From FPRI:
CANADA AT THE CUSP
by David T. Jones
In February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tory
Party celebrated having governed Canada as a minority for
five years. This date set a record for minority government
duration-a somewhat dubious accomplishment, but far better
than being in Opposition. Obviously, the Tories would have
much preferred to have a majority, but the current run of
minority government reflects a circumstance in Canadian
politics that while uniquely frustrating to politicians is
less so to voting citizens.
Unsurprisingly, on this five-year anniversary, pundits
disgorged a raft of commentary and analysis on Harper's
accomplishments (or lack thereof, depending on the bent of
the commentator). Likewise, they expounded on the
circumstances and personalities involved in this ongoing
minority.
Harper's record-setting mark also backs into the question of
the next election. Officially, the law schedules the next
election for October 2012, but with a minority government,
it could happen when/if the government is defeated on a
confidence vote. Such a circumstance forces all parties to
be election-ready at every instance and provides a rich mine
for speculation. As the federal budget is due to be
presented on March 22, providing a proximate cause for such
a defeat, it has prompted even more media frenzy. (The
absence of diversion during the cabin-fever Canadian winter
can also take credit.)
FRAGMENTATION OF THE CANADIAN POLITY
The Canadian electorate is essentially left-of-center,
devoted to a social welfare/tax heavy framework that more
reflects European political-economic thinking than south-of-
the-border politics. Conservatives (or what passes for
"conservative" in Canada) comprise approximately 30 to 35
percent of the electorate; polling suggests that this figure
is rock solid, but you don't get a majority government from
a third of the voters (especially as most of them are
located west of Ontario). The Tories' task is to move the
numbers above their base to the approximately 40 percent
range that will accord them a majority.
How do you win with 40 percent? You watch with a polite
smile/smirk while the rest of the significantly more liberal
portion of the electorate demolition derby each other. This
portion of the Canadian spectrum now includes Liberals (25
percent); Socialists (New Democrat Party- 20 percent);
Greens (about 10 percent); and Quebec separatists (Bloc
Quebecois, about 10 percent, but confined to Quebec).
The frustration on the left is palatable. The Political
Science 101 logic is obvious: combine enough of these shards
to make a coalition that will jettison the Tories and elect
a liberal/left government (looking at the UK Tory-Liberal
coalition-of-convenience prompts anticipatory salivating).
However, the Canadian impetus to fratricide has been a
generation-long imperative. As one might imagine there are
"principles" and "personalities" involved. Moreover, the
Liberals still believe themselves to be Canada's "natural
governing party." Based on having held power about 70
percent of the 20th century; they continue to believe that a
better leader, a Tory error, or an appropriate correlation
of sun spots will bring back what is "natural." The NDP is
significantly more ideological than the Liberals-and
believes that it is gnawing away at the Liberal
constituencies and may take second place in the next
election (so why compromise now)? The "Greens" have support
that is a continent wide and an inch deep: they have yet to
elect a federal Member of Parliament. And the Bloc
Quebecois (BQ) has leveraged adroitly its Quebec dominance
to get additional benefits for its province, having
marginalized the Liberals and benefitted from Tory errors in
dealing with Quebeckers.
Liberals and NDP (supported by the BQ) machinated to defeat
the Tories and replace the just-elected government with a
coalition in December 2008. Such a coalition is standard for
much of the world but would have been unprecedented for
Canada. Harper, employing a variety of parliamentary
tactics, managed to avoid a confidence vote, suspended
Parliament, and rallied public opinion against any coalition
that would depend on separatists to survive. He has
continued to employ the spectre of such a separatist-
government coalition to illegitimatize efforts to unite the
left.
SO WILL THERE BE A NEAR TERM ELECTION?
Predicting the future is easy; predicting it correctly is
not. "It depends" is usually the safe answer. But the honest
answer is closer to the "nobody knows," or "those who know
aren't talking and those who are talking don't know." And
the driver behind the wheel is the prime minister; Stephen
Harper has led his party three times into national
elections, and each time he has improved Tory parliamentary
standing. He now stands 12 seats short of a majority; his
politico-social objectives are only possible with a
majority, and he will make every effort to orchestrate such
a majority. Yet when (and if) polling statistics will assure
a majority is unpredictable. That happy circumstance is not
currently the case-or at least not with the assurance that
Harper would desire. The possibility of a majority
appears-and disappears-like a chimera in the snow.
