Burnsy, you're doing a heckuva job

CanWest sheds a bit more light on Stephen Harper's appointments related to nuclear energy and regulation. And in case anybody held out hope that merit might even enter into the equation...

Harper announced Friday evening that he had accepted the resignation of AECL's chairman, Michael Burns, effective Dec. 31. Glenna Carr will take over as chair, while Hugh MacDiarmid will become CEO...

Burns, who was appointed in October 2006, was once chief fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance and chairman of the Canadian Alliance Fund. The Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003 to form the Conservative Party.

Meanwhile, cabinet records show that the Harper government named a defeated New Brunswick provincial election candidate to the Nuclear Safety Commission just days before Harper alleged partisan connections between Keen and the Liberal party.

Cabinet approved the appointment of former Tory candidate Ronald Barriault only eight days before Harper made his controversial comments about Keen being a Liberal appointee. Keen has denied any political affiliation.

Now, it might make sense to a point that Harper might acquire some tunnel vision from within a party which doesn't see government as anything more than a patronage machine. And that would explain his apparent assumption that other parties would have just as little interest in merit-based appointments as his own.

But the damage arising out of AECL's poor planning should highlight the dangers of assuming that the ability to wring money out of the Cons' base makes for sufficient qualification to oversee a major industrial organization. And making matters worse, it seems clear from Harper's attitude toward past and present appointees to the CNSC that the Cons aren't any more aware of the need to put actual knowledge ahead of partisan interests when it comes to the regulator responsible for nuclear safety in Canada. Which can only offer one more indication that it's long past time to remove Harper from any position where he's able to decide who'll be responsible for keeping Canadians safe.

I'd like to thank the Academy...

Regular readers of this blog will hopefully know that I'm not big on self-promotion, and may be aware that I involve myself less in blogosphere meta-discussions than a lot of regular bloggers. But I'll take a moment to point out the results of this year's Unofficial Blogging Dipper Awards, where Accidental Deliberations was honoured as the Best Overall Blog - if nothing else to add a bit of context which I hope won't be overlooked.

While the awards may have focused slightly more attention than usual on the nominees, the more important story is that of the evolution of the Blogging Dippers as a whole. Robert, Devin, Ravi and Paladiea have put in the effort to develop the blogroll to where it is today. And roughly 100 separate blogs (some of those featuring multiple contributors) make up the content which keeps readers going to the Blogging Dippers site.

Within that collective, it can never hurt to encourage discussion about readers' favourites - both to place a bit more focus on the Blogging Dippers as a group, and to help each of us to see what readers enjoy within our blogs. And many thanks go to Uncorrected Proofs for putting together the year-end contest to enable that to happen.

But at the same time, the awards only matter to the extent that readers recognize that there's plenty of worthwhile content coming from the Blogging Dippers as a whole such as to justify talking about favourites.

As a result, I'll close off this post by encouraging all readers to take the time to look up some blogs off the Dipper blogroll which may not yet be familiar. And with any luck, the efforts of the Blogging Dippers will help to make sure the NDP as a whole is able to keep up - and indeed pull ahead - as Canadian political parties work to make their presence felt within the blogosphere.

No assurances

Just so we're clear: AECL - under now-former CEO Michael Burns - gave assurances that the Chalk River nuclear reactor could safely operate in violation of safety regulations. And it was those claims which apparently encouraged the Harper government to overrule the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and put the plant back into operation.

But AECL's promise was delivered just before Burns himself resigned - presumably over his own lack of foresight which put the plant on the wrong side of the law in the first place.

If there's anything that could make AECL's self-serving statement less reassuring, it's the fact that the promise was delivered under the authority of a CEO whose previous planning led to his dismissal - which also leads to a complete lack of accountability if the new assurance proves to be wrong. And while there may well have been understandable reasons to get Chalk River running again, there looks to be ever more reason for concern that the cure for a shortage of medical isotopes may prove more damaging than the disease.

Taking a stand

It unfortunately seems to have been buried on a day dominated by Brian Mulroney, the DMCA and other headline stories. But as I'd hoped, Thomas Mulcair appeared before the Bouchard-Taylor commission today to present a strong defence of multiculturalism on behalf of the federal NDP:

The reaction of some of Quebec's political leaders to anxieties about immigration has smacked of dishonesty and gutlessness, says the NDP lone's MP from the province.

