Governance

Election fever: The day after

After two federal elections, what will the new political landscape mean for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River?

As the United States’ two-year presidential saga crescendoed to a fever pitch in the days leading up to November 4—the call for “change” echoing across the country— Canadians found themselves also going to the polls based on a snap election widely criticized as a manoeuvre of political opportunism.

Characterizing the current parliament as dysfunctional and ineffective, Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to Canadians a year ahead the fix election date his government passed, asking for a renewed mandate for governing. In reality, he was hoping to increase the number of seats for the party, giving him enough to form a majority government with which he could push his plans forward unhindered by the opposition.

Six weeks later, little had changed. The Conservatives had only gained 19 seats, ten short of a majority. The New Democratic Party was able to gain eight seats, while the Bloc Quebecois lost two. The Liberal Party took a drudging, losing 26 seats and falling to their lowest representation in parliament in over 20 years.

This utter lack of change offers a sharp contrast to an historical election in the United States.

When U.S. voters took to the polls they elected the country’s first African-American president, Barack Obama. A Senator from Chicago, Obama made significant inroads in traditionally Republican territory across the country, beating out political veteran, Senator John McCain. At the same time, the Democratic Party solidified their majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Now that the dust has settled, what do these two elections mean for the Great Lakes?

A Great Lakes President

Consistently, protecting the Great Lakes has cut across party lines and been a clear bipartisan issue. During the U.S. campaign, both presidential nominees signed a pledge, committing to passing restoration legislation during their term. No matter who would win the election, there was good reason to be hopeful that the 44th president would be a positive force for the Great Lakes.

During the campaign Obama released a $5 billion plan to “jumpstart” Great Lakes restoration. The plan includes an aggressive approach to toxics cleanup, as well as a “zero toxics” policy for identifying and reducing toxic pollution. Invasive species would also be a priority, with the government taking steps to stop the discharge of invasive species from ballast water and preventing future introductions to the lakes.

The plan would also create a Great Lakes coordinator, who would prioritize the coordination of federal, state and local agencies.

The Impacts of a Hurting Economy

Of course, a $5 billion spending plan is great, if the money is there to spend. The United States currently carries a $10 trillion debt, with outgoing-president Bush’s 2009 budget showing a deficit of just over $400 billion. With the markets tumbling, finding the funds for new spending will be difficult for the next president.

“What is likely to be a prolonged and severe recession makes it difficult to launch climate change or energy initiatives that are perceived as hurting the economy,” said Michael Kraft, professor with the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

“But [this is] a good time for green jobs initiatives as part of a federal economic stimulus. Obama emphasized investing in these kinds of jobs during the campaign as a way to integrate environmental and economic concerns.”

The Canadian government finds itself in a better financial position, but the ailing economy is still having an effect. Manufacturing jobs, the core of Ontario’s economy, are disappearing and the province is now considered a “have-not” province, eligible to receive funding from the federal equalization program. The program redistributes money contributed by each province and territory to ensure balanced services across the country.

Renewing International Cooperation

Cleaning up the Great Lakes depends on the cooperation of both federal governments. With the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement up for possible renegotiation, the degree to which either country is willing to work on international environmental concerns will be a true test of their commitment to the Great Lakes.

“The current [United States] administration has been a real disappointment when it comes to working with other countries on environmental issues. I think there is a real change to come,” said Kraft.

In Canada, the re-election of the Conservative Party brought with it a cabinet shuffle. With the Water Quality Agreement on the table, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will play an increasingly important role. The new minister of foreign affairs is Lawrence Cannon from Quebec. He was first elected in 2006, when he became minister of transport.

As of press time, Obama has offered the position of Secretary of State to New York senator, Hillary Clinton.

Pundits have commented that the new cabinet was designed to be friendly toward the new administration in the United States. Just days after the U.S. election, Canadian officials had proposed a climate change pact between the two countries. The pact is considered a means of getting Canada onto the already busy agenda of the president-elect, while also ensuring the United States looks to Canada as an energy supplier. Whether this is indicative of a greater willingness to work binationally on environmental issues or a means of selling more Alberta oil (and further ravaging the environment) is unclear; only time will tell.

