Focused partisanship

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

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

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

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

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

The reaction was poor.

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

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

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

But the research report warned this doesn't work.

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

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

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

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

On consistent differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On hazards

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

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

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

On false prophets

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

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

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

On issue selection

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

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

Power to the people

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

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

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

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

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

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

On conflicts of interest

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

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

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

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

The undeclared war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear instability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On liabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nuclear option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On wedge issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever more radioactive

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

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

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

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

Who knew?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buying silence

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

Losing the blame game

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

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

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

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

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

Listed

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

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

No defence

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

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

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

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

Another nail in the coffin

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

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

Laissez-faire politics

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

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

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

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

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

On class war

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