Canada: Liberal Leadership, etc.
In a nutshell: Jean Chretien has been Liberal leader since 1990, PM since 1993. The guy he defeated for the leadership, Paul Martin, has been waiting all this time to take over. Chretien made it clear, again and again, that Martin didn't have the clout or the balls to push Chretien out; Chretien would go at a time of his choosing. (Chretien will turn 70 in January 2004; Martin will turn 66 that year. This reminds me of the "age issue" in France in 2002, when Jospin (64) said Chirac (69)was too old.)
The party, somewhat bizarrely, had committed themselves to a leadership review shortly after the 2000 election--even though they won a huge landslide. It is a safe bet that they will change that rule, and review leadership only when they lose, like other parties. Anyway, the prescribed leadership review was Martin's big chance. The Chretien forces got it postponed, but it was still coming, and it was obvious that Martin had sold enough party memberships to ensure an embarrassing result for Chretien. That didn't mean Chretien would actually lose, i.e. get less than a 50% approval rating. His problem was that anything less than 80% or 90% would look bad.
So to avoid the review vote in February 2003, Chretien promised in the fall of 2002 that he would indeed step down--in February 2004. The party will have a multi-stage vote to select a new leader, as has become fashionable. Many observers think Martin will win in the very first stage, in September 2003--which means Chretien will stay on as a lame duck for 6 months. (Martin has very little opposition; see Colby Cosh on Sheila Copps).
Chretien's party campaigned in 1993 promising to reverse the course Brian Mulroney had set. Once in office, they adopted all of Mulroney's major policies, and then stayed adrift except for eliminating the deficit and passing a "Clarity Act" to deal with future Quebec referenda. (Arguably Preston Manning deserves credit for leading the campaigns both for deficit elimination and a "tougher stand" on Quebec). There have been plenty of scandals, and plenty of mediocre or disgusting ministers. Starting about a year ago, with Chretien making plans to leave, he has been sounding more like a left-winger again. He wants campaign finance reform (which would have prevented a lot of his own tricks), he wants to guarantee medicare stays in its present form, he favours medical marijuana and (now) gay marriage, and he opposed the U.S. on Iraq.
Somehow the Liberals seem unbeatable, and commentators are now saying Canada may be more different from the U.S. than it's been in a long time. The other federal parties each have their pocket of regional support, and that's it. There is definitely some right-wing popular backlash against taxes and gun control, and the Alliance party gives voice to this reaction, especially in the West, but there seems no chance of an actual alternative government.
The Canadian economy stayed strong during the most recent recession, but I worry that in a larger sense we are increasingly irrelevant. When Canadians are challenged as to why we have such a small armed force--we couldn't help the U.S. much if we wanted to, and by the way we (many of us) don't want to--the answer is: we're great UN peacekeepers.
We are now #32 among countries in our contribution to peacekeeping activities. We are almost as irrelevant to the peacekeepers as we are to the war-makers.
(Colby Cosh said #34 in February, but with a link to a Maclean's article, not to the actual table).
old/february03.html/
A rising Canadian dollar hurts our exports, which have benefitted from selling directly to the U.S. Auto parts, in particular, have become a huge business here in Southern Ontario. The number of actual car assembly plants has been in decline
since 1988.
I was at a meeting the other night where the discussion turned to mad cow disease, and what is now a crisis in Canada's entire beef industry. One guy said this is about the relationships--the U.S. is pissed off at us, and they won't help us on this. Another person said "we need them more than they need us" and the first speaker said: "and the only people who don't realize that are the Liberals."
Maybe there's no cause for doom and gloom, but I keep looking back to Pierre Trudeau's funeral. You don't have to be a fan of Trudeau's to say he was truly a great man. Young Canadians, I believe, are brought up to respect him greatly because he fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He was PM for a long time, and left behind a family that was sexy, yet had seen some tragedy. The funeral was one of the big unifying moments for Canadians--one of the very few that united French and English, like the great hockey tournaments and maybe Expo 67. A huge TV event in Canada.
How was the funeral seen internationally? There were two "heads of state" present: Jimmy Carter; and Fidel Castro.
|
