Open issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never enough now

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

On secrets and lies

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

On notice

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

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

A well-defined role

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

On soft support

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

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

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

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

Worth debating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On dangerous mining

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On national interests

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

Timing is everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On high-risk maneuvers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On costly generation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On rough landings

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

1 Tips on a Better Writing

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

Not even trying

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

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

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

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

Which only makes this part all the more comical:

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

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

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

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

On promising choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable motivations

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

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

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

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

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

An incredible witness

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

Untrustworthy

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

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced

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

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

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

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

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

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