Larry Campbell Disagrees With Me in the Vancouver Sun

After an op/ed of mine entitled 'Larry Campbell's Criticisms Unreasonable' was printed in the Vancouver Sun's 'Issues and Ideas' section last week, Senator Larry Campbell responded with a letter published in today's issue of the Sun. I wrote a recent blog post titled 'A Swipe At Senate Reform' (available in my facebook notes section) and the op/ed was an abridged version of it. Below is Senator Campbell's response:

Upper chamber necessary to counter Tory government

Published: Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Re: Larry Campbell's criticisms unreasonable by Tim Mak, June 21

Tim Mak seems to feel as though unilateral action from the federal government on Senate reform is acceptable for provinces like British Columbia. I couldn't be in greater disagreement with this assessment.

The Senate is a body that exists as a product of the Constitution Act of 1867, and is designed to curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation. Thus, in response to a prime minister who callously governs like he has a majority, the upper chamber is indeed a necessary body of "sober second thought" acting on behalf of all Canadians.

It is unclear as to whether Stephen Harper has the constitutional authority to initiate such changes without the consent of the provinces. That is why the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee is asking for the bill in question to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As importantly, Senate reform should not be attempted in a piecemeal fashion. Prince Edward Island has 0.4 per cent of the country's population and four Senate seats. Comparatively, British Columbia has six seats for a population that is 33 times larger. Harper cannot claim to be serious about change and still neglect such inequity.

Being accustomed to cheap electoral politics has never been my modus operandi, as Mak claims. Fighting for equality and what is right, no matter how difficult, is much more up my alley.

SENATOR LARRY CAMPBELL

Vancouver

Is Harper Djibouti's Poodle? I think not.

On March 22nd, 2007, I booed when David Suzuki said something quite vexing at an event in Montreal called “Less Talk, More Action”. My friends in attendance (all socialists, the whole damn lot of them) jovