Harper's Clean Air Act Dilemma

It would seem that the opposition parties have basically re-written the Conservatives' so-called "Clean Air Act" in such a way that it's now a completely new piece of legislation. The question is what will Stephen Harper, who opposes most of what the opposition has put in the reworked bill, do? Harper could make the Clean Air Act a confidence motion, in which case the passing of the massively rewritten bill would force an election. This is a possibility, as Harper is currently enjoying the benefits of the budget bounce in the polls. Or Harper could let it pass, but then he and his government would be forced to do things for the environment that the Tories just don't want to do. The Conservatives could also simply withdraw the bill, preventing it from coming to a vote in the first place and avoiding what could be a big mess.

Harper's first option, making the bill a confidence motion and having the government fall over it has some pluses and minuses. Harper is currently riding high in the polls due to the budget afterglow. He could capitalize on this bounce by having a snap election. Making the Clean Air Act a confidence motion would mean that Harper could blame the opposition for an election that few Canadians want right now. He could also bring up the economic bogeyman in that he can claim what the opposition want in environmental legislation would destroy the economy. These will, to some extent work in Harper's favour. Though the extent that these would be an advantage remains to be seen. In the heat of an election, people are likely to forget about any budget goodies and remember anything about the budget they didn't like. Though Canadians don't want an election, it is unclear who they would blame for the government falling over in this case, Harper or the opposition, so this would be a bit of a gamble for either side. The people who are worried that action on the environment will hurt the economy for the most part already vote for the Conservatives and are probably having second thoughts about them, given the budget so not much gain here.

The main problem with the confidence motion option is that the Conservatives really don't want to fight an election on the environment. Despite the fact that the Tories have had a road to Damascus conversion on the environment file, there is still a perception amongst Canadians that the Conservatives are weak on the environment compared to the other federal parities. Even now, after reinstating and renaming the Liberals' old policies, people are still unsure that the Conservatives are the ones to move the country ahead on the environment. This is not likely to be a hill Harper and his party want to die on.

Letting the bill pass would solve the problem associated with an election and would have the benefit of giving Harper a small boost as he could use the passage of the bill as an example of how well his party worked with other parties. There aren't a lot of other advantages though. Generally passing the revamped bill would be a serious setback for the Conservatives. They would have had their vision for the environment, such as it is, be thrown aside for a more progressive view. Harper would have difficulties in the next election claiming the opposition is soft on the environment, given they toughened up his own legislation. It would also force Harper and his government to do things that they ideologically would be unwilling to do and would cause an incredibly bad reaction amongst the Conservatives' supporters. This option is the definitive lose-lose scenario for Harper.

Harper's final option is to have the government withdraw the legislation. With this option, Harper can avoid and election as well as the embarrassment of having something he doesn't want pushed through the House. It gives the Tories a chance to rethink their environmental plans and put forward something that is more in line with what Canadians want, without the opposition setting the agenda. Finally, during an election campaign Harper can claim that the opposition prevented his government from passing effective legislation on the environment. The only cost to Harper and the Tories is the initial embarrassment that withdrawing a bill may have, though this cost would be fleeting and likely forgotten by the time an election happens.

What it comes down to is that Harper's best option is to quietly withdraw the bill. The other two options have far to high a cost for his government to bear. The question remains will Harper do this. After all, it would look like weakness to his base and if his government can't come up with a replacement bill quickly, could give the opposition ammunition for the next election. If not, his second best option is to let the government fall, go to the voters using his budget bounce numbers and hope to retain his power by blaming the opposition for the failure of his environment package. Such a plan won't cost him votes in his core constituency of Alberta, but there's no telling how it will affect voters outside of Canada's one party province. The worst thing for the Conservatives would be to let the bill pass as changed by the opposition. That would make them look weak, not to mention force them to do things that they fundamentally oppose. The next few weeks will be interesting in Parliament.