "supporters" aren't any more likely than voters in general to agree with its signature policy. And that has to offer reason to think that the Greens' current support levels are based more on vote parking than on any agreement with (or even awareness of) the party's direction.

Worth debating

In the wake of Stephane Dion's challenge to Stephen Harper to a debate over the Libs' carbon tax proposal, it's worth wondering whether the same thing will happen as did last time a similar one-on-one challenge was issued - and if the NDP is developing its reponse accordingly.

Remember that in the 2006 election campaign, Gilles Duceppe demanded a debate with Paul Martin over Quebec sovereignty. But when Martin refused, Harper offered to debate Duceppe instead...which sapped much of the momentum which Duceppe figured to have won from his initial challenge, and likely formed at least some of the basis for the Cons' eventual gains in Quebec.

In that case, I criticized Harper for fanning the flames of separatism - and that assessment holds true even though the greatest downsides of the offer didn't materialize. But on an issue which doesn't carry the same danger of blowing the country apart, there's every reason for Jack Layton to look to take his role in the discussion by offering to speak on behalf of Canadians who don't support the carbon tax in a debate against its leading proponent.

Of course, Harper hasn't yet provided a direct response to Dion's challenge. But Harper hasn't shown any interest in the concept of "adult" debate in any event, and there isn't much reason to think he'll want to take on a debate where he - like Martin during the election campaign - would have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose by accepting the offer. Which means that the hints that Harper isn't interested figure to accurately reflect the likely response.

In contrast, if Layton were to offer a debate with Dion, both parties would obviously have plenty to gain. The Libs would win public exposure for their policy centrepiece, and indeed be able to do so in a debate against an opponent which wouldn't tend toward the Cons' strategy of distortions and distractions. And Dion would also receive sorely-needed training for election debates to come.

Meanwhile, the NDP would both get to defend its own environmental bona fides against the current wave of Red Green attacks, and receive an ideal opportunity to contrast itself against the Libs as the main opposition to Harper. And of course the media attention surrounding the debate wouldn't hurt either.

But what if the Red Greens tried to turn the tables on Layton? Even if the Libs declined and the Greens were to try to take the same process a step further by offering up their own challenge, that could well be something the NDP will be willing to accept to win some media coverage for its policies which don't often receive the attention they deserve.

Of course, there are risks involved in any debate. But for the NDP, this looks to be an example where the upside would far outweigh the dangers...making this one challenge that Layton should be eager to present.

Update: As Cameron points out, Dion has pre-emptively declared that he isn't interested in debating anybody other than Harper. While Cameron describes it as a sign of arrogance, I'll suggest it's more a matter of weakness: apparently Dion doesn't think his green credentials can stand up to a challenge from anybody but a party where climate change denial is still probably the majority view.

On dangerous mining

The CP reports that as part of their effort to challenge a salary increase for federal judges, Rob Nicholson's Justice Department required the Canada Revenue Agency to provide tax return information about judges appointed since 1995. But while today's story is disturbing enough on its own, I have to wonder whether this is anything but the tip of the iceberg in what information the Cons have squeezed out of the CRA to further their political agenda.

The CP describes the Cons' rationale for demanding the information as follows:

To buttress its position that salaries for federal judges are generally higher than the income they earned as lawyers in private and public practice, the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of giving the Canada Revenue Agency a list of the names of 627 judges the federal cabinet appointed to the bench between 1995 and 2007.

The agency was able to match 567 of those judges to their tax records as lawyers, and provided the Justice Department with an aggregated version of the information, with no names attached. A consultant used the data to calculate what the department claimed was an indication of the average increases in salaries and benefits lawyers received after they became judges.

Darren Eke, a spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, issued a brief statement Sunday insisting the government had done nothing wrong.

"Our government respected the independence of the commission in its work and surely did not interfere at any point," said Eke. "To imply otherwise is simply false."

The conclusions reached by the federally hired consultant who analysed the tax information were vociferously challenged by Bienvenu and the judges' data expert.

In letters and submissions during the final stages of the salary deliberations, prominent lawyers the Justice Department retained to settle the conflict argued it was impossible to link the aggregated version of the tax data with the identities of judges whose income was scrutinized.

"The government, outside of CRA itself, and in particular the Department of Justice for purposes of this commission, had no access to the underlying data (the income tax returns)," wrote Neil Finkelstein and Catherine Began Flood.

They acknowledged access that could identify taxpayers is "prohibited by law." The two lawyers, and assistant deputy attorney general Donald Rennie, argued CRA routinely provides anonymous information about professional groups or occupations of taxpayers on an aggregated basis.