Appearing Thursday before a government commission on the reasonable accommodation of immigrants, Thomas Mulcair made thinly veiled attacks against what he described as the opportunism of Quebec's opposition parties as well as the Bloc Quebecois.

"Quebec has always been a welcoming society, a model in the world," Mulcair said. "There are people who are playing with the sentiments of certain sectors of the population, putting fuel on a fire that doesn't need any."

The NDP is among the last groups to present a brief before the commission wraps up on Friday.

Their position, which prescribes a multicultural solution to the question of accommodating minorities, encapsulates one side of a debate that has been rehashed incessantly in recent months.

"Living in society requires accommodation every day from every one of us, that's part of the definition of living in society," Mulcair said...

Political parties, both federal and provincial, have been given a chance during the final week of hearings to present their own positions to the commission.

Both the federal Conservatives and Stephane Dion's Liberals opted not to take part.

The CP article appears to have focused mostly on Mulcair's (justifiable) shots at the provincial politicians whose intolerance led to the commission's appointment rather than the NDP's substantive suggestions. For those interested in the latter, though, the NDP's memorandum to the commission offers both needed criticism of the current federal and provincial actions which have served to attack the position of minorities, as well as examples of the types of policies which would help to reverse the trend.

It remains to be seen whether Mulcair's message will manage to attract any further media attention to help influence the wider debate. (And it's worth wondering both whether a Lib response would have received more attention, and whether their apparent decision to take a pass will hurt the cause of multiculturalism.)

But whether or not the NDP's submission receives the media attention it deserves, it's still worth highlighting that at least one federal party was ready and willing to stand up for diversity. And hopefully that courage won't go unrewarded.

On battlegrounds

The Gazette reports that Lucienne Robillard is resigning as of January 25, potentially opening up another of the NDP's prime Quebec targets for a by-election contest if a general election doesn't happen soon:

Voters in the riding of Westmount-Ville Marie could be going to the polls sooner than they had expected after Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard abruptly announced yesterday she will is resigning effective Jan. 25.

The announcement, made shortly after question period, took many of her own colleagues by surprise. While Robillard had announced months ago that she wouldn't run in the next election and former astronaut Marc Garneau had been named as the next Liberal candidate, Robillard had said that she didn't want to trigger a by-election.

Bidding an emotional adieu to the House of Commons, her usually confident voice trembling a bit, Robillard did not explain her decision to step aside earlier than she had planned and refused requests for interviews...

New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton praised Robillard but made no secret of his party's plan to make a strong run at her seat.

It remains to be seen whether Westmount Ville-Marie will simply be added to the ever-lengthening list of ridings where Harper refuses to announce a by-election out of fear that his party's own lack of support will be highlighted.

But if it does come up for grabs, then it figures to offer the next test as to the NDP's ability to convert its broader progress into Quebec seats. And if the NDP can indeed take a second Lib stronghold - this time with a candidate not named Mulcair - that momentum would figure to translate into a boost in national polls and commentary before long.

Strategic considerations

With the Libs' recent suggestion that they may consider opposing the Cons in the new year, not to mention some small signs of life in opposing Harper even now, it seems clear that an election could be in the making in the new year. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention drawn to the potential impact of the NDP's stand against the Cons' tax-slashing bill in setting up a confidence vote:

Apparently frustrated by the continuing debate over the measure, mostly headed by the NDP, the finance minister told reporters after question period that the Jan. 1 date for cutting the GST from six per cent to five per cent was in jeopardy.

"I said yesterday the bill was moving ahead and was likely to get through the House and Senate before Christmas, now we have the NDP blocking progress of the bill right in the House of Commons," he said...

NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair called the finance minister's statement ''baloney,'' saying any tax measure can be implemented with the adoption of a ways and means motion. Flaherty's GST cut was announced in conjunction with a series of other tax reductions on Oct 30 and a ways and means motion was adopted in the House on Nov. 1.

Mulcair said his party will continue to oppose the tax implementation bill, even if it means the legislation will not be approved this year.

"Our objection is less with the one per cent GST cut than the across-the-board tax cut for corporations, which we think is going to be more destabilizing for our economy," he said, arguing that the tax cut will mostly benefit the oil patch.

