Harper back to the drawing board: a fall election?

From today's Globe and Mail:

PM set to reboot Parliament

Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved yesterday to give his government a new parliamentary start and a fresh legislative agenda, setting the stage for a vote on the Conservatives' survival.

MPs will return to Ottawa one month later than scheduled after Mr. Harper asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean yesterday to end the current session of Parliament and begin a new one Oct. 16. The government will then unveil a new Speech from the Throne to reinvigorate an agenda that critics say has run its course.

So the Conservative government has run out of gas and wants a new Throne Speech to breathe life into its Parliamentary agenda. But it may not get the chance: a new Throne Speech means the opposition parties will have a chance to bring down the government and force a fall election.

Is this likely? I think so. Here’s two reasons why:

1) The new Throne Speech will kill the (amended) Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act was the Conservative’s first crack at countering climate change. But it was more of a squish than a crack: the bill failed to appreciate the rising tide of public concern for environmental issues, was shamefully unambitious, and suffocated like a sparrow in the Ontario auto-belt. Harper scrambled, replaced the embattled Rona Ambrose with the more experienced John Baird as Environment Minister, and the bill went to committee where it was radically altered by the opposition parties. It has not yet been brought to the House for a vote, despite howling complaints from the opposition, and will die on the table if a new Throne Speech is given.

This would suit the Harper government just fine. To pass the Clean Air Act would be a major victory for the opposition parties: they would have taken a disastrously unpopular governmental bill, cooperated to make it a good bill, and then forced the government to accept their version. Quite a black eye for Harper, who is desperate to improve his environmental image. Harper would rather let this bill die, and use the Throne Speech to promise all kinds of new environmental goodies with the cameras rolling. I’m sure he’ll wear a bright green tie.

This won’t do for the opposition parties. Stephan Dion has already said that the Liberals will support the Throne Speech only if the government allows a vote on the amended Clean Air Act. Reasonable enough, in my view, considering that Parliament has been working on the bill for a year. But fat chance. I think the government will start from scratch on the environment and promise all sorts of new green policies, the opposition parties will criticize Harper for dragging his feet on climate change, and this will be an intractable issue that will likely lead to a fall election.

2) Harper isn’t going to promise to end the Afghan mission in 2009

Harper has said he will allow a vote in the House of Commons on Canada’s Afghanistan commitment in 2009. If the House votes to withdraw the troops, then withdraw they shall. But Dion and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe say that’s not good enough: both are demanding that the government pledge not to extend the mission past February 2009.

Harper won’t make this pledge, in my view. Why not? For several good reasons: a) allowing the issue to be voted on in the democratically elected House of Commons should be good enough; b) he’s already broadcast to our NATO allies that our continued involvement in Afghanistan will depend on the decision of the House in 2009, and he’s not going to alter that commitment; c) he’s a proud man, and feels that his promise to allow a vote in the House is concession enough.

So there won’t be any pledge, and that will likely trigger an election. And you know, I think Dion and Duceppe are wrong to make this demand. I mean, why isn’t a vote in the House of Commons good enough? The pledged withdrawal they’re demanding would take place a year and a half from now. A lot can happen in that amount of time; maybe our forces will have made significant strategic gains, or a new Pakistani President will show greater support for ISAF, or our NATO allies will show a greater willingness to get involved in the fighting. Wouldn’t it be wiser to revisit the issue in the House of Commons in 2009, thus allowing our elected representatives to make the call? How can Dion and Duceppe be sure that withdrawal will be the best idea in 2009? The truth is, they’re just trying to score points with an electorate that is becoming increasingly disdainful of the Afghanistan mission. It might be good politics, we'll have to wait and see.

At any rate, I see these two issues as being irresolvable, and I think there’s a good chance we’ll be going to the polls this fall.