From the story, it seems clear by implication that the Cons don't see any problem at all with ordering the CRA to provide them with aggregate information. But let's consider how that kind of information could be misused.

Even to the extent that any request is limited by profession, it's not hard to see how the Cons could use information about income levels to their advantage by similarly demanding aggregated data. Think how useful it might be for the Cons' political operatives to target their fund-raising drives with insider information about which professions are seeing increased income, or a drop in average political donations which might signal room to donate more money.

And the problem only gets worse if the Cons see themselves as entitled to submit any list of names to the CRA for a similar aggregate report, rather than being limited to professions. Want to know whether patronage in a riding is hitting the mark? A simple printout of aggregate income information for all party members within that riding would answer that question in a second. Or aggregate reports could work wonders in further refining a set of demographic classifications - while again providing far more relevant information about who has money available, and who's most likely to be interested in contributing to a political party.

What's worse, it's worth being at least somewhat skeptical as to whether personal information in general - or particularly the type of information being dealt with in this case - is necessarily as anonymous as it seems. While the CRA's data wouldn't itself disclose names or even individual data, it's not at all unlikely that the information can be linked to other data to identify the individuals involved.

For an obvious example in this case, consider what would could be done with aggregated information about how much money the judges in question donated to political parties. The Cons would be able to cross-check the donations by those same judges which have been publicly disclosed against the total amount reported by the CRA to figure out with at least some certainty which ones were - and weren't - included in the report. And enough linked requests using some or all of the same pool of names could theoretically enable a party to reverse-engineer the full tax returns involved without ever technically receiving "identifiable" information in a single report.

Of course, it's not clear that the Cons have indeed crossed the line between information being used for governmental purposes and that which is made available for their partisan use. But in light of their efforts to get there in the past, it's awfully difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt. Which means that both the affected judges in particular and Canadians in general may have yet another reason to worry about how the Cons are using the trappings of power.

On national interests

Shorter John Ibbitson:
As far as I'm concerned, Canadians should see a third Bush term as the best hope of reducing the border paranoia stoked by Bush and his party during the previous two.

Timing is everything

The Citizen reports on what exactly the Cons managed to accomplish by filibustering the Ethics Committee in its attempts to investigate Conadscam. And the timing of the hearings figures to offer a strong example of why the Cons' style of obstructionism can easily come back to haunt a party:

A Commons committee plans to hold rare summer hearings into alleged violations of Canada's election laws by the Conservatives after a months-long Tory filibuster of the plan ended before Parliament shut down yesterday.

Opposition MPs, who form a majority on the ethics committee, voted late yesterday to open hearings into a scheme under which the Conservatives allegedly transferred money for advertising in and out of local ridings in the final days of the 2006 election in a bid to get around national campaign spending limits.

New Democrat MP Pat Martin said he expects the hearings to begin in late July with Elections Canada officials as the first witnesses. The committee also wants to hear testimony from ministers and others who are alleged to have been part of the scheme, he said.

"We really can't allow another election to take place until this action is either clarified or stopped because clearly it's a recipe for exceeding the spending limits if it's allowed to continue," said Mr. Martin, a member of the committee.

Now, if the Cons had simply allowed the committee to do its work this spring, it's likely that the hearings would already be done with. And in light of the other activity in Ottawa - including the Libs' capitulations in the House of Commons, the usual flow of legislation, and the news coming from other committees - it seems relatively likely that the hearings could have been lost in the shuffle, or at least subject to relatively limited exposure.

But now, the hearings will take place at a time when the political scene is otherwise silent. By the time the committee starts sitting again in late July, stories about the leaders' time on the barbecue circuit will be growing old, meaning that the Conadscam hearings should be timed just right to become the dominant political story of the summer. And it's hard to see what the Cons could have in their back pocket to deflect attention for more than a day or so at a time.

Mind you, there's always the option of proroguing Parliament before the hearings start. But especially given that any speculation about prorogation has focused on the Cons' desire to hold off on a fall sitting until after their November policy convention, that course of action could leave the Cons and the country in serious trouble if any crisis demands Parliamentary intervention in the meantime - not to mention undercutting the claims of Parliamentary privilege which Con MPs are currently using to avoid having to avoid the courts. And there could hardly be a more sure signal that the Cons are scared to death of Conadscam than for them to put Parliament as a whole on hold solely to avoid having to answer for their actions.

As a result, the Cons' attempt to suppress any talk about Conadscam seems only to have resulted in committee hearings taking place when they'll raise the profile of the scandal the most. And by the time the hearings are done, the Cons may very well end up wishing they hadn't stonewalled when they still had the chance to cooperate.

