What a shock: the federal NDP and BQ don't support the throne speech. The Liberals. as usual, are waiting for the polls to tell them how to think, but Ignatieff called it "disappointing".
It would be funny if it wasn't so pointless...both Layton and Duceppe said they wouldn't support the government well before they heard a word of last night's Speech from the Throne. I don't need to hear it to know I'll hate it.
This is the latest example of something I positively loathe about politics: opposition for the sake of opposition. At least wait until after the damned thing before you pass judgement on it. According to CBC News, "some political observers believe that the Liberal front bench — Dion and his shadow cabinet — will vote against the throne speech and that the backbenchers will either abstain or not show up, which would allow the throne speech to pass." That's cheap.
Dion, if this speech is really so bad, grow a pair and call the government on it, okay?
All that aside, I agree with something else Michael Ignatieff said. He called the speech "studied ambiguity." Well, of course it was. This wasn't a budget document and it wasn't a back-dated Hansard transcript. All Speeches from the Throne are full of studied ambiguity. I think Dion or even Layton could have written well over 75% of last night's speech and had it come out exactly the same. There was a whole lot of silliness about various anniversaries (did you know Quebec City was founded 450 years ago? Do you care?) and self-congratulatory twaddle (even if I support a given initiative, the smug back-slapping rubs me the wrong way). But everybody's speech from the throne tends to read as if it comes from an entirely different sort of throne and should perhaps be flushed forthwith.
Okay, so what's in here that has the Opposition's knickers in a twist? Well, let's start with the two obvious things: Afghanistan and the environment.
The speech as read by Michaelle Jean had a fairly lengthy section on Canada's commitment in Afghanistan. There were two basic thrusts: one, that the government would hold a vote on whether to extend the mission past February 2009 and abide by its outcome; two, that, in the opinion of the government, we should stay involved in that country until at least 2011.
Predictably, the first bit was lost in the outrage. Ignatieff called it "a shell game", saying it wasn't clear whether the proposed extension of the mission would be focussed on military or civilian matters.
Oh, it was clear enough to me. Ignatieff can't blame a language barrier, either: the line "Canadians recognize there can be no peace without security" was delivered in English. The government stated it doesn't feel the Afghan military and police force would be up to the job by 2009, but should be by 2011. Regardless, Harper's appointed a commission (in a brilliant move, it's headed by John Manley, maybe the only Liberal who gets why we're in Afghanistan) to advise it on the mission, and there will be a free vote on the matter in the House.
For what it's worth, I'm still torn on Afghanistan. The casualties we're taking have no effect on my thinking: without diminishing the grief of soldiers' families and friends, the sum total of those killed in action in Afghanistan would have represented an unusually quiet day in World War Two. I still believe that, while everyone's entitled to an opinion, only the opinions of soldiers and their families should carry any real weight. And it can't be denied we're doing a hell of a lot of good over there. Then again, I'm not sure the war can be won, at least not with the half-measures we're using. Does that mean we should withdraw? I'm not sure. But a vote in the House seems fair, and the government's recommendations that the outcome of that vote should honour the sacrifice of our fallen--while politically self-serving--also seems fair to me.
Not to Jack Layton, though. I think he honestly believes there's no need for a Canadian military at all. Not only does he favour negotiation with the Taliban (on what, exactly? how many schools they'll burn down this week?), he also seems to think Uncle Sam will protect us from any harm that does come a-callin'. Especially if we insult Uncle Sam at every opportunity. Oh, sure, that makes sense.
Moving right along: the environment. Dion railed against the government for claiming our Kyoto Protocol targets are impossible to meet. I'd like to see him try. No, seriously: we've got seventy-seven days before the benchmark period begins to do what I believe I proved was impossible two years ago. (It's a widely held misconception that the Kyoto deadline to reduce green house gas emssions is 2012. Actually, the average of our green house gas emissions in the years 2008-2012 is supposed to be six percent below 1990 levels.)
As far as I can see, the only way we can achieve these targets at this late date is a mass die-off, and we better be quick about it.
I for one wish the Conservatives were more committed to the environment. But the Kyoto Protocol is so fatally flawed that I can't believe we signed it in the first place. Any agreement exempting the world's two biggest emitters isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
What else was in this worm-can? The closest thing to a "poison pill" in here is the government's stated intent to "immediately" re-introduce an omnibus bill composed of several of the anti-crime measures either defeated in the last session or killed when it ended. The bill will include provisions for raising the age of sexual consent; stricter bail conditions; stronger punishments for impaired driving, and mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes. This bill will be a matter of confidence, meaning if it does not pass, the government would fall and an election would be called.
As I said, none of this passed before. (Why not, I can't fathom.) I'd love to see the Opposition plunge us into an election on crime. I just can't imagine how they'd contort themselves into supporting criminals without, you know, supporting criminals.
Also, apparently the promise to cut the GST another percentage point will be fulfilled this fall, two years early. How much do you want to bet freshly re-elected Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty will raise the PST in response?
As usual, it'll be an interesting year in Ottawa.
No comments:
Post a Comment