But in the "just in case" option, both government and
opposition have been campaigning frenetically. The
government hit the road during a late-February parliamentary
recess to announce (or reannounce) various spending
initiatives (cry "pork") in every village and town
throughout the land. Simultaneously, they have hit the
airwaves with attack ads, focused on the alleged
carpetbagger elements of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff,
who spent most of his adult life living and working outside
Canada. ("Just visiting" and "He didn't come back for you"
have been the themes.) The Opposition, with no largess to
distribute to the public, has countered with itemized lists
of Harper/Tory errors and sins of omission and commission.
Nevertheless, an enduring political aphorism is that
Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them.
Since, sooner or later, there must be an election, what are
the Tories pluses and minuses?
THE POSITIVES
The Economy. During this "Great Recession," the Canadian
economy has outperformed the rest of the G-8. Harper has
managed to provide enough pump priming to help the recovery
while projecting reduced spending that could bring the
budget into balance by 2015, rather than decades into the
never-never. Canadian unemployment, historically 2 points
higher than that of the United States, is now significantly
lower (7.8 percent to 9.0+ percent). It has recovered all
jobs lost during the Recession. GDP growth figures are
respectable; interest rates/inflation remains low; the oil
sands production has surged the Canadian dollar to rough
parity with the U.S. dollar. These are "to die for" results
despite the basic problem that ultimately the Canadian
economy is locked to the U.S. economy; there are distinct
limits for Canadian prosperity if the U.S. recovery
continues to stagnate. In response, all the Opposition can
do is mutter that they could have done better and/or spent
differently with less debt. Nobody is buying that argument.
Social Tranquility. Quebec sovereignty remains a national
nonissue as long as the provincial separatists are out of
power. This "remission" from constitutional wars has
endured since the Liberals gained provincial power in June
2003 and, despite current unpopularity, they do not have to
face the electorate until late 2012--past the next federal
election. And Harper, sometimes maladroitly, has attempted
to mollify Quebeckers and keep the sovereignist canine
sleeping.
Political Financing. Tory fundraising has built on the
small donor paradigm, creating a money-raising machine that
gives the party great flexibility in orchestrating between-
election publicity. The Tories have no need for big
business financing (which earlier was made illegal by the
Liberals in a decision that still appears "dumb as a bag of
hammers," as one senior Liberal called it at the time). The
tactical result is that the Tories have repeatedly unleashed
attack ad campaigns putting the Liberals on the defensive
and "defining" their leadership invidiously. Once a
campaign begins officially, funding is legally limited, but
beforehand, it is not.
Solved the Afghanistan Conundrum. The decade-long Canadian
combat commitment to Afghanistan is ending in July. It was
never popular; Afghanistan is far away, and there was no
9/11 imperative to galvanize popular support. The
commitment was a good neighbor substitute for not having
been one of the "willing" during the Iraq/Saddam Hussein
war. Nevertheless, Canadians are leaving with honor; their
mission is morphing into a training contingent with much
reduced troop levels. This gives Canadians more of what they
prefer: "peacekeeping" rather than "peacemaking," with much
lower casualty counts. And the government has maneuvered
adroitly. Having absorbed disproportionate casualties for
its troop commitment and refurbished its depleted "good NATO
ally" account, it has also given fair warning for its combat
force reduction in a region where the U.S. government has
ramped up its efforts, military and civilian, so gains will
not be degraded.
Harper's Leadership. The general, albeit sometimes
grudging, conclusion is that Harper ranks above his
political competitors as a national leader. He slowly has
blurred his media-created stiff and "scary" image and
surprised observers by joining cellist Yo-yo Ma at a
National Arts Center gala and playing the piano and singing
"With a Little Help from My Friends." As a serious student
of hockey, he also connects with average Canadian males.
Essentially, Harper is an unlovable introvert, but he is
scintillatingly smart; "clean" in the picture-book wife and
children, no scandals imagery; immensely focused; operates a
highly disciplined, loyal party and parliamentary caucus,
and is a master of political tactics.
