For the Harper government, that political calculation translates into continued protection of Canada’s cosseted dairy industry – even if it means scuppering Australia’s hopes of concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
A frustrated Trade Minister Andrew Robb is still trying to sound optimistic but can only sigh about opportunities missed as both Canada and the US head into high election mode.
He will almost certainly win an increasingly vigorous fight against the union campaign (inexcusably backed by Labor so far) to sink the China free trade agreement.
But a multilateral trade deal involving 12 countries is receding into the background, probably permanently.
Canada’s not the only trade culprit, of course. The resistance of the Harper government to making concessions on dairy still had a powerful domino effect during the crucial and final TPP bargaining in Hawaii in July.
So much for the idea of a 21st century agreement to set new rules in areas such as intellectual property and services. In the end, old-fashioned agricultural protectionism has proven far more powerful.
It meant the US was unwilling to reduce its barriers without a commitment from Canada, leaving New Zealand also refusing to back down from more access to US, Canadian and Japanese markets.
Not that the dairy industry is as significant to the Canadian economy as it is to New Zealand’s. Its real power in Canada is political, thanks to the concentration of dairyfarmers in the key provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Despite Canada boasting of its free trade credentials, Harper wasn’t ready to risk alienating farmers when the election on October 19 looks so tight and the Canadian economy is struggling. With the polls showing two-thirds of voters wanting a change of government, Stephen Harper’s re-election is far from a sure thing.
A frustrated Trade Minister Andrew Robb is still trying to sound optimistic but can only sigh about opportunities missed as both Canada and the US head into high election mode.
He will almost certainly win an increasingly vigorous fight against the union campaign (inexcusably backed by Labor so far) to sink the China free trade agreement.
But a multilateral trade deal involving 12 countries is receding into the background, probably permanently.
Canada’s not the only trade culprit, of course. The resistance of the Harper government to making concessions on dairy still had a powerful domino effect during the crucial and final TPP bargaining in Hawaii in July.
So much for the idea of a 21st century agreement to set new rules in areas such as intellectual property and services. In the end, old-fashioned agricultural protectionism has proven far more powerful.
It meant the US was unwilling to reduce its barriers without a commitment from Canada, leaving New Zealand also refusing to back down from more access to US, Canadian and Japanese markets.
Not that the dairy industry is as significant to the Canadian economy as it is to New Zealand’s. Its real power in Canada is political, thanks to the concentration of dairyfarmers in the key provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Despite Canada boasting of its free trade credentials, Harper wasn’t ready to risk alienating farmers when the election on October 19 looks so tight and the Canadian economy is struggling. With the polls showing two-thirds of voters wanting a change of government, Stephen Harper’s re-election is far from a sure thing.
The similarity of the two countries in terms of international standing, economic strengths and shared political instincts of the current leaders would emphasise any change in Canada. For Abbott, Harper’s loss would reverberate well beyond trade deals – from their complementary approach to military commitments in the Middle East to climate change negotiations.
Like Australia, Canada’s heavily resource-reliant economy has been hit hard by the collapse in commodity prices. Largely thanks to falling oil prices, growth has gone backwards this year, resulting in the July decision of Canada’s Reserve Bank to cut rates.
Business and consumer confidence has fallen along with productivity. The only boom is in house prices in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver – creating similar complaints to those in Sydney and Melbourne about the impact of Chinese buyers.
All this makes it slightly trickier to sell the Conservatives’ campaign slogan of «Safer Canada/Stronger Economy».
But they are similar themes to those the Abbott government plans to use to try to win its own re-election next year – as well as a certain West Australian byelection on September 19.
The parallels include trying to make a virtue out of economic difficulties and sluggish growth by suggesting no other party can be trusted to create jobs and guide the country through uncertain times.
Despite the problems, however, Harper’s government has proven far more adept in selling a combination of good policy and popular politics. This includes getting back to a balanced budget while also reducing taxes and managing the political opposition. While the Abbott government has to deal with a recalcitrant Senate, Harper had to lead a minority government for two terms after first being elected in 2006. He has only been in charge of a majority government since 2011. Harper’s not a personally appealing or popular leader either but Abbott can only dream of similar longevity.
