Questionable motivations

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

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

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

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

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

An incredible witness

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

Untrustworthy

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

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of our least precious resources

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

Our continued national disgrace

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

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

Weakness in numbers

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

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

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

Foul polling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On creative ideas

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

Of media and messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On pushback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H/t to contratianna at Babble.)

On alien concepts

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

Go figure

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

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

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

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

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

(Edit: fixed label.)

Choosing the messenger

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

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

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

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

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

Open questions

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

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

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

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

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

(Edit: fixed typos.)

Definitely one to watch

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

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

On timing

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

On scofflaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk and reward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On market adjustments

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

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