THE NEGATIVES
Harper's Leadership. His strengths are his weaknesses. The
tightly disciplined caucus generates charges of dictatorial
over-control, a "my way or the highway" image. He listens to
few, suffers fools badly, and (politely) considers much of
the world to be fools. The scintillating intelligence is
too often demonstrated in cutting rhetoric during
parliamentary Question Period, making him appear "mean"
rather than adroit. The mastery of political tactics can
become "too clever by half." Since Harper is close to being
a one-man show for the Tories, all errors by ministers and
MPs end on his doorstep.
Conservative Principles. While hardly a "conservative" in
U.S. terms, Harper has compromised his preferred positions
first to be elected and now to govern. Nevertheless, his
efforts to eliminate a "long gun" registry, support for
tough-on-crime legislation, (relative) indifference to
green/environmentalist importuning, emphasis on sales tax
and business income tax cuts, and defense expenditures for
pricey hardware-such as F-35 fighters-are easy targets.
Internationally, he emphasized concern for human rights
abuses in China (and didn't attend the Beijing Olympics) and
strongly supports Israel-a move that was probably
instrumental in losing a rotating seat on the UNSC for
Canada.
And because he doesn't throw horse manure in the U.S.
direction every time he picks up a pitchfork, he is
unforgiven by those that remain convinced the North American
Free Trade Agreement is a USG plot to beggar our neighbor
while sucking their natural resources (oil/water) into our
insatiable maw.
The Foul Up Factor. In each of the last three elections,
there were instances when it appeared as if a Tory majority
was possible; in each it has slipped away. Between
elections, Tory support rises-and then drops with the latest
political mishap (abetted to be sure by vigorous media
criticism. Still the Tories and Harper serve into their own
net all too frequently, ranging from a foreign minister who
had a biker babe girlfriend (and left classified documents
in her apartment) to other ministers who have had public
hissy fits and/or found themselves on the wrong side of
accurate parliamentary testimony.
Consequently, there is the sense of snatch-defeat-from-the-
jaws-of-victory that hangs over the Tories. Plus, there is a
further sense that the Canadian public remains suspicious of
anything with a conservative label and is willing to bolt
away from the party given the least excuse. They are
willing if not happy to have Harper as leader-but not give
him a majority.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE UNITED STATES?
Throughout the George W. Bush years and the first 18 months
of the Obama administration, we have had a "no problems"
relationship with Canada. Or, to be more precise, the
problems have been of the technical economic and security
nature that remain sourced to attitudinal differences, for
example, protecting privacy vs. enhancing security or polite
exchanges over trade differences (Canadian softwood lumber
policy). With our foreign policy cup overflowing, it has
been pleasant to have a northern neighbor that is looking
after its interests but not convinced that it must tell us
how Ottawa could better run U.S. foreign affairs.
Historically, Canadian Tories have been easier partners than
Liberals. That "fit" has been best between Tories and
Republicans, but works pragmatically with Democrats as
well-particularly when the U.S. government is avoiding
rather than seeking problems, as in continental missile
defense or Arctic sovereignty questions juxtaposing Canadian
claims that the Northwest Passage is Canadian territorial
water vs. U.S. unequivocal commitment to maintaining it as
an international waterway.
A Liberal government would be_ different. Currently, the
Liberals are campaigning against everything the Tories are
doing. While it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose,
Liberals express a traditional attitude against the United
States. While Tories want the best relationship with the
United States that will not cost them the next election,
Liberals have always sought the worst bilateral relationship
that would not prompt U.S. retaliation. Currently, they are
arguing the proposed perimeter agreement to enhance North
American security would threaten Canadian sovereignty. They
plan to reopen the agreement to purchase F-35s. They are
again skeptical about the free trade agreement. They
demonize (Tory) political advertisements as "American style"
politics. While some of the rhetoric doubtless is just
rhetoric, one can never fully discount words.
Over 30 years ago, the Iranian revolutionaries seized U.S.
diplomats and our Tehran embassy. Then Canadian ambassador
Ken Taylor sheltered six U.S. diplomats in his residence,
arranged for their escape using Canadian passports, and
acted as de facto CIA station chief by providing Washington
with detailed intelligence for months. The action was fully
supported by a short-lived Tory government; then Liberal
opposition leader, Pierre Trudeau, was unhelpful (even when
the situation was explained to him). One can wonder whether
a "prime minister" Trudeau would have directed Taylor to say
"no room at the inn" and wonder equally just what a Liberal
government would do in a comparable situation today.
----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Foreign Policy Research Institute
(http://www.fpri.org/).