What will the emphasis be on the environment?

Over the past fifteen years, the staffing and budget for Environment Canada have been substantially reduced. Previous environment minister John Baird sent a briefing to the Treasury Board at the beginning of this year stating his intention to further cut the budget for the ministry by approximately twenty percent over the next several years.

Since the cabinet shuffle, Baird has been moved to Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with Calgary MP Jim Prentice taking over the environment portfolio. Environmentalists fear that a re-elected Harper government will follow through on the budget cuts that Baird announced. This will inevitably result in further destruction of the capacity of Environment Canada to carry out programs to protect the environment, including those programs directly affecting the Great Lakes.

While Obama still has thousands of appointments to make in lead-up to the January inauguration, the environment can only increase in relevance compared to the Bush administration, which rarely gave environmental concerns a strong consideration.

The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff is a positive indication. Emmanuel, a member of the House of Representatives, has been a devoted champion for the Great Lakes, including sponsoring comprehensive restoration legislation in 2003.

The Road Ahead

While there has been tremendous change (and also tremendous lack of change), citizens will need to continue to pressure governments on both sides of the border to act to clean up the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. While opponents may still try to drive a wedge between the economy and the environment, there is much potential for 2009 to be an exceptional year for the Great Lakes, but these gains will only be made by continuing to pressure both governments to identify this region’s health as a top priority.

By Brent Gibson & John Jackson

UPDATE: Governor General sends Federal Parties to the corner to think about what they’ve done

In early December, the Canadian federal government delivered an economic update to Parliament. Typically the update is a relatively minor event in the life of a government, but for Canada’s Conservative Party, it nearly toppled them.

The update contained three aspects that opposition parties refused to support: the absence of stimulus spending, the elimination of election funding for parties who garner a certain amount of public support, and the elimination of the right to strike for public servants, some of whom have expiring contracts to renegotiate in the coming months.

While the government cited the need to tighten the spending belt during an economic downturn, the measures were widely considered strongly partisan, with the election financing decision a particularly aggressive move to undermine, if not cripple, the opposition partys’ ability to stage an election campaign.

Several years ago the then Liberal government under Jean Chretien put in place strong limits on corporate and union donations to political parties. In exchange, parties that earned at least the 5 per cent of the popular vote in a federal election would be granted approximately $2 for every vote earned.

This amounts to approximately $30 million in taxpayer support of political parties. Contrast this to the recent snap election which cost taxpayers ten times that amount at $300 million.

For the Liberal Party and the NDP, this funding is critical, since both parties previously relied on corporate and union support. For the Conservative Party, with a much stronger grassroots fundraising base, the cut would have much less of an effect, despite that they take the most from the pot since they earned the most votes.

The opposition parties refused to vote in favour of the update. Considered a “confidence motion”, if the bill failed to pass parliament the government would be defeated, and the governor general — the Queen’s representative in Canada — would have to decide whether to call an election or ask the the leader of the opposition if they could form a government with the support of the other parties of the House.

In lead up to the vote, the Liberal Party and NDP signed upon a power-sharing agreement to form a government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which agreed to support the coalition government on any confidence motion for 18 months.

Realizing that there was no way to avoid defeat in parliament on December 8, and that the governor general would likely grant the opposition the chance to lead, Prime Minister Harper met with the Governor General on the Thursday prior to ask her to exercise a third option: prorogue parliament. This would mean suspending parliament until late January, when the Conservatives are expected to deliver a full budget.

In the wake of the Governor General’s decision to prorogue, Liberal leader Stephané Dion stepped down. While he had already announced his resigination, he intended to remain interim leader until a May leadership convention crowned a new chief. However, after wide criticism for how he and his staff handled the political crisis, there was a strong desire to put a new leader in place before Parliament returned in January.

In the end, leadership front-runner Micheal Ignatieff was named interim leader after the other two leadership candidates, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae, stepped down.

Ignatieff has not shown strong support for the coalition, and with his leadership there is a strong likelihood that the government will survive a confidence motion over the budget in January, presuming it is includes a significant stimulus package. The other two factors that precipitated all this — party funding and the public service’s right to strike — have already been taken off the table.

© 2009 Great Lakes News.