Saturday, June 26, 2004
Canada Election Campaign 2004
Campaign 2004 is winding down and the new parliament is likely to be very split. The Liberals and the Conservatives may win roughly the same number of seats, about 110 each, making inevitable not only the prospect of a minority government, but the fluid nature of any potential alliances as well.
It doesn’t matter which candidate from which party you ask, they’re all reading from their respective policy platform handbooks, taking extra care to never deviate from prepared speech when appearing in front of microphones or cameras. Canadians vote in days, and so far, and with only twenty-four hours of campaigning left, it remains unclear that anything said about foreign policy or international affairs can help me, the average voter, make sense of goings on outside Canada or to feel that politicians in this country can. Just what is going on in the world? How will Ottawa improve dealings with Washington? I know everybody seems to agree that our southern neighbours are important, but how will relations be defined? And by the way, are there any differences between the war on terror and what’s going on in and around Iraq?
Just take the Liberals. They say their priorities include peacekeeping and helping rebuild failed states. When talking about how or why the Canadian armed forces have been degraded over the past decade, they reference the economy, stressing military and security issues are investment options. They note that when they came to power eleven years ago, the federal deficit was out of control and the situation so grave, the World Bank was poised to take over the economy. A decade of Liberal rule produced balanced budgets, which now allows the country to revisit priorities, the military among them. Liberals also say that the Conservatives are bent on reckless adventurism, using any opportunity to say some alleged Conservative hidden agenda includes spending on aircraft carriers, a signal to the world community that Canada is preparing for war.
Conservatives counter by saying that Liberals misspeak when they just can’t come to terms with the differences between aircraft carriers, not on any Conservative agenda, and troop carriers, which would be purchased. Conservatives also spend much time denouncing what they claim is Liberal fiscal mismanagement, stressing that throwing funds at pet projects doesn’t solve any problems or improve the quality of life. They also say they would earmark over a billion dollars for the Canadian military, not making it clear how spending in that case differs from all other types of expenditures.
Leader Jack Layton claims that a New Democratic Party (NDP)-backed government should be adamant about keeping weapons out of space. Also, the NDP agenda would include turning NATO into a multilateral institution. The Kyoto Treaty must be supported, notes Layton. Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe agrees on almost every point. Duceppe is on record saying that no party that plans to oppose or scrap Kyoto will get his backing for any such move. During the televised leadership debates, held 14 and 15 June, both Duceppe and Layton also agreed that Canada needs to proceed with a comprehensive foreign policy review, then move to defense policy, and finally to questions of how much can and should be spent on the military to serve these foreign and defense policy priorities. Both Layton and Duceppe say that foreign policy and human rights issues cannot and must not be decoupled.
Duceppe and Layton may have much influence in the new parliament. In at least one scenario, both the Conservatives and the Liberals may just see their leaders taking turns forming government before the option of calling another election is exercised. If this does happen, just what can or will happen to any one vision of Canadian foreign policy?
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 1:33 AM
Campaign 2004 is winding down and the new parliament is likely to be very split. The Liberals and the Conservatives may win roughly the same number of seats, about 110 each, making inevitable not only the prospect of a minority government, but the fluid nature of any potential alliances as well.
It doesn’t matter which candidate from which party you ask, they’re all reading from their respective policy platform handbooks, taking extra care to never deviate from prepared speech when appearing in front of microphones or cameras. Canadians vote in days, and so far, and with only twenty-four hours of campaigning left, it remains unclear that anything said about foreign policy or international affairs can help me, the average voter, make sense of goings on outside Canada or to feel that politicians in this country can. Just what is going on in the world? How will Ottawa improve dealings with Washington? I know everybody seems to agree that our southern neighbours are important, but how will relations be defined? And by the way, are there any differences between the war on terror and what’s going on in and around Iraq?
Just take the Liberals. They say their priorities include peacekeeping and helping rebuild failed states. When talking about how or why the Canadian armed forces have been degraded over the past decade, they reference the economy, stressing military and security issues are investment options. They note that when they came to power eleven years ago, the federal deficit was out of control and the situation so grave, the World Bank was poised to take over the economy. A decade of Liberal rule produced balanced budgets, which now allows the country to revisit priorities, the military among them. Liberals also say that the Conservatives are bent on reckless adventurism, using any opportunity to say some alleged Conservative hidden agenda includes spending on aircraft carriers, a signal to the world community that Canada is preparing for war.
Conservatives counter by saying that Liberals misspeak when they just can’t come to terms with the differences between aircraft carriers, not on any Conservative agenda, and troop carriers, which would be purchased. Conservatives also spend much time denouncing what they claim is Liberal fiscal mismanagement, stressing that throwing funds at pet projects doesn’t solve any problems or improve the quality of life. They also say they would earmark over a billion dollars for the Canadian military, not making it clear how spending in that case differs from all other types of expenditures.
Leader Jack Layton claims that a New Democratic Party (NDP)-backed government should be adamant about keeping weapons out of space. Also, the NDP agenda would include turning NATO into a multilateral institution. The Kyoto Treaty must be supported, notes Layton. Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe agrees on almost every point. Duceppe is on record saying that no party that plans to oppose or scrap Kyoto will get his backing for any such move. During the televised leadership debates, held 14 and 15 June, both Duceppe and Layton also agreed that Canada needs to proceed with a comprehensive foreign policy review, then move to defense policy, and finally to questions of how much can and should be spent on the military to serve these foreign and defense policy priorities. Both Layton and Duceppe say that foreign policy and human rights issues cannot and must not be decoupled.
Duceppe and Layton may have much influence in the new parliament. In at least one scenario, both the Conservatives and the Liberals may just see their leaders taking turns forming government before the option of calling another election is exercised. If this does happen, just what can or will happen to any one vision of Canadian foreign policy?
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 1:33 AM