On high-risk maneuvers

When word first came out about the Libs' planned carbon tax, my comment was that the Libs would be best served to make it clear that their plan wouldn't in fact claim to somehow benefit everybody (and particularly those who are most affected by increased fuel prices). The strategy with the best chance of dividing and conquering the Cons' territory would have seen the Libs recognize who's likely to gain and lose under their plan, looking to push a large class of clear winners - particularly urban voters who already live a lower-emission lifestyle - into the Libs' column, while setting up the Cons to also lose ground to the NDP by ensuring that those who lose out would be no more pleased with the Cons' stance on current fuel prices than with the carbon tax.

Unfortunately, the Libs are instead pretending to be all things to all people. And the result doesn't look to be a good one for either the Libs as a party, or for the likelihood of taking down the Harper government:

Dion will claim most Canadians – particularly low-income earners, the elderly and rural residents – would get back more in tax savings than they would be paying in higher energy costs under his "green" economic blueprint, sources say...

Sources said the plan will provide special assistance for rural residents, the elderly, natives and others who might feel the impact of higher energy prices disproportionately. To help protect low-income earners from the rising costs of fuel and food, a Liberal government would bring in more "refundable" tax credits, which produce payments for those who don't have enough income to pay taxes.

It's fair enough to say that the plan might have to attempt to account for disproportionately affected Canadians to at least some extent. But the Libs' attempt to claim that Canadians already hard hit by high fuel prices will actually benefit from their plan looks awfully dangerous.

After all, a simpler plan which didn't claim to overcompensate for its own aim at reducing emissions would have led to a far easier sales pitch. Rather than having to deliver what are bound to be contradictory messages to the effect that disparate and contrasting types of voters would all magically benefit from their plan, they'd instead be able to take a consistent stance about what their plan would do.

And it's not as if the Libs couldn't have defended that type of move on principle. Given that the entire carbon tax scheme is based on the premise that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced, surely the argument could be made that that it's fair to reward those who have made efforts to avoid greenhouse gas emissions at some cost to those who haven't.

Instead, the Libs are going out of their way to avoid admitting that anybody stands to lose out. And if they're not willing to acknowledge who's going to draw the short end of the stick under what's supposed to be a significant societal shift, then it'll be far easier for Harper to sow doubt that anybody will actually benefit from the plan either - which means that the Libs will have to work harder just to defend their current turf.

Mind you, it's not hard to see what the perceived upside of the strategy might be. After all, any clear dividing line between winners and losers under the plan would likely create enough of the latter to effectively rule out a Lib majority. In contrast, the groups singled out as beneficiaries of largesse under the shifting scheme are ones where the Libs probably do have room to gain enough votes to get near a majority if all else breaks in their favour - and if they're able to deliver a spectacularly effective campaign to avoid the contradictions in their own message.

But there's the rub. There's no apparent reason to think that Dion personally is anywhere near up to the game of political whack-a-mole which he's being asked to play: so far he's had trouble selling even simple messages, which makes it highly doubtful that he can manage to convince contrasting groups of voters that they're all on the right side of the carbon tax scheme. And any failed attempt to do so figures only to test the limits of whether his public perception can fall even further, as his list of faults would expand to include blatantly dishonest pandering.

In sum, faced with a choice between a consistent plan which would present the best opportunity to take down the Cons, and an all-or-nothing gambit which gives Harper a far better chance of both maintaining power and winning a majority, the Libs seem to have decided on the latter. And if that decision proves as dangerous as it looks now, then the Libs' willingness to prop up the Cons over the past year may be the least of the gifts they ultimately wind up giving to Harper's conservative crusade.

On costly generation

It's truly stunning how media coverage of the Wall government's plan to pour its efforts into a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan has utterly failed to note the likelihood that nuclear energy will actually be far more expensive than alternatives. (A rare exception, though without a clear discussion of the costs involved, is Murray Mandryk's column today.)

With that in mind, let's take a look at how the respective costs look to line up at the moment.

Here's the Globe and Mail's discussion of the expected costs associated with Ontario's next wave of nuclear reactors:

When the government first received advice in 2005 about its power-supply system, the Ontario Power Authority was assuming nuclear construction costs of $2,600 per kilowatt or $2.6-billion for a 1,000-megawatt reactor. It is to dream. Now, a U.S. industry group, the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute, is saying that the figure is at least $3,500 per kilowatt and this might even be a low ball.

Last fall, for example, Moody's Investors Service said new reactors could cost as much as $6,000 per kilowatt. The company said this was "only marginally better than a guess," but this spring, Florida Light and Power proposed building new units at a cost of up to $8,000 per kilowatt or $12-billion per reactor.

