On negatives

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

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

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

Loose lips, sinking ship

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

Shifting sands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On disapproval

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

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

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

On poor information

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

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

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

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

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

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

On predictable performances

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

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

A golden opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On regression

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

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

On chopping blocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On fixes

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

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

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

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

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

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

On loopholes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On politicization

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

Opinions for sale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On parallels

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

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

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

(Edit: added title.)

Selective corrections

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

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

The cost of distrust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the textual reinterpretation begin...

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

Focused partisanship

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

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

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

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

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

The reaction was poor.

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

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

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

But the research report warned this doesn't work.

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

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

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

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

On consistent differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On hazards

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

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

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