PING!
Posted on 01/27/2006 3:21:40 PM PST by GMMAC
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.
PING!
how fragile is his govt anyway? the NDP, which gained a lot of seats probably is in no hurry for a new election... and the Bloc can literally block any no-confidence motion.
"He volunteered to rebut the (American) ambassador for suggesting that the Conservative plan to increase Canada's military presence along its Arctic coastline is misguided."
Agreed. We all know that the Danes are just waiting to swarm across the ice from Greenland and seize artic Canada.
Another (self-evidently Chrétienista) Liberal sort of gets it .... for now.
-"ista", shmeesta! Just plain liberal.
Yawn...bring it on.
Have you been to Kinsella's website? This guy took a sick pleasure in Martin's pain.
Harper wants to get softwood finally resolved. Do you think there is a good chance of this happening? What sort of control does Bush have? Is he the final authority over the Commerce Department?
Plus, he gets to go over the "books"!! THAT excites me. I kinda thought Stockwell Day would have made an excellent Foreign Affairs Minister however. Who, I wonder will fill that role??
He said he would be following the trail of the $40 Million or so that is unaccounted for in the scandals we know about.
What about all the departments the Auditor General hasn't had access to?
I kinda thought Stockwell Day would have made an excellent Foreign Affairs Minister however. Who, I wonder will fill that role??
Me too. I like Stockwell Day.
I could presume to guess who PM Harper will appoint FA minister, but I have to admit, I want Rona Ambrose appointed to every single portfolio! He better put her in a strong position, where she can shine. She's great!
The USA faction has now gone to the court with the argument that the dispute resolution board is unconstitutional and they could very well win.
President Bush cannot stop this process unless the lumber lobby agrees.
If the dispute resolution is brought down all of NAFTA could tumble with it.
IIRC, Canada walked away from the last negotiation with only one issue unresolved and that issue is log auctions, especially in BC where the Min of Forests has people believing that only they can possibly manage ( or mismanage in many cases ) the forest and a log auction will take much of the processing out of the province.
Hopefully Canada will sit down quickly and this will be resolved to everyones benefit but I fear it may be too late for that.
I think there are many people in both countries that want this to go to the Supreme Court.
Liberals fashioned softwood into a political 2x4 of some clout and there are many BC who relish the fight.
Lots of things have changed, especially the value of the Canadian $ since the last negotiations.
Politicians are obviously reluctant to let softwood go, ever, and just let the loggers and sawmills go to work.
But it's a good gauge of the deterioration in U.S.-Canadian relations that a quintessential piece of postmodern, humbug multilateralism--an issue that required Canada to be minimally supportive without being helpful, at no political cost and in return for some lucrative contracts for northern defense contractors--was whooped up by the Liberals into a big scare about Washington's plans for the "weaponization of space." On missile defense, Mr. Harper will be more down to earth in every sense. -- Mark Steyn on the missle shield.
Yes, but Bush is also the final authority over the State Department.
I think it should be noted that US-Canadian relations often hinge on issues so huge that Americans have never heard of them.
There is a lot of resentment in Canada about that.
The left wingers feed on it, but being anti-American is a losing strategy for Canada in the long run and that also causes some resentment.
I try not to rely on people (Americans or Canadians) to always act in their own best interest.
I have seen too many "shoot themselves in the foot", "cut off their nose to spite their face", etc. etc.
Maybe with PM Harper in charge, he and Pres. Bush will make some moves towards reconciling some of the misunderstandings that the left wingers thrive on.
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.