Likewise, here's Salon's coverage of new nuclear power generation in the U.S.:

(B)y mid-2007, a Keystone report, funded in part by the nuclear industry and NEI, estimated overnight (construction) costs at $3,000 per kilowatt, which, with interest, equals $3,600 to $4,000 per kilowatt. The report notes, "The power isn't cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilowatt hour." That's not cheap, when you consider that in December 2007, retail prices in this country averaged 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour.

By way of comparison, let's take a look at Natural Resources Canada's estimates for the cost of wind power production:

Modern wind turbine generators cost between $1500 and $2000 per kilowatt for wind farms that use multiple-unit arrays of large machines. Smaller individual units cost up to $3000 per kilowatt. In good wind areas, the costs of generating electricity range between five and ten cents per kilowatt hour. That cost is somewhat higher than the costs associated with an electrical facility, but wind energy costs are decreasing every year, whereas most conventional generation costs continue to increase.

So even if the Sask Party's ultimate goal were merely to pour its money into as much electrical generation as possible either for export or as a basis for future development, there's little reason to believe that nuclear power would actually be the best way of accomplishing that.

So what else is at play? Well, Mandryk's column also catches another point which seems to have been largely missed elsewhere:

Cheveldayoff announced his government was calling for proposals on private-sector electrical generation because "We believe not every dollar risked in power generation in Saskatchewan should be a government dollar."

While such a statement is misleading in that it ignores co-generation that's already taking place, it likely does reflect the Sask Party's intentions. Rather than making decisions about Saskatchewan's energy future based on cost efficiency, environmental merits, or any other factor which actually should matter, Wall's government is simply looking to turn as much generation over to the private sector as it possibly can. And nuclear reactors figure to be the largest of the possible privately-funded megaprojects.

Needless to say, Bruce Power has to be happy with that direction. But for Saskatchewan residents in general - particularly those who took Wall at face value in his assurances that the Crowns would at least be permitted to keep carrying out their core functions - this is the clearest indication yet that the Sask Party's goals couldn't be further from their own.

On rough landings

Another prime example of Conservative economic philosophy at work: if you just ignore the law in order to give big business everything it wants, it's sure to reward you with good news in return.

1 Tips on a Better Writing

Pop quiz: choose the best explanation for how the Libs' 50 Tips on a Greener Living was written (yes, that's the actual title):
(a) For lack of original ideas, consists entirely of tips taken from other sources, then translated to and from several other languages using Babel Fish
(b) Written by the four-year-old younger brother of the six-year-old who wrote the Cons' Oily the Splot attack ads
(c) By coincidence, the 11 caucus members capable of proofreading were the same MPs allowed to vote the day it was put together
(d) Editing budget blown on beer and popcorn
(e) Entire document transcribed verbatim from Stephane Dion

Not even trying

It seems so long ago that Stephen Harper's Cons could be bothered to come up with relatively creative (if implausible) excuses when they were caught doing something wrong. But it looks like they've now given up the attempt in favour of simple form responses.

Here's two separate ministerial responses to the Star's investigation into Con travel expenses:

Late Friday, (Gary Lunn's) spokesperson Bernadette Murphy issued this response: "Minister Lunn travels for government business, and taxpayers did not and do not pay for him to attend political events."...

"Minister Hearn travels for government business, and taxpayers did not pay for him to attend political events," Outhouse said.

Which only makes this part all the more comical:

Prentice's staff were asked about several of his trips and said Friday they are working on their response.

Who wants to wager as to what Prentice travels for, and whether taxpayers paid for him to attend political events?

Meanwhile, lest anybody think that's the only example of stock responses being provided to the exclusion of any useful information, let's note that the Cons are once again pulling out the "clerical error" excuse for reports which showed public money being improperly spent.

While the Cons may once again be refusing to actually answer for what they've done, though, neither that fact nor the use of public money for partisan purposes deserves to go unchallenged. And based on their track record so far, no amount of scripted messaging should be able to prevent the Cons from facing the consequences of their actions.

On promising choices

The Pundits' Guide is back up and running with updates on candidate nominations. And the NDP's latest nomination - that of Richard Marois in Saint Lambert - looks like a positive sign for a few reasons.

First, as Pundits' Guide notes, Marois is merely the latest addition to a group of NDP candidates with extremely impressive environmental credentials. While it's enough of a plus just to have another strong voice on the issue, though, the timing is particularly significant.

After all, the Red Greens have spent the bulk of the past couple of weeks pretending that the NDP's recognition that a carbon tax isn't the only way to combat greenhouse gas emissions should affect its standing among environmentally-inclined voters. And there's little indication that they'll stop the mantra anytime soon. But Marois' addition to an already-strong slate of candidates offers a clear signal that those most concerned with the environment recognize that the NDP not only a viable option, but still the best choice to get their message out.