The Canadian PM has another advantage. The two main opposition parties in Canada split the anti-conservative vote. With a first-past-the-post voting system, Harper doesn’t have to worry about getting a majority of the vote to win a majority of seats – particularly if he can consolidate strongholds like dairy farming country.
The left-wing New Democratic Party has never governed Canada before but stunned the country after it won power in the resource-rich and traditionally conservative province of Alberta in May. Its key economic policy is promising to raise taxes on large companies while (somehow) doing more to boost manufacturing.
The NDP is only in a powerful position because of the relative decline of the more moderate Liberals, traditionally the natural alternative to the Conservatives. Instead, leader Justin Trudeau has failed to get the traction of his famous Prime Ministerial father, Pierre.
The bigger risk for Harper is the possibility of the NDP and Liberals forming a coalition government post election. The NDP in particular would radically alter the willingness to support the US in foreign policy and military operations in the Middle East. A new government would also commit to greater reductions in carbon emissions than the Harper government’s pledge of 30 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
Australia is already under attack for not being willing to do as much as Canada as everyone heads to Paris in December but the difference between 26-28 per cent and 30 per cent is pretty minimal. Australia also has a much better record than Canada on actually meeting its commitments.
But rhetoric matters – especially on climate change. A further shift by a close ally and similar economy in Canada would make it harder for Abbott to sustain his argument Australia is in the middle of the pack. Malcolm Turnbull will be practising his lines – just in case there’s a change of more than one prime minister in the next couple of months.
Source: FarmOnline
Like Australia, Canada’s heavily resource-reliant economy has been hit hard by the collapse in commodity prices. Largely thanks to falling oil prices, growth has gone backwards this year, resulting in the July decision of Canada’s Reserve Bank to cut rates.
Business and consumer confidence has fallen along with productivity. The only boom is in house prices in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver – creating similar complaints to those in Sydney and Melbourne about the impact of Chinese buyers.
All this makes it slightly trickier to sell the Conservatives’ campaign slogan of «Safer Canada/Stronger Economy».
But they are similar themes to those the Abbott government plans to use to try to win its own re-election next year – as well as a certain West Australian byelection on September 19.
The parallels include trying to make a virtue out of economic difficulties and sluggish growth by suggesting no other party can be trusted to create jobs and guide the country through uncertain times.
Despite the problems, however, Harper’s government has proven far more adept in selling a combination of good policy and popular politics. This includes getting back to a balanced budget while also reducing taxes and managing the political opposition. While the Abbott government has to deal with a recalcitrant Senate, Harper had to lead a minority government for two terms after first being elected in 2006. He has only been in charge of a majority government since 2011. Harper’s not a personally appealing or popular leader either but Abbott can only dream of similar longevity.
The Canadian PM has another advantage. The two main opposition parties in Canada split the anti-conservative vote. With a first-past-the-post voting system, Harper doesn’t have to worry about getting a majority of the vote to win a majority of seats – particularly if he can consolidate strongholds like dairy farming country.
The left-wing New Democratic Party has never governed Canada before but stunned the country after it won power in the resource-rich and traditionally conservative province of Alberta in May. Its key economic policy is promising to raise taxes on large companies while (somehow) doing more to boost manufacturing.
The NDP is only in a powerful position because of the relative decline of the more moderate Liberals, traditionally the natural alternative to the Conservatives. Instead, leader Justin Trudeau has failed to get the traction of his famous Prime Ministerial father, Pierre.
The bigger risk for Harper is the possibility of the NDP and Liberals forming a coalition government post election. The NDP in particular would radically alter the willingness to support the US in foreign policy and military operations in the Middle East. A new government would also commit to greater reductions in carbon emissions than the Harper government’s pledge of 30 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
Australia is already under attack for not being willing to do as much as Canada as everyone heads to Paris in December but the difference between 26-28 per cent and 30 per cent is pretty minimal. Australia also has a much better record than Canada on actually meeting its commitments.
But rhetoric matters – especially on climate change. A further shift by a close ally and similar economy in Canada would make it harder for Abbott to sustain his argument Australia is in the middle of the pack. Malcolm Turnbull will be practising his lines – just in case there’s a change of more than one prime minister in the next couple of months.
Source: FarmOnline