Canada’s Liberal Problem
The problem started with a funding crisis, involving the ruling party and a vital province in the electoral scheme of things. It mounted into a crumbling mandate, a push for no confidence, and arguments over health care, foreign policy, and the general direction of the nation. To Americans, taking out the word “province” and changing it to “state” or “city” would make it an eerily common phenomenon in the jaded American political world. However, the aforementioned situation belongs to the Liberal government of Paul Martin in Canada, who faces strong challengers and questions on integrity in the January 23rd general elections. While the similarities may seem apparent between the American and Canadian electoral system, there is a stark difference between the lethargic American and the vibrant Canadian electorate. The sponsorship scandal by the Liberals has opened the way for a new direction for Canada, one with a stronger government mandate and a more clearly defined path. This path will lead it either to closer association with its North American allies or to greater independence in global affairs as a mediator, as a leader in global investment, environmental affairs, and diplomacy or as a follower in the wake of greater global powers.
The four major Canadian political parties – , the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party – , have already participated in vigorous debate over the issues in a recent leader’s debate. The first to be held in western Canada, the December 16th-17th debates (held in both English and French) offered an opportunity to see what Canadians have in store. While Paul Martin attempted to steer clear of his party indiscretions and stick to the issues, the other three leaders took shots at what the Liberal sponsorship crisis in Quebec meant to the strength of Canadian politics. Jack Layton of the NDP said that those sovereigntists in Quebec who were allied with the Liberals should feel like the Liberal Party had no respect for their culture or rights as Canadian citizens. Conservative Stephen Harper railed against the wasteful spending of Martin’s government as accentuated by their approach to winning Quebec and its ridings. Gilles Duceppe, of the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, was disgusted with the invocation of the poor Quebecois by all three, implied or explicit, and stuck to shaming the three parties for their disrespect for the people of Quebec.
This summary of the debate does not seem to sound like one that is very hopeful for the Canadian government and, frankly, does not appear much better than their American counterparts. The positions of the four major leaders on foreign policy seems to recognize a uniformity in thought on Canada’s position as a world power but a difference of opinion on how to get there. The Liberal Party takes the position that Canada needs to accelerate industry toward Kyoto Treaty pollution levels, focus on domestic terrorism spending, and practice debt relief to developing nations that are democratic and progressive. In contrast, the Conservatives see the Kyoto treaty as flawed, want to increase front line troops and Disaster Assistant Relief Teams (DARTs), and decrease international trade barriers to expand into developing markets. The Bloc Quebecois feels a need to reevaluate Canadian defense and policy spending, while deciding that Quebec is against the Kyoto Treaty and for the province’s increased role in international trade. Finally, the New Democratic Party wants to create more “green jobs” and exceed Kyoto pollution levels, while strongly acting toward forgiving all foreign debts to developing nations and ensuring that foreign trade agreements include provisions toward labor, environment, and cultural protection.
There are indeed small gulfs to traverse between these parties; however, the nature of the Canadian parliament and politics in general requires trade between parties and moderation in the face of crippling indecision in Parliament. The latest polling numbers indicate that avoiding necessary coalitions between the parties may be more of a pipe dream than a hope. According to the latest Strategic Counsel poll, the Liberals have 34% of the vote, Conservatives 30%, and NDP 16%. The Pollara survey indicates a 38% Liberal vote, 30% to the Conservatives, and 15% to the NDP. Finally, the SES/CPAC poll indicates Liberals holding a 39% to 31% lead over the Conservatives, with the NDP holding 14% of the vote.
The numbers, the debates, the political infighting and mud tossing: all of which indicate a continuance of minority government in Canada. But, as an outside observer, this author believes otherwise. The polling numbers are soft at this point because the campaign started only a month ago with the November 27th vote of no confidence.. The Conservatives are espousing a clean government format, along with a leader that promises a stronger and more independent Canada that should appeal to those on the fence. In politics, it is not a sin to make one mistake but it is a sin to make one mistake and fix it by making dozens of smaller mistakes. The Liberals cannot keep the political balls in the area and despite current numbers seem to be on their way to a role as a diminished opposition party in the next government.
