Does anyone see a trend/evil plan at work here?
So-called leader Stephen Harper, hater of all things Canadian, ignores the dwindling decks of immigration refugee boards. When caught out, he begins to trickle a few appointees to positions just for cosmetics' sake.
A while later, the CON government begin to point out the failings of the immigration/refugee system, suddenly requiring people from the Czech Republic and Mexico to apply for visitors' visas when coming to Canada. When visiting one of the countries, he pleads: "It's not you, it's me (but not me - someone else is responsible)."
Meanwhile, other CON sleeper agents start murmurring how the imperfect refugee system needs to be overhauled.
The Americans, meanwhile, are going thru a somewhat vicious political debate about some form of nationalized health care. The anti-Obama squad (republicans, aka friends of Harper) use nefarious comparisons and examples from the Canadian health care experience (not perfect, for sure) to spread fear and misinformation among Americans. Stephen Harper goes on a US television network and 'stands up' for Canada by saying he won't meddle in the health care debate, can't offer any comment on Canada's health care system, and that it's all the responsibility of the provinces, or as Chico use to tell the man: "it's not me, boss!"
In scenario one, just as when he wanted to deregulate/remove the government from the nuclear industry, Harper produced a semi-crisis that framed his laisse faire argument well.
In example two, Harper again uses the tactic of implied ambivalence to show that he neither supports Canada's system or its goals.
And if you're not from a group that traditionally supports his team, like someone visibly not Harper-esque? Let's just say the service is less than stellar.
Intentional ambivalence from 24 Sussex Drive. The means Harper uses to speak Down For Canada.