So why does it matter if the tax-cutting bill is dealt with in the new year rather than now? Remember that two of the main concerns in voting down the Cons in the new year are the danger that this year's tax cuts might limit the money available for election spending promises, and the risk that a goodie-laden Con budget might help Harper's position going into an election.

But both of those problems are based on the tax implementation bill actually passing before the new year. If it doesn't, then there's a ready-made confidence vote awaiting the opposition long before the budget will come up for discussion. And if the Cons' efforts to drain the federal treasury don't come to fruition through the implementation bill, then there will be far more room for a campaign debate as to how best to apply federal resources while there are still some left to use.

Now, it may be that the Libs will be cowed into voting for the tax bill anyway, particularly given their unwillingness to stand up to it before. But at the very least, the NDP looks to have thought a couple of steps ahead of the Cons on the tax implementation bill, giving the opposition parties a needed chance to bring down Harper quickly in the new year. Which leaves only the question of whether they'll take that opening - or whether the Libs will once again play dead in the face of the Cons' agenda.

A measured agreement

A couple of weeks back, Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest announced a plan to negotiate some regulatory harmonization which received comment here and elsewhere. The apparent consensus then was that the deal had the potential to turn into either a TILMA-style disaster, or a relatively reasonable means of addressing the ever-overblown issue of internal trade barriers.

Today, the Financial Post's Patrick Grady offers up the anti-government view on the talks. And from his reaction, it looks somewhat more likely that the McGuinty/Charest deal will fall into the latter category - if much to the chagrin of pro-corporate ideologues across the country.

Here's Grady's attempt to criticize the Ontario/Quebec announcement:

The TILMA between British Columbia and Alberta, the new gold standard for trade deals, addressed the two key generally recognized defects of the AIT, namely its lack of coverage and its ineffective dispute-settlement mechanism. The TILMA, unlike the AIT, includes all measures that restrict or impair the movement of goods, services and labour between the two provinces unless they are specifically excluded, and not just those specifically included. The TILMA also introduced a binding dispute-settlement mechanism, with easier access for private parties and significant monetary penalties (up to $5-million). Spurred by the TILMA, the Committee on Internal Trade is now also considering introducing monetary penalties to make the AIT dispute-settlement mechanism more effective. What exactly is Ontario and Quebec proposing to do to address these deficiencies in the AIT as it affects trade between them?...

(I)n contrast with the TILMA, which tackles regulatory barriers head on, the Ontario and Quebec governments only talk of eliminating "unnecessary" barriers and express their belief that "eliminating such barriers and restrictions can and must occur simultaneously with maintaining and enhancing governments' policies for labour, environmental and consumer protection standards, health, education, culture and regional economic development." This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the need to eliminate regulatory barriers and really isn't any more ambitious than the existing AIT.

Now, it speaks volumes about Grady's dedication to the anti-regulation cause that he's willing to criticize the Charest/McGuinty deal both for recognizing that there's a difference between necessary and unnecessary regulations, and for highlighting the continued need for provincial governments to be able to govern. And the fact that Grady simultaneously describes the TILMA as his "gold standard" should offer a strong hint that the TILMA itself does nothing of the sort.

Fortunately, it seems fairly likely from Grady's commentary that Canada's most populous provinces have indeed decided that an attack on the very concept of provincial regulation isn't in the cards. And if they end up sticking to that position, then the Harper Cons will be hard-pressed to try to force the TILMA onto the two provinces most crucial to their drive for a majority.

On mushiness

Just over a year ago, the Libs went through a convention which was supposed to offer a chance for party renewal. So let's take a look at just what kind of inspiring new vision they've managed to develop under their new leader. From David McGuinty in the Hill Times:

"When Mr. Dion kicks off the campaign, in due course, whenever that happens, I'm confident that he will present to the Canadian people the same kind of scenario and that is if you want to stop a right-wing Republican-like party, which is embedded in its Alliance Reform DNA, then you have to make the choice. You either have to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada who can form the government or you'll have to vote directly or indirectly to support the Conservative Party of Canada," said Mr. McGuinty.

"They [NDP] fear what they know is coming, which is ultimately a two-way race in Canadian society to decide whether they want a centrist party possibly even a centrist-left party, i.e., the Liberal Party of Canada, or do they want a right-wing party."

