Economy plays key role in producing minority gov't in Canada

OTTAWA, Oct. 14 (Xinhua) -- Worries and uncertainty about the downturning economic situation has prompted Canadians to elect a second minority Conservative government in less than three years.

To the disappointment of leader Stephen Harper, the Conservatives were not able to achieve the majority government that he had hoped for when triggering the election September.

Economy was the key consideration for Harper when he decided to end his minority government and called a snap election last month. With Canada's economy still robust at that time, he projected the economy might only begin to worsen in 2009 and feared a scheduled election in October that year could hurt his party.

But he ran into what he tried to escape. As the five-week campaign entered its second half, a sudden crash of the stock market turned everybody's attention to the economy, a weak field for Harper.

As the public were getting increasingly concerned about the economic prospects and the dwindling manufacturing sector, Harper maintained that Canada's economic foundations were solid and was not able to present any fundamental measures in facing the economic challenges.

Instead, he offered only modest tax breaks and spending initiatives, arguing a steady hand would get Canada through the turbulence that has hit world markets.

With his reserved character, Harper has been accused by opponents as been aloof from ordinary Canadians' concerns.

Harper had maintained a comfortable lead over his Liberal rival Stephane Dion at the early stage of the campaign, with a majority government well in the reach. But the sudden downturn of the economy saw his fortunes downturning too.

The Conservatives' policy of cutting culture funds and treating youth offenders as adults also hurt their support base in the French-speaking Quebec province, which was seen as crucial in guaranteeing them a majority.

The Liberals, acknowledged for their good performance during their rule before 2006, put out a "Green Shift" policy which targets at collecting greenhouse emissions tax and offsetting it with reduced income tax. But the tumbling markets and fears of a recession kept Stephane Dion and his party from catching fire with the electorate.

The Liberals suffered a huge loss of nearly 20 seats from where it stood in the last parliament, winning only 78 seats.

Both Dion and Harper talked about economy at their addresses after the election result came out early Wednesday. Dion vowed to put top priority on economy and urged all parties to work together to ensure that Canada overcome the economic difficulties.

"The next few months will be crucial for our country," he told supporters at his campaign headquarters in Montreal.

"It is clear that our economy, indeed the global economic crisis, is the most important issue facing our country at this time...We'll work with the government to make sure Canadians are protected."

At a speech rally before his supporters in Calgary, Harper said the Conservatives would continue to ensure Canada is able to weather the global credit crisis, by enforcing firm regulations for banks and promoting business through low taxes.

"No matter what economic challenges we face from abroad, this is a land where people from every corner of the Earth have come together to build a peaceful and prosperous country without comparison," Harper told his supporters in Calgary. "Canada will always be the true north, strong and free."

But analysts point out that Harpe may face a hard time ahead as he tries to cope with the economy with a minority parliamentary position. If the Liberals elect a new and more capable leader next spring, another election may not be too far.

1 comments:

Inspector Clouseau (visit their site)

We were just thinking this morning - the mere fact that there has developed an "expectation" that government should address any of our concerns in society is a notion which we should examine carefully. Consider the different reasons for the development of this expectation:

(a) Government does it best;

(b) Government is the only way it can be done;

(c) We abdicated our personal responsibility to handle our own affairs;

(d) By having government do it, we achieve efficiencies which can not be matched individually; and

(e) We pay so much in taxes that we want something of value for our money, and as the amount of taxes paid increases, we expect more for our money.

Some would argue that what we are witnessing in Congress at this point in time is exactly why government should not be allowed to do anything in our society other than those absolutely essential services which can not be provided by the private or non-profit sectors. It is difficult to run any organization, or accomplish any large task, by committee, unless all of the members share the same goals and values. That is obviously not the case with government. We, as a society, have grown to expect the government to perform certain functions; but shouldn’t we be trying to gradually reduce the number of services provided by government, particularly because politicians are intimately connected therewith?