Second, the linked article from Point Sud notes that Marois was approached by "other political parties", but rejected both those advances and his own past involvement with the Bloc in order to run for the NDP.

From the wording of the article, it's not clear whether the Bloc itself was one of the parties which approached Marois. (That would make for a particularly striking choice, as Marois would then have chosen the NDP over a party which won the seat by over 20% in 2006.)

However, it does seem beyond doubt that multiple other parties tried to recruit Marois as well. And the NDP's success in bringing another sought-after figure into the fold can only bode well for its efforts in persuading both other star candidates, and ultimately voters.

Finally, there's Marois' own statement of why he chose the NDP over the competing parties:

(I)l a affirmé avoir fait son choix et considère que le seul moyen pour le Québec d'affaiblir les Conservateurs est de voter pour un parti qui peut aspirer au pouvoir.

While the message of needing to oppose the Cons is obviously one which the NDP will be looking to push in the province, it's especially interesting that Marois mentions the NDP's aspirations to form government as a specific reason to prefer it over other alternatives. And the more candidates decide that the NDP's potential to win power in the future is in fact a point in its favour, the more difficult it will be for other parties and the media alike to pretend Canadians don't have any choice beyond Harper's Cons and the party which has propped them up.

Of course, there's only so much that an individual candidate can do beyond a party's base level of support and degree of organization at the riding level. And while the NDP has obviously made strides in those areas as well, it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to win significantly more seats. But Marois' addition to the slate of candidates offers yet another indication that the NDP is gaining momentum.

Questionable motivations

Impolitical points out another interesting aspect of today's Bernier spin, as Con sources have tried to at least hint that Julie Couillard could have deliberately taken the documents which she later returned. But it's worth noting that any truth to that allegation would seem to invite an extensive investigation into the precise questions which the Cons have tried to label as irrelevant so far.

After all, that scenario would provide an obvious answer to the question of why Canadians should be concerned about Couillard's past. If Couillard's connections raised any possibility that she would have been interested in doing what the Cons seem to be alleging, then there's every need for answers about what the Cons knew about her background and why they chose to disregard any risks.

Moreover, while the new line seems aimed at shifting some blame away from Bernier by making Couillard out to be the villain, it's hard to see how the scenario looks any better for him. To date, the Cons' line has been that the lone reason for Bernier's resignation was his carelessness in leaving documents at Couillard's home on one occasion. And regardless of any nefarious motivations involved, Bernier's document management looks to be in issue: it would seemingly be a serious problem whether he left the documents behind himself, or merely didn't notice they were missing after they were taken.

But the latest allegations would also call into question Bernier's personal judgment throughout his involvement with Couillard. And that would lead directly into questions about how the relationship between the two developed, why Bernier didn't notice anything amiss, and whether any other documents were compromised.

My guess is that the Cons will have little choice but to shift back to their original line in order to minimize the type of investigation needed. But if they really plan to try to discredit Couillard by insinuating that she may have been out to manipulate Bernier all along, then they'll have to face plenty of questions about why they didn't show any of the same suspicion when Couillard actually had access to sensitive information.

An incredible witness

Shorter David Frum:
I can't believe a congressional subcommittee was anything less than bowled over by my attempts to minimize the harm Bushco has done to the U.S.' international reputation. Why, I nearly brought myself to tears.

Untrustworthy

This time last month, Maxime Bernier was Stephen Harper's hand-picked emissary to represent Canada's interests to the world. Now, the Cons apparently don't even trust him to say for himself that he has no useful information about the circumstances of his ouster from cabinet:

Conservative MP Maxime Bernier did not know he left classified documents at the home of former girlfriend Julie Couillard in April and has no memory of the mistake that cost him his job as foreign affairs minister, Conservative sources said yesterday.

The sources said Mr. Bernier will have little information to provide the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade review of the security breach.

“He doesn't remember forgetting them, that's the question,” one source said. “He doesn't know if he forgot them or if it's her who would have taken them. That's why he doesn't want to say anything and he's waiting for the review to do its work.”

Of course, given Bernier's track record it's easy to understand why the Cons would fear that he'll embarrass himself even in merely stating what he did and didn't know. But surely that obvious reason for concern only makes it all the more appalling that the Cons didn't see any problem having Bernier speak for Canada as a whole - nor anybody in their party more competent to do so.

Unbalanced

I won't go into detail about the Cons' copyright legislation for now, as Michael Geist and others are thoroughly eviscerating it already. But I'll take a moment to point out what strikes me as the most obvious sign of the bill's complete lack of balance between consumers and copyright owners.