Now, the gap between words and actions is reason enough not to take the Libs seriously. After all, the same party which now plans to sell itself as devoted to "stopping" the Cons is also the one which has been deliberately propping up the Harper government since this fall's throne speech. And an opposition party trying to position itself as the comparatively left-wing option presumably shouldn't be egging a right-wing government on toward even more gratuitous corporate tax cuts than it already had planned.

But perhaps more interesting is McGuinty's choice to portray the Lib/Con dichotomy as centre-against-right - with "possibly even centre-left" seemingly tossed out as McGuinty's idea of a carrot for progressive voters.

From what I can tell, McGuinty is operating under the assumption that left-wing Canadians will be entirely happy to see a continued shift of Canada's political centre toward the right as left-of-centre ideas receive - at best - some "possible" role within the Libs. And of course, that effect can only be amplified by both the Libs' track record of shifting to the right in government, and their unwillingness to stand up to the Cons while in opposition.

Fortunately, voters aren't stuck taking McGuinty's word as to what options they'll have at the polls. And with the Libs having shown no sign of new ideas or new principles after their effort at internal renewal, a wholesale electoral shift to the NDP offers the best opportunity for a real countervailing force against the Cons - and the only option for a strong left-wing voice on the federal political scene.

On misdirection

It's been no secret that the Harper Cons developed a sudden allergy to accountability as soon as it could be aimed in their direction. But the last week offers two particularly blatant examples of the Cons' efforts to deceive their way out of trouble.

First, there was the story surrounding a climate change report which the Cons seem to have conveniently misplaced:

The federal government isn't secretly plotting to cover up its studies about the impacts of global warming across the country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

"The government is not hiding any particular reports," Harper said in the Commons during question period. "This government is more than aware of the problem of climate change and this government has laid out in the throne speech the very precise actions and positions we are going to take to combat climate change, both here and internationally ... There's no conspiracy here."

Harper made the comments in response to revelations this week about internal government research from the Foreign Affairs Department along with a major Natural Resources Canada report that warned the government about regional impacts of climate change in the country and the importance of setting policies to avoid crossing a tipping point of irreversible damage to the earth's ecosystems. While the first research paper was obtained through an access to information request, the government has delayed the release of the second report that was expected to be made public last month...

Despite Harper's assurances, the government was unable to explain what happened to the second report.

"I have not seen the report, I only learned about it this morning," Environment Minister John Baird told a parliamentary committee. "It's a report commissioned by another department. The Department of Natural Resources, and I encourage you to put that question to the minister of natural resources."

Baird's comments came one day after Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn refused to answer questions about the study.

"I've seen it," Lunn said after question period on Monday. "But talk to John (Baird). He's our lead spokesman going into Bali, and he's aware of all those issues."

After such a blatant attempt at deflection, I'd think the Cons would at least be relatively hesitant to use the same strategy again. But it took a matter of only days before the Prime Minister's office itself was actively directing inquiries to a minister who had no intention of speaking about an issue - this time on the Cons' polling controversy:

Last Tuesday, following reports the government spent a record $31 million in 2006-07, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier stated in the Senate that the government, "effective today, will ask all its departments to refrain from using public funds for polls until further notice."

Hours later, his spokesman Jacques Gagnon clarified that a moratorium was merely under consideration.

Within 24 hours, Gagnon had a different story for the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, or MRIA, which represents Canada's polling industry.

In an advisory to its corporate membership obtained by The Canadian Press, the association reported it had been in contact with Gagnon as well as Laurent Marcoux, the director general of the government's Public Opinion Research Directorate.

Gagnon told the MRIA's government lobbyist on Wednesday that the Tories "had no intention of proceeding with a moratorium on public opinion research," said the advisory from Brendan Wycks, association executive director.

And on Thursday, Wycks himself was informed by Marcoux that "Prime Minister Harper and Minister Fortier had decided the government definitely would not be placing a moratorium on public opinion research."...

Asked to clarify matters, Harper's spokeswoman directed inquries to Fortier, who declined to be interviewed. His spokesman also would not speak to The Canadian Press by phone.

It's not clear whether the Cons are deliberately pointing the media toward known dead ends, or whether it's simply a matter of internal policy to deflect questions to another department in order to buy time.

But one way or another, it's clear yet again that the media's time would be far better spent challenging Con suggestions and directions rather than accepting them. And the more obvious it becomes that the Cons are trying to play their media questioners for suckers, the more reason those same questioners will have to cast the Cons' honesty into doubt when public opinion matters most.

