The Globe and Mail is less than impressed with the Harper government's apparently aborted plan to spend $2M on its own communications centre.

From the editorial: (pay-walled to non-subscribers)

It would give the PMO, as opposed to the national press gallery, control not only over who got to ask the questions but over which journalists were allowed to attend news conferences. And if the television feed were also controlled by the functionaries, perhaps even control over what footage was released for broadcast. What better way to control the message than the option of censorship?

Accepting that the idea is in fact off the table, as Ms. Buckler says, it is still surprising that Mr. Harper would ever have entertained such a waste of public money, and, indeed, devoted government resources to studying it. When he made his surprise appearance at the National Press Theatre on Oct. 3 for his sole visit as Prime Minister, Mr. Harper gave a lesson in message control despite the apparently malevolent presence of an executive member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery as moderator.

What accounts, then, for the "Shoe Store Project," as it is code-named? Arrogance? Fantasies of conspiracy? Does the Prime Minister really need "protection" from journalists? More unwanted questions for Mr. Harper.

Here's some goodies from the Toronto Star's follow-up story:

The decision to shelve the project was "a PCO decision," a spokesperson said yesterday. But it is not clear when that decision was made, by whom, or why.

In response to a request by the Star last October, PCO released a package of documents, received Thursday evening, almost a year later, which showed planning was underway, and the cost estimated to be $2 million.

None of the documents indicated the project had been shelved.

However, Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler said in an email yesterday it was a no-go.

"The government has no plans to pursue this issue. As PCO is the lead, you can contact them for answers to your questions," she wrote.

PCO spokesperson Myriam Massabki said the project was "exploratory" and was rejected "for several reasons at the very early stages." but she could not say who decided against it, or why.

"I don't have the reason. But I know that it wasn't something feasible at this time."

She said no other location is currently being considered for such a facility.