CANADA AT THE CUSP
by David T. Jones
In February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tory
Party celebrated having governed Canada as a minority for
five years. This date set a record for minority government
duration-a somewhat dubious accomplishment, but far better
than being in Opposition. Obviously, the Tories would have
much preferred to have a majority, but the current run of
minority government reflects a circumstance in Canadian
politics that while uniquely frustrating to politicians is
less so to voting citizens.
Unsurprisingly, on this five-year anniversary, pundits
disgorged a raft of commentary and analysis on Harper's
accomplishments (or lack thereof, depending on the bent of
the commentator). Likewise, they expounded on the
circumstances and personalities involved in this ongoing
minority.
Harper's record-setting mark also backs into the question of
the next election. Officially, the law schedules the next
election for October 2012, but with a minority government,
it could happen when/if the government is defeated on a
confidence vote. Such a circumstance forces all parties to
be election-ready at every instance and provides a rich mine
for speculation. As the federal budget is due to be
presented on March 22, providing a proximate cause for such
a defeat, it has prompted even more media frenzy. (The
absence of diversion during the cabin-fever Canadian winter
can also take credit.)
FRAGMENTATION OF THE CANADIAN POLITY
The Canadian electorate is essentially left-of-center,
devoted to a social welfare/tax heavy framework that more
reflects European political-economic thinking than south-of-
the-border politics. Conservatives (or what passes for
"conservative" in Canada) comprise approximately 30 to 35
percent of the electorate; polling suggests that this figure
is rock solid, but you don't get a majority government from
a third of the voters (especially as most of them are
located west of Ontario). The Tories' task is to move the
numbers above their base to the approximately 40 percent
range that will accord them a majority.
How do you win with 40 percent? You watch with a polite
smile/smirk while the rest of the significantly more liberal
portion of the electorate demolition derby each other. This
portion of the Canadian spectrum now includes Liberals (25
percent); Socialists (New Democrat Party- 20 percent);
Greens (about 10 percent); and Quebec separatists (Bloc
Quebecois, about 10 percent, but confined to Quebec).
The frustration on the left is palatable. The Political
Science 101 logic is obvious: combine enough of these shards
to make a coalition that will jettison the Tories and elect
a liberal/left government (looking at the UK Tory-Liberal
coalition-of-convenience prompts anticipatory salivating).
However, the Canadian impetus to fratricide has been a
generation-long imperative. As one might imagine there are
"principles" and "personalities" involved. Moreover, the
Liberals still believe themselves to be Canada's "natural
governing party." Based on having held power about 70
percent of the 20th century; they continue to believe that a
better leader, a Tory error, or an appropriate correlation
of sun spots will bring back what is "natural." The NDP is
significantly more ideological than the Liberals-and
believes that it is gnawing away at the Liberal
constituencies and may take second place in the next
election (so why compromise now)? The "Greens" have support
that is a continent wide and an inch deep: they have yet to
elect a federal Member of Parliament. And the Bloc
Quebecois (BQ) has leveraged adroitly its Quebec dominance
to get additional benefits for its province, having
marginalized the Liberals and benefitted from Tory errors in
dealing with Quebeckers.
Liberals and NDP (supported by the BQ) machinated to defeat
the Tories and replace the just-elected government with a
coalition in December 2008. Such a coalition is standard for
much of the world but would have been unprecedented for
Canada. Harper, employing a variety of parliamentary
tactics, managed to avoid a confidence vote, suspended
Parliament, and rallied public opinion against any coalition
that would depend on separatists to survive. He has
continued to employ the spectre of such a separatist-
government coalition to illegitimatize efforts to unite the
left.
SO WILL THERE BE A NEAR TERM ELECTION?
Predicting the future is easy; predicting it correctly is
not. "It depends" is usually the safe answer. But the honest
answer is closer to the "nobody knows," or "those who know
aren't talking and those who are talking don't know." And
the driver behind the wheel is the prime minister; Stephen
Harper has led his party three times into national
elections, and each time he has improved Tory parliamentary
standing. He now stands 12 seats short of a majority; his
politico-social objectives are only possible with a
majority, and he will make every effort to orchestrate such
a majority. Yet when (and if) polling statistics will assure
a majority is unpredictable. That happy circumstance is not
currently the case-or at least not with the assurance that
Harper would desire. The possibility of a majority
appears-and disappears-like a chimera in the snow.