The excuse for a personal-use exemption within C-61 is found in section 17, which provides for an extensive laundry list of factors which a consumer has to prove in order to be entitled to transfer a work to a different medium for their own use. Among those is a requirement that no "technological measures" be circumvented to enable the copying to take place.

Now, one could make the case that consumers have a choice as to what works to buy, such that anybody concerned about being able to make use of the personal use exemption in order to copy works to a different medium can simply make sure not to buy protected works.

But that depends on some information being available as to what technological measures are - and aren't - included on a given work. And glaringly lacking from the bill is any obligation on distributors of copyrighted works to actually give notice of any technological measures before a consumer buys the work to begin with. (Indeed, the only part of the bill which discusses notice to consumers is with respect to media which collect a consumer's personal information - and even then the consumer's only remedy is statutory permission to try to find an otherwise-banned means of circumventing the technology involved to stop the data from being collected.)

As a result, consumers don't figure to have any opportunity to make an informed choice. Instead, distributors can put copy protection on a product without any warning, and then rely on the hidden restrictions to prevent the consumer from legally making even personal use of the work in another medium.

Now, that particular imbalance is far from the biggest issue with C-61: merely requiring some notice of any technological measures on a work would be a relatively small fix compared to the size of the general problems with the bill. But from what I can tell, it offers a perfect symbol for the mindset behind the bill: while consumers are faced with onerous obligations to avoid doing anything which could possibly infringe on copyright, the beneficiaries of those obligations aren't required to even let consumers know which of the restrictions apply before taking their money. Which is why C-61 shouldn't be headed anywhere other than back to the drawing board.

One of our least precious resources

Sure, any reasonable observer of yesterday's residential school apology would recognize that the driving force behind our national shame was a bigoted view that some cultures should be suppressed or outright eradicated in order to preserve what was then perceived as mainstream. But count on Blogging Tory Hunter to somehow respond to the apology by declaring that Canada ought to value its First Nations people primarily as an excuse to keep out immigrants.

Our continued national disgrace

Shorter Pierre Poilievre:
I can assure everybody that the Con government is just as sincere about today's statement on residential schools as it was about its last high-profile public apology.

Update: More from the CP. And lest the Cons try to distance themselves from Poilievre's comments, now might be a good time to remember their own description of Poilievre as "known to stick strictly and strongly to the party line".

Weakness in numbers

Blogging Horse lists the Lib MPs who were nowhere to be found when the Libs had an opportunity to put a stop to the Cons' immigration changes. But while it's worth pointing out the names involved, it's more important to remember which party it was that instructed them to avoid doing their jobs.

In that respect, it may be worth pointing out that for the budget vote - as for many of the other votes where the Libs have allowed the Cons to have their way - Dion seems to have left plenty of room for error. While only a dozen Libs were allowed to participate, the bill passed by a margin of 30 votes.

Which leads me to wonder why Dion has instructed dozens more MPs to stand down than would have been required based on the actual number of members in the House. Was it a matter of concern that the Cons would take a dive on the vote to bring themselves down? Or was it based on the risk that given a vote close enough to count, some of his own MPs who are agitating for an election might break ranks and topple Harper?

Foul polling

It's bad enough when pollsters limit Canadians' perceived choices by omission - for example, by only collecting full leadership data about Harper and Dion. But Decima Harris's latest poll for the CP not only does the same with questions about the parties involved, but manages to take a couple more steps in the wrong direction by actively pushing for results which would exclude the NDP, Greens and Bloc in favour of the false dichotomy - then spinning those results to say something they don't:

A polarized electorate may be tilting toward the federal Liberals at the expense of Stephen Harper's Conservative government, a new poll suggested Monday.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey compared attitudes toward the Tories and Liberals in a head-to-head, two-party format. The telephone poll of just over 1,000 Canadians found that 44 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer a Liberal government after the next election, compared with 37 per cent who preferred the Conservatives...

Since the 2006 election, the Conservatives "have not been able to enlarge their tent," said Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson - notwithstanding a generally strong economy, fat government coffers and the incumbent's opportunity to control the agenda.

"If anything, the leaning and the second-choice support profile of Canadians is disproportionately headed in the direction of the Liberals right now," said Anderson.

He said the poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday, was premised on the idea of a sharply polarized election campaign in which the ballot question becomes a stark choice between the incumbent Tories and the only practical alternative.

Now, it's bizarre enough that the poll would be premised on limiting what "practical alternatives" voters have.

But the analysis manages to get even worse than the poll itself. After all, the numbers don't deal at all with actual "leaning" or "second choice" support (which would be exactly where the parties other than the Cons and Libs would have a chance to make up ground). And the poll didn't ask whether respondents were actually willing to vote for either the Libs or Cons - merely which would be the least distasteful of the two if no other options existed.

