IT IS a truism about politics and humour that timing is, if not everything, then at least crucially important.
Which leads to a question that sounds like the set-up for a joke: What do Conservative leader Stephen Harper and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have in common?
Any answer that includes the term “downer animal” is disqualified.
Answer: Both, in this intense political season, are suffering the political consequences of bad timing, not always of their own making. For Harper, the problem is clear.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Two months ago in the midst of damaging revelations about Liberal skullduggery in Quebec, a Montreal policy convention that broadened Conservative Party policy appeal and a general public disenchantment about the under-performing prime minister Paul Martin, Harper appeared poised to become a contender for 24 Sussex Drive.
He may still be but the past month has been a disaster. A failed (narrowly) attempt to defeat the government May 19, the high-profile defection of Belinda Stronach and the gruesome Grewal tapes have led to a sharp decline in Conservative poll numbers and more questions about Harper’s future.
This week, the conservative National Post newspaper suggested he spend some time this summer deciding if he is the right person for the job of replacing the (in the Post’s view) discredited Liberals. Ouch.
If only an election had been called during the height of revelations from the public inquiry into Liberal corruption in Quebec and public revulsion. Timing is crucial.
Of course, a week can be an eternity in politics and by the time the Liberals call an election in the winter, assuming they don’t blunder into an election before then, Harper’s star might well be ascending.
Still, he must be looking back on April as the good old days.
Which brings us to the CFIA, having endured weeks of criticism and suspicion as MPs on the House of Commons agriculture committee struggle with government legislation meant to give the agency a legislative base.
Many witnesses and opposition MPs have fretted that the proposed legislation gives the CFIA too much power, too little oversight, too much discretion to interfere with business. Conservative MPs in particular have challenged most clauses of the legislation, suggesting the agency needs more controls upon it.
This week, MPs are spending hours trying to get the legislation through committee to send it back to the House of Commons but it will not make it into full Commons debate until autumn and then is uncertain to win approval before a winter election is called.
What a difference a year makes.
Had the legislation been introduced in the aftermath of the 2003 BSE incident, it almost certainly would have sailed through Parliament.
Industry and MPs were filled with praise for the professional, competent and speedy way CFIA dealt with the crisis, found the source, answered the questions.
The 2004 avian influenza episode in British Columbia, some CFIA arrogance before MPs and its perceived role as an impediment to creation of new local packing plants has soured the mood.
Who would have imagined the disastrous 2003 would have been the good old days for CFIA credibility?