But in the "just in case" option, both government and
opposition have been campaigning frenetically. The
government hit the road during a late-February parliamentary
recess to announce (or reannounce) various spending
initiatives (cry "pork") in every village and town
throughout the land. Simultaneously, they have hit the
airwaves with attack ads, focused on the alleged
carpetbagger elements of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff,
who spent most of his adult life living and working outside
Canada. ("Just visiting" and "He didn't come back for you"
have been the themes.) The Opposition, with no largess to
distribute to the public, has countered with itemized lists
of Harper/Tory errors and sins of omission and commission.
Nevertheless, an enduring political aphorism is that
Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them.
Since, sooner or later, there must be an election, what are
the Tories pluses and minuses?
THE POSITIVES
The Economy. During this "Great Recession," the Canadian
economy has outperformed the rest of the G-8. Harper has
managed to provide enough pump priming to help the recovery
while projecting reduced spending that could bring the
budget into balance by 2015, rather than decades into the
never-never. Canadian unemployment, historically 2 points
higher than that of the United States, is now significantly
lower (7.8 percent to 9.0+ percent). It has recovered all
jobs lost during the Recession. GDP growth figures are
respectable; interest rates/inflation remains low; the oil
sands production has surged the Canadian dollar to rough
parity with the U.S. dollar. These are "to die for" results
despite the basic problem that ultimately the Canadian
economy is locked to the U.S. economy; there are distinct
limits for Canadian prosperity if the U.S. recovery
continues to stagnate. In response, all the Opposition can
do is mutter that they could have done better and/or spent
differently with less debt. Nobody is buying that argument.
Social Tranquility. Quebec sovereignty remains a national
nonissue as long as the provincial separatists are out of
power. This "remission" from constitutional wars has
endured since the Liberals gained provincial power in June
2003 and, despite current unpopularity, they do not have to
face the electorate until late 2012--past the next federal
election. And Harper, sometimes maladroitly, has attempted
to mollify Quebeckers and keep the sovereignist canine
sleeping.
Political Financing. Tory fundraising has built on the
small donor paradigm, creating a money-raising machine that
gives the party great flexibility in orchestrating between-
election publicity. The Tories have no need for big
business financing (which earlier was made illegal by the
Liberals in a decision that still appears "dumb as a bag of
hammers," as one senior Liberal called it at the time). The
tactical result is that the Tories have repeatedly unleashed
attack ad campaigns putting the Liberals on the defensive
and "defining" their leadership invidiously. Once a
campaign begins officially, funding is legally limited, but
beforehand, it is not.
Solved the Afghanistan Conundrum. The decade-long Canadian
combat commitment to Afghanistan is ending in July. It was
never popular; Afghanistan is far away, and there was no
9/11 imperative to galvanize popular support. The
commitment was a good neighbor substitute for not having
been one of the "willing" during the Iraq/Saddam Hussein
war. Nevertheless, Canadians are leaving with honor; their
mission is morphing into a training contingent with much
reduced troop levels. This gives Canadians more of what they
prefer: "peacekeeping" rather than "peacemaking," with much
lower casualty counts. And the government has maneuvered
adroitly. Having absorbed disproportionate casualties for
its troop commitment and refurbished its depleted "good NATO
ally" account, it has also given fair warning for its combat
force reduction in a region where the U.S. government has
ramped up its efforts, military and civilian, so gains will
not be degraded.
Harper's Leadership. The general, albeit sometimes
grudging, conclusion is that Harper ranks above his
political competitors as a national leader. He slowly has
blurred his media-created stiff and "scary" image and
surprised observers by joining cellist Yo-yo Ma at a
National Arts Center gala and playing the piano and singing
"With a Little Help from My Friends." As a serious student
of hockey, he also connects with average Canadian males.
Essentially, Harper is an unlovable introvert, but he is
scintillatingly smart; "clean" in the picture-book wife and
children, no scandals imagery; immensely focused; operates a
highly disciplined, loyal party and parliamentary caucus,
and is a master of political tactics.
THE NEGATIVES
Harper's Leadership. His strengths are his weaknesses. The
tightly disciplined caucus generates charges of dictatorial
over-control, a "my way or the highway" image. He listens to
few, suffers fools badly, and (politely) considers much of
the world to be fools. The scintillating intelligence is
too often demonstrated in cutting rhetoric during
parliamentary Question Period, making him appear "mean"
rather than adroit. The mastery of political tactics can
become "too clever by half." Since Harper is close to being
a one-man show for the Tories, all errors by ministers and
MPs end on his doorstep.