Apocalypse

John Baird's latest excuse excuse for deferring to Bushco's refusal to accept any emission reduction targets is that an "environmental Armageddon" could result if a deal doesn't rein in emissions for the U.S.

The statement will be worth tucking away for the next time the Cons try to pretend that global warming isn't really a problem worth dealing with at all. But if taken at face value, it only highlights the dishonesty of the Cons' bargaining position.

After all, how could Baird's own dire prediction possibly be averted by Canada's refusal to allow a deal to happen at all? And if global emission reductions are indeed needed to avoid "Armageddon", why would Canada have any hesitation in agreeing to reductions of its own?

Update: More from Steve V on the incoherence of Baird's position.

On hot air

Shorter Lorne Gunter:
This just in: if climate change can be combated through common-sense means like managing driving patterns and eliminating unnecessary appliances, then it isn't worth bothering with at all. Now back to our regularly-scheduled rhetorical program, "WE CAN'T REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITHOUT DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE!"

Promises, promises

What a relief that the Cons promised a non-partisan public appointments commission to keep watch over federal hirings. Without it, they'd surely be in the midst of a veritable orgy of patronage by now.

Speaking of which, is anybody else curious as to what kind of instructions the new appointees might be receiving before taking over their roles?

After all, it seems clear that the Cons' governing strategy relies heavily on both politicization and patronage. And it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the same party which wrote the book on turning every available forum into a partisan battlefield would have similar tactics in mind when it comes to its patronage appointments - even if they might not be subject to the same internal party sanctions.

On dishonesty

I'm at least a little bit surprised that Murray Mandryk seems to have been taken off guard by the Sask Party's speed in throwing its campaign promises out the window. But based on Mandryk's latest column, it appears safe to say that Brad Wall's electoral honeymoon is over:

The oath and affirmation that Saskatchewan Party government MLAs swore to on Tuesday required them to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors.

Unfortunately, it didn't specify that they were required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is an oversight perhaps in need of addressing.

Ironically, the day government members' swore the above oath happened to be the same day that we caught the government in its first two blatant incongruities:

Contrary to the Saskatchewan Party's Prince Albert Carlton candidate's election commitment that "a vote for a Darryl Hicke is vote to keep the mill open" we listened to Hicke's rationalization of how the cancellation of the $100-million Domtar memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the former NDP government to try and reopen the mill has virtually no relationship to that commitment.

And we also heard from none other than Premier Brad Wall that the government would impose some form of essential services legislation -- this despite repeated assurances from Elwin Hermanson and Don McMorris (the latter a mere 10 days before the election call) and Wall himself that the Saskatchewan Party saw no reason to legislate essential services and that the unions and governments could work this out at contract time...

(T)here is a bigger principle at work here -- a principle about as simple and basic as principles come in politics: You have to be honest and forthright with the voters.

Wall, McMorris, Hickey and now Advanced Education and Labour Minister Rob Norris simply aren't being honest with the voters on these two issues.

While I don't agree with Mandryk's analysis of the actual policies at stake, it's still important to note how little the Sask Party's word has meant so far during its stay in government. And hopefully Mandryk and others will take the latest reversals as a cue that - as the NDP has warned all along - there's little reason to take Wall's assurances at face value.

Hey, Adam Radwanski...

James Moore's Parliamentary indiscretions have already received plenty of attention. But perhaps more remarkable than Moore's actions is the shoot-the-messenger reaction from Adam Radwanski:

Hey, Jack Layton...

Do you think maybe it's time to have a little talk with your MPs?

In nationally televised committee hearings, one of them has become the poster-boy for overtly partisan, self-aggrandizing and generally embarrassing attempts to question Karlheinz Schreiber. Now, in the House of Commons, another is behaving roughly 50 years less than her age - tattle-taling on one of Parliament's more likeable MPs for supposedly looking at a "scantily clad" woman on his laptop.

So what's wrong with Radwanski's take? From my standpoint, there are two obviously-flawed assumptions which are necessary to his conclusion.

First, in order to minimize Moore's action, Radwanski shows an utter lack of awareness about sexual harassment issues. It would seem to be relatively common knowledge that displaying an offensive picture may give rise to concerns about sexual harassment - and indeed the federal Treasury Board says the same thing.

