(Canada's Prime Minister-elect) Harper's approach different in every way

Harper's approach different in every way

Toronto red Star
Jan. 27, 2006

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Canada may be about to get its second minority government in as many years but if Stephen Harper has his way, the similarities between his regime and that of Paul Martin will apparently stop there, and not just because their policies are different.

If there was one element missing from the prime minister-designate's first news conference yesterday, it was an air of deja vu. Instead, everything from format to pace spoke of a desire to approach the business of steering a minority government differently.

Start with format: Martin used to run his Parliament Hill news conferences like class reunions. They tended to be sit-down events that featured the occasional prime ministerial joke and an ultra-light news menu.

Harper's media encounters are more like army briefings. He is economical with his answers. They leave as little to interpretation as to imagination. Yesterday's news conference was a stand-up affair. It was held in the lobby of the House of Commons in a setting as removed from that of an expansive fireside chat as a sandwich shop from that of a candlelight dinner.

Moving on to pace: Harper has given himself a total of 13 days between the election and his swearing-in to come up with the first Conservative cabinet in more than a decade. In 2004, Martin took 22 days to put together his second cabinet in six months.

The priorities of the prime minister-designate for the upcoming session of Parliament can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Martin had so many priorities that he ended up coming across as having no agenda and, in time, no memorable record.

To handle his transition to government, Harper has gone outside his inner circle and reached out to some of the veterans of the Brian Mulroney era. Even after he failed to secure a majority in 2004, Martin stuck to the same tightly knit group of loyalists.

It is understood that Harper will find room in his first cabinet for ex-leadership rival Stockwell Day (although not at foreign affairs) and that he will treat Peter MacKay with the deference due to a former federal leader. Martin spent his first months in office banishing his rivals and their supporters from his government.

Ultimately, the most telling moment of yesterday's post-election news conference was a sharp rap on the knuckles of American ambassador David Wilkins.

Harper's public reprimand was not prompted by a media query. He volunteered to rebut the ambassador for suggesting that the Conservative plan to increase Canada's military presence along its Arctic coastline is misguided.

Ambassador Wilkins and his superiors at the State Department should not be the only ones taking note. The opposition leaders and the premiers should pay attention, too.

As opposed to his predecessor, it seems that this prime minister will be inclined to push back.

For the opposition leaders, that would suggest that their best chances of advancing their agendas will likely come before rather than after the fact of Harper's first Speech from the Throne and budget. He sounds unlikely to be as willing to rewrite his government's agenda at the flick of an opposition knife as Martin has been.

As for the premiers, they might brace themselves for a different dynamic when they meet with Harper to discuss fiscal arrangements and health-related matters later this year. Chances are this prime minister will send them home early rather than empty his pockets on the negotiating table to secure a deal from them.

It is too early to know whether Harper's take-charge approach will work in the context of a fragile minority government. In time, he will have to do a lot of give and take if he is to survive and achieve some goals along the way. But what is certain is that Martin's approach failed to earn him a passing grade from voters.

But do you see how narrow those interests are? I'm sure those interests are big to the industries they effect, and much bigger to Canada than the US, but this is not the kind of thing that should destroy relations.

I believe I realize the overall picture & can most certainly see the duty of any government to prevent foreign "dumping" - especially if the product has been heavily and/or unfairly subsidized by the country of origin - into its domestic marketplace to the detriment of its own industries/workforce.
(steel would be a good example of an area where your government should probably be more protectionist)

However, particularly in the case of raw materials - as opposed to finished goods, government also has a duty to protect both its overall economy and its domestic consumers.

Having said all this, U.S.-Canadian trade will always be somewhat uneven because of our past governments' failure to encourage secondary manufacturing as well as our lack of America's economy of scale combined with our relative abundance of raw materials / natural resources.

Some Americans seem unaware that our entire population (& therefore our economy & marketplace) is less than one tenth the size of America's.
California - alone! - contains several million more people than all of Canada.

Ergo, trade disputes are always "bigger" to Canada.
As the saying goes up here: "if America's economy catches a cold, ours soon develops pneumonia!"

I don't know Rona Ambrose fanfan. Stockwell Day is my representative but that's not the reason I wanted to see him appointed Foreign Affairs minister. I have seen him speak on CPAC and the Freepers that saw and heard him were absolutely awed. They said, Wow, this guy is really good. He would have been greatly accepted by our US friends I belive.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.