Conservative Principles. While hardly a "conservative" in
U.S. terms, Harper has compromised his preferred positions
first to be elected and now to govern. Nevertheless, his
efforts to eliminate a "long gun" registry, support for
tough-on-crime legislation, (relative) indifference to
green/environmentalist importuning, emphasis on sales tax
and business income tax cuts, and defense expenditures for
pricey hardware-such as F-35 fighters-are easy targets.
Internationally, he emphasized concern for human rights
abuses in China (and didn't attend the Beijing Olympics) and
strongly supports Israel-a move that was probably
instrumental in losing a rotating seat on the UNSC for
Canada.
And because he doesn't throw horse manure in the U.S.
direction every time he picks up a pitchfork, he is
unforgiven by those that remain convinced the North American
Free Trade Agreement is a USG plot to beggar our neighbor
while sucking their natural resources (oil/water) into our
insatiable maw.
The Foul Up Factor. In each of the last three elections,
there were instances when it appeared as if a Tory majority
was possible; in each it has slipped away. Between
elections, Tory support rises-and then drops with the latest
political mishap (abetted to be sure by vigorous media
criticism. Still the Tories and Harper serve into their own
net all too frequently, ranging from a foreign minister who
had a biker babe girlfriend (and left classified documents
in her apartment) to other ministers who have had public
hissy fits and/or found themselves on the wrong side of
accurate parliamentary testimony.
Consequently, there is the sense of snatch-defeat-from-the-
jaws-of-victory that hangs over the Tories. Plus, there is a
further sense that the Canadian public remains suspicious of
anything with a conservative label and is willing to bolt
away from the party given the least excuse. They are
willing if not happy to have Harper as leader-but not give
him a majority.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE UNITED STATES?
Throughout the George W. Bush years and the first 18 months
of the Obama administration, we have had a "no problems"
relationship with Canada. Or, to be more precise, the
problems have been of the technical economic and security
nature that remain sourced to attitudinal differences, for
example, protecting privacy vs. enhancing security or polite
exchanges over trade differences (Canadian softwood lumber
policy). With our foreign policy cup overflowing, it has
been pleasant to have a northern neighbor that is looking
after its interests but not convinced that it must tell us
how Ottawa could better run U.S. foreign affairs.
Historically, Canadian Tories have been easier partners than
Liberals. That "fit" has been best between Tories and
Republicans, but works pragmatically with Democrats as
well-particularly when the U.S. government is avoiding
rather than seeking problems, as in continental missile
defense or Arctic sovereignty questions juxtaposing Canadian
claims that the Northwest Passage is Canadian territorial
water vs. U.S. unequivocal commitment to maintaining it as
an international waterway.
A Liberal government would be_ different. Currently, the
Liberals are campaigning against everything the Tories are
doing. While it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose,
Liberals express a traditional attitude against the United
States. While Tories want the best relationship with the
United States that will not cost them the next election,
Liberals have always sought the worst bilateral relationship
that would not prompt U.S. retaliation. Currently, they are
arguing the proposed perimeter agreement to enhance North
American security would threaten Canadian sovereignty. They
plan to reopen the agreement to purchase F-35s. They are
again skeptical about the free trade agreement. They
demonize (Tory) political advertisements as "American style"
politics. While some of the rhetoric doubtless is just
rhetoric, one can never fully discount words.
Over 30 years ago, the Iranian revolutionaries seized U.S.
diplomats and our Tehran embassy. Then Canadian ambassador
Ken Taylor sheltered six U.S. diplomats in his residence,
arranged for their escape using Canadian passports, and
acted as de facto CIA station chief by providing Washington
with detailed intelligence for months. The action was fully
supported by a short-lived Tory government; then Liberal
opposition leader, Pierre Trudeau, was unhelpful (even when
the situation was explained to him). One can wonder whether
a "prime minister" Trudeau would have directed Taylor to say
"no room at the inn" and wonder equally just what a Liberal
government would do in a comparable situation today.
----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Foreign Policy Research Institute
(http://www.fpri.org/).
No comments:
Post a Comment