But as far as Radwanski is concerned, MPs in Parliament are to be held to a lower standard than workers in any other Canadian workplace rather than a higher one. And indeed, behaviour which could give rise to a sexual harassment complaint in any other workplace is seen to be above reproach when it's done by a "likeable" Con MP.

Second, there's Radwanski's concurrent portrayal of Mathyssen as a "tattle-tale" engaged in childish conduct for calling Moore on his behaviour.

Again, it would seem that if there's ever a place where one person should be expected not to let another's questionable actions go without challenge, it's when the opposition holds the government to account in the House of Commons. Instead, though, Radwanski is apparently of the view that the NDP's job is to look the other way and merely let Cons be Cons.

Which would certainly serve Harper's purposes in this and other areas. But it would also make for a glaring dereliction of the NDP's duty to Canadian voters.

Needless to say, there's no reason for Layton to want to take Radwanski's advice. And on the list of those who deserve to be taken less seriously as a result of the incident, Radwanski isn't far behind Moore.

Update: Unfortunately, it looks like Mathyssen is now going to apologize for even bringing up the subject based on Moore's declaration that the pictures were "of a friend" or of his girlfriend (depending on the explanation one listens to). That may well make the pictures less offensive than some other possibilities - but it still it doesn't offer any reason for Mathyssen to apologize for pointing out what she saw.

Update II: Oddly enough, Moore is now denying that he was looking at any image fitting Mathyssen's description to begin with. This after it was Moore who told David Akin that "the pictures were of his girlfriend" (see the CTV link above), which would seem to suggest that Moore knew what pictures were involved and recognized enough similarity to Mathyssen's claim to warrant explanation. File this under the Cons' habit of serial denial...

Undue influence

Shorter Brian Day:

If I've repeatedly abused what's supposed to be a universal-access public health care system, that's the system's fault rather than mine.

Sustained pressure

Shorter Fraser Institute on health care costs:

If Saskatchewan's government does absolutely nothing to make the province's health care system more efficient in the meantime, it could end up spending half of its revenues on health costs thirty years down the road.
Or if it follows our advice on tax slashing, it can get there by the middle of next week.

Battle tested

A few quick questions for the Libs who are planning to turn the next federal election into "an ideological battle" against the Cons.

Wouldn't anybody who actually favours a national prescription drug plan prefer to support a party which didn't proclaim that health care had been fixed for a generation without one?

Wouldn't anybody who's concerned about financial support for seniors look first at the party which is already fighting for just that?

And wouldn't anybody who wants to see action against poverty have to take at least some look at the previous Lib government's failure to make it a priority?

Of course, it's a plus that the Libs are once again co-opting the federal NDP's longtime issues. But when it comes time for a vote, surely Canadians are better off with a party which actually believes in the cause leading the charge for a more progressive country.

Declining investment

I'm surprised that this hasn't received more notice when Kyoto and Bali have both been receiving ample attention. But as NDP MP Nathan Cullen pointed out in Thursday's Question Period, the "strategy" of both the Libs and the Cons since Canada ratified Kyoto seems to have been a miserable failure.

Here's what Cullen had to say about investment in emission reductions by Canadian industry:

Statistics Canada reports that spending by industry on capital investments to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions actually dropped by 35%. Oil and gas slashed its investments by 46%, while the power industry cut its investments by 96%. The government ensures that Canada will fall further and further behind.

Now, it's worth noting that the numbers in question are from 2002-2004 - meaning that they pre-date the Cons' stay in power. But it's not hard to draw a link between factors which likely led to the decline, and ones the Cons are seeking to entrench as a long-term policy.

Remember that in 2002 Canada actually ratified Kyoto, signalling an apparent commitment to international reduction targets, with a concurrent intention to require substantial emission reductions from industry. And it only makes sense that Canadian businesses would have sought to get the jump on their likely obligations when there was some prospect that the required reductions would actually be enforced.

After 2002, however, the Libs chose not to take their own government's commitment seriously. By 2004, Canadian industry seems to have figured out that the Libs weren't going to actually put any teeth behind the targets - and naturally reduced its investment accordingly.

At the same time, though, it seems clear that the earlier commitment to an internationally-enforceable target did serve to drive investment in emission reductions. And the Cons' current stance of holding out for the lowest common denominator can only send an equally strong signal in the opposite direction: when Canada's government is looking to avoid any real commitment to emission reductions, there's no reason for industry to bother investing in reductions of its own.