Having already limited respondents' choices for no apparent reason, though, Anderson then manages to pretend that a question where the Libs (or Cons) could be labeled as the preferred option based on being a respondent's fourth choice out of five says anything about their actual potential to win votes.

Fortunately, there's no indication that voters are in fact prepared to accept the assumption that their only choices are Harper and the non-opposition which has propped him up. And with the Cons and Libs thoroughly botching their respective government and opposition roles, there should be plenty of reason for Canadians to decide that the only practical option is to demand better than both.

On creative ideas

Following up on yesterday's post about what the NDP can do to challenge the Cons on gas prices, I should note that the concept of a contest is hardly a new idea for the party. But the most recent similar effort looks to have left only a small amount of room for creativity. And as a party which is looking to take on the mantle of leading a united opposition against the Cons, the NDP should be looking for all kinds of different messages and ways of expressing them, rather than limiting the scope of its contests to a single, party-designed catchphrase and concept.

Of media and messages

Robert offers his suggestion as to what the NDP could do to stake out their own territory in reply to the Cons' carbon tax attacks on the Libs. And I agree entirely that the NDP should be pointing out at every opportunity that it's the Cons who have repeatedly declared their refusal to do anything about the same high gas prices which they now want to use a a weapon against the Libs.

But while I largely agree with the substance, I'd argue that there's also an important opportunity to criticize the Cons' method of delivering their ads. After all, the Cons' campaign seems to be based on the assumption that it's worth trying to repeat their attack on the Libs a few more times at the expense of further irritating Canadians who are already annoyed with the prices at the pumps.

Rather than choosing the same route, I'd think the NDP is probably best served aiming its message through less-intrusive media which attack not only the current high gas prices, but also the Cons' decision to nag consumers:

"It was bad enough when Stephen Harper told you he wouldn't do anything about high gas prices. But just when you thought filling up your car couldn't get any more painful, Harper's Conservatives started lecturing you as well.

We say you've suffered enough punishment at the pumps. Join Canada's NDP."

Of course, even better would be to focus less on top-down messaging and more on creative, individual involvement - or at least add a separate, grassroots-driven component to get people thinking and talking. Maybe a photo/video contest for individuals' ideas as to how to tell the Harper government that prices are too high?

Update: Meanwhile, Stageleft's suggestion as to how consumers can respond to the Cons' ads is definitely worth a look.

On pushback

It didn't receive the attention it probably deserved when first announced. But in another sign of just how politically toxic the federal Cons are at the moment, one of the provincial governments which had previously been seen as relatively friendly to Harper's regime is now organizing opposition to a corporate giveaway which the Cons would presumably prefer to keep away from the public eye:

New Brunswick is calling for a united front of provinces and territories to oppose Ottawa’s plan to extend the patent life on a number of popular and costly prescription medications.

Health Minister Mike Murphy said Thursday that generic drugs save provincial drug programs millions and he accused the federal Conservative government of bowing to the "greed" of the brand-name drug industry.

"There is only so much greed that can be supported with regard to this industry," he said in a statement in the New Brunswick legislature.

Murphy also described the move as "a cash grab" by big drug companies...

Murphy said New Brunswick spent $14.5 million last year on just three brand-name drugs for which generic versions may be delayed.

He said Ottawa’s new regulations, which would postpone some generics by at least two years, would cost the province an additional $4 million per year.

Murphy's current push looks to be aimed at building a united front at the provincial and territorial level. But there shouldn't be much doubt that there will be at least one national voice also working to keep prescription drug costs affordable - not just by pushing back against the latest attempt to hand out freebies to brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers, but also by leading the charge for the universal access to prescription drugs which the provinces have already agreed to pursue.

While the NDP looks to have another opportunity to build connections at the provincial and territorial level, the effect for the Cons is just the opposite. Instead, the evergreening issue also offers yet another example of how the Cons' corporate giveaways are damaging the interests of Canada's provinces. And the less shy the provinces are about making that case, the more likely they'll be able to look forward to a federal government whose goals better match their own.

(H/t to contratianna at Babble.)

On alien concepts

Introducing the Libs' next generation of star candidate: not just a space cadet, but also wrong in law (warning: PDF).

Go figure

While it's always tempting the Cons' constant partisanship in kind, the most sure way to embarrass a government which is focused entirely on its opponents is to highlight its corresponding lack of basic knowledge about its own responsibilities. And as Aaron Wherry points out, Paul Dewar's request for information about the cost of the Afghanistan mission looks to have done just that when picked up by reporters:

Reporter: So can you give us a figure? How much is it costing us, say per month?
MacKay: Well, I’m not going to get into the specifics because we have added, as you know, additional equipment and there are additional procurements happening now in response to the recommendations of the Manley Committee that were endorsed by the House of Commons.
Moderator: One more question, folks.
Reporter: They’re saying you don’t have a cost, you don’t have a figure.
MacKay: Well, we do. Of course we do.
Reporter: Well what is it?
MacKay: Well, we have all kinds of figures.

