Canadian Conservative Party ready for an election -- no one is surprised
By Grace
For most people who are following Canadian politics, the headline "Tories more ready than any other party for an election" comes as no surprise. It seems that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been election-ready since he won a minority government in January of this year.
In June, I mentioned that Harper was already dropping not-so-subtle hints about the e-word when his nominee for an accountability appointment was soundly rejected, saying: "We'll obviously need a majority government to do that in the future. That's obviously what we'll be taking to the people of Canada at the appropriate time,"
The latest of such blustering comes after a sort of break in the softwood lumber dispute -- a deal negotiated by the party-switching Member of Parliament, David Emerson (who, as you may recall, jumped the Liberal ship for a ministerial position in the new Conversative government). The Prime Minister proudly stated that a large number of timber companies were getting behind the deal, but refused to give actual numbers, merely stating, "it's a very strong majority."
However, some in the lumber industry were leery towards the new deal. Hank Ketcham, President of West Fraser Timber, said that his company "had serious reservations about both the substance of the (agreement) and the process by which it has been developed."
Why? According to The Vancouver Sun, "The agreement will return $4.3 billion to Canadian producers. The companies, in turn, would have to drop their largely successful legal challenges before panels established under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization." In addition to this, the United States gets to keep $1 billion of the illegal tariffs it collected.
In other words, all those rulings that came in Canada's favour from NAFTA and the WTO in the softwood lumber dispute will be have to be forgotten, as if they counted for nothing (for a brief overview of the softwood lumber controversy, see here). And what's the point of having an international agreement when we agree not to adhere to the terms?
But I digress.
The main point of this matter is that on August 22 Harper announced that he would put this deal before the House of Commons in September as a bill -- adding that its failure to pass would lead to (surprise, surprise) an election.
Harper is placing a bill, practically as a confidence motion, before the House that the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois and most of the Liberals feel they cannot support (one NDP MP, Peter Julian, called the deal a "sellout"), with what is essentially an ultimatum: "Pass it or face an election."
Now, let's break this down:
The last election in Canada was held in January 2006. The election before that was in the summer of 2004. The very idea of three elections in the span of two years (and two in ONE year!) is exhausting, and the very exercise itself is costly and a cause for general crankiness among the Canadian electorate. Any party that triggers or is perceived to have triggered one now would likely be looking at a poor showing in the polls.
Add to that: The Liberals (the main and strongest opposition to Harper's Conservatives) are currently without a leader. The convention in which one will be chosen is set for December. A snap election called in September could catch them, not unawares (there are contingencies being put in place for such a political emergency), but in a very shaky position.
So what are the options? It's the lesser of two evils in this case: Vote for a bill most of the opposition parties view as being bad for the country, or get trounced by the public and see a reduction in seats and power in Parliament. The Bloc, the NDP, and the Grits have the most to lose, and Harper wins either way. In the first scenario, his bill gets passed. In the second, he may get that majority he's been salivating over for the past eight months, because he will shift the blame onto the opposition for toppling the government.
All in all, someone's playing a game of political brinksmanship with a trigger finger on the election button.
For most people who are following Canadian politics, the headline "Tories more ready than any other party for an election" comes as no surprise. It seems that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been election-ready since he won a minority government in January of this year.
In June, I mentioned that Harper was already dropping not-so-subtle hints about the e-word when his nominee for an accountability appointment was soundly rejected, saying: "We'll obviously need a majority government to do that in the future. That's obviously what we'll be taking to the people of Canada at the appropriate time,"
The latest of such blustering comes after a sort of break in the softwood lumber dispute -- a deal negotiated by the party-switching Member of Parliament, David Emerson (who, as you may recall, jumped the Liberal ship for a ministerial position in the new Conversative government). The Prime Minister proudly stated that a large number of timber companies were getting behind the deal, but refused to give actual numbers, merely stating, "it's a very strong majority."
However, some in the lumber industry were leery towards the new deal. Hank Ketcham, President of West Fraser Timber, said that his company "had serious reservations about both the substance of the (agreement) and the process by which it has been developed."
Why? According to The Vancouver Sun, "The agreement will return $4.3 billion to Canadian producers. The companies, in turn, would have to drop their largely successful legal challenges before panels established under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization." In addition to this, the United States gets to keep $1 billion of the illegal tariffs it collected.
In other words, all those rulings that came in Canada's favour from NAFTA and the WTO in the softwood lumber dispute will be have to be forgotten, as if they counted for nothing (for a brief overview of the softwood lumber controversy, see here). And what's the point of having an international agreement when we agree not to adhere to the terms?
But I digress.
The main point of this matter is that on August 22 Harper announced that he would put this deal before the House of Commons in September as a bill -- adding that its failure to pass would lead to (surprise, surprise) an election.
Harper is placing a bill, practically as a confidence motion, before the House that the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois and most of the Liberals feel they cannot support (one NDP MP, Peter Julian, called the deal a "sellout"), with what is essentially an ultimatum: "Pass it or face an election."
Now, let's break this down:
The last election in Canada was held in January 2006. The election before that was in the summer of 2004. The very idea of three elections in the span of two years (and two in ONE year!) is exhausting, and the very exercise itself is costly and a cause for general crankiness among the Canadian electorate. Any party that triggers or is perceived to have triggered one now would likely be looking at a poor showing in the polls.
Add to that: The Liberals (the main and strongest opposition to Harper's Conservatives) are currently without a leader. The convention in which one will be chosen is set for December. A snap election called in September could catch them, not unawares (there are contingencies being put in place for such a political emergency), but in a very shaky position.
So what are the options? It's the lesser of two evils in this case: Vote for a bill most of the opposition parties view as being bad for the country, or get trounced by the public and see a reduction in seats and power in Parliament. The Bloc, the NDP, and the Grits have the most to lose, and Harper wins either way. In the first scenario, his bill gets passed. In the second, he may get that majority he's been salivating over for the past eight months, because he will shift the blame onto the opposition for toppling the government.
All in all, someone's playing a game of political brinksmanship with a trigger finger on the election button.
posted by Grace at
8:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home