It remains to be seen whether the current cycle of neglect can be reversed. But it appears plain that with Canadian industry plainly taking its cues from the federal government, neither Lib-style dithering nor the Cons' state of denial is going to lead to any progress in the fight against climate change.

Excuses, excuses

Blogging Horse points out Stephane Dion's laughable take on the Libs' planned change in strategy to actually consider House of Commons votes on their merits. But perhaps even more telling is Dion's set of excuses for Thomas Mulcair's NDP victory in Outremont:

(P)olitical analysts and some grassroots Liberals complained that (Dion) waited too long to appoint a candidate for the September by-election in the Montreal riding of Outremont. His dithering, some said, cost the Liberals a safe seat.

He blames everyone but himself for the loss to the NDP. First, he said, there is the perception the Harper Tories have given a lot of money to the province.

“I don't think Quebec has received that much from Mr. Harper,” Mr. Dion said. “It's the perception … the sense that he was open to Quebec and that this openness was not only fancy constitutional stuff but concrete delivery.”

Now, that might be an interesting theory if the Cons had been the ones to improve their standing in Outremont - though even that would presumably speak to Lib failures in ensuring an accurate public perception of the Cons.

But then there are the actual results in the riding. And the reality is that the Cons' much-ballyhooed candidate dropped 4 points from the party's already-weak position in Outremont. Which means that Dion's first excuse - that improved public perception of the Cons caused Mulcair's win - is demonstrably wrong based on the actual Outremont results.

Mind you, Dion has one more excuse in his arsenal. And while it's perhaps a little tougher to outright disprove empirically, it speaks volumes about the Dion's state of mind (and perhaps that of his party as well):

As well, he said that many Quebeckers believed that the NDP candidate, Thomas Mulcair, a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister, was a federal Liberal.

I'm not sure how one can even pretend to believe the Libs' loss can be traced in any way to confusion about which candidate ran for which party. After all, virtually all media coverage of the byelection campaign focused explicitly on the NDP's effort to challenge the Libs' traditional dominance in the riding, including by having its entire federal caucus campaign for Mulcair. Meanwhile, there was also plenty of controversy surrounding the Libs' candidate appointment process and internal disputes. And I don't recall anybody being shy about highlighting the party affiliations involved.

Yet somehow Dion seems to think that through all that, Outremont's voters somehow didn't know who was running for which party - and if they had, they would never have voted against the Libs.

Which in turn may signal something more as well: a belief on Dion's part that the "Liberal" brand is itself invincible, such that he doesn't have to do more than remind voters who's in his party in order to romp to victory. But that belief would appear to be even more flawed than the Outremont excuses. And if Dion really figures he can count on his party's name to carry him while the NDP catches up to the Libs in the present, then there may be all the more reason to think the Libs are headed for the dustbin of history.

Hide and seek

It may not make for much solace for Canadians who don't want to see their country signed on to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, particularly given the mystery surrounding what the GNEP actually entails. But at least the Harper government isn't succeeding in any effort to bury the announcement under both the Airbus scandal and other nuclear developments. Instead, the minister responsible is showing the Cons' weakness by going into hiding to avoid the questions the government presumably doesn't want to have to answer:

The Conservative government was pilloried Friday for committing Canada to a new international nuclear club without any public or political debate.

Opposition MPs demanded that Canada's participation in the U.S.-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership be debated and voted upon in the Commons after learning by press release that Canada was joining the group.

The surprise announcement came late Thursday after months of government stone-walling and denials.

"It is great news for Canada to be part of this partnership," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told the Commons on Friday.

But Lunn then refused to meet with reporters to discuss the matter, staying in a private Commons lobby for more than an hour while media waited outside.

Eventually, his spokeswoman emerged to say the minister had answered all relevant questions during the daily question period and had nothing more to add.

The minister's behaviour played perfectly to the opposition critics.

"Why have Canadians been kept completely in the dark?" NDP Leader Jack Layton asked outside the House.

Needless to say, the Cons' choice to retreat from any attempt to defend themselves should only spur both the opposition and the media to attack the issue with even more vigor. And the government's combination of broken promises and poor judgment surrounding the GNEP can only help the opposition in its task of showing the Canadian public that it's long past time to make sure the Cons are in no position to do any more damage.