And so they surely do - with different ones brought out at different times depending on whether their partisan goal for the moment is claim credit for pouring money into the military, or to minimize the cost of the war in an effort to reduce opposition to continued combat.

But what the Cons plainly lack - in assessing the cost of Afghanistan, as in far too many other files - is any basis in reality for their partisan puffery. And that's why when asked for a simple, accurate figure about the cost of their main foreign policy priority, the Cons can't even begin to answer the question.

Of course, the Cons are sure to strategize over the weekend about what number will reflect best on them, and put that forward that in an effort to defuse the immediate issue. But the even more fundamental problem is a government which doesn't see any value in basic, objective knowledge. And that can only be solved by removing the Cons from office at the earliest opportunity.

(Edit: fixed label.)

Choosing the messenger

Following up on yesterday's post about some of the more important remaining questions in Cadscam, I'll briefly take issue with one of Scott's underlying assumptions. While James Moore may be the talking head currently assigned to the file, there's no reason why he should be expected to deliver any of the relevant answers; instead, it's Stephen Harper alone who can actually provide any useful information if he chooses to do so.

After all, Moore isn't the plaintiff who's seeking to suppress Tom Zytaruk's recording of his conversation with Harper, and thus making the strategic choices Scott wonders about.

Moore wasn't privy to the conversation between Harper and Zytaruk, such as to be able to provide any explanation as to what context could possibly provide any justification for Harper's recorded words.

And Moore isn't the party leader who has apparently chosen to close ranks rather than ordering any investigation into his own candidate's sworn statement that two party representatives tried to bribe her husband.

Aside from anybody who can shed light as to who actually made the million-dollar insurance policy offer on May 17, 2005 that Dona Cadman has sworn to hearing about, nobody from the Cons other than Harper himself can possibly pretend to have anything relevant to say about the matter. And the more the Cons choose to present people who obviously have nothing useful to say as their public voices on the topic, the more reason there'll be to wonder what those in the know are hiding.

Open questions

While Scott has listed a few questions worth asking in light of Stephen Harper's injunction motion, the area I find particularly interesting arises from Dona Cadman's affidavit:

Prior to my meeting with Mr. Harper on September 9, 2005, I told Mr. Zytaruk that on May 17, 2005 my husband told me earlier that day two Conservative Party representatives had offered him a $1 million insurance policy. My husband never revealed the identities of these two people to me...It is my clear recollection that the date that my husband told me that he had received the offer of a $1 million insurance policy was May 17, 2005 and not May 19, 2005.

With that paragraph, Harper himself has put before a court sworn testimony to the effect that Chuck Cadman was offered an insurance policy by two Con representatives on May 17, 2005, and informed Dona Cadman of the offer that same day.

Now, it strikes me as highly doubtful that two Con representatives acting in concert would have approached Cadman without at least somebody else having some idea what was going on. But even if that's the case, Harper would be in the best position to encourage his party's operatives to speak up as to who offered what when. And he'd seemingly have a strong incentive to do so - lest his party otherwise continue to be represented by individuals who had in fact tried to bribe Cadman.

So who was it that made the visit on the 17th at which an insurance policy actually was offered (which Cadman so clearly remembers hearing about at the time)? Who else, if anybody, has known about the visit and said nothing about it? And why doesn't Harper seem the least bit concerned with figuring out who it was that made the offer on behalf of his party?

(Edit: fixed typos.)

Definitely one to watch

So let's get this straight: the single minister now being hyped as the Cons' last hope for competence in a major portfolio like Finance or Foreign Affairs...is the same one currently accomplishing so little in Industry that his department has nothing better to do than to repeatedly turn his personal Wikipedia page into fan fiction.

I suppose that might play well to Stephen Harper's obsession with image over substance. But for those of us who don't see Con self-promotion as the lone goal worth pursuing, is there any possible conclusion other than that the Cons would be in over their heads trying to run a lemonade stand?

On timing

So much for my theory that Stephen Harper might have wanted to get his injunction application out of the way quickly to ensure any damage was done with long before a possible election campaign, as the motion documents (posted by Stephen Taylor) indicate that the motion won't be argued until September. But if the motion wasn't enough of a long shot already, the delay figures to make it even less likely to succeed: how can Harper try to argue that an injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm three months from now if the lack of one isn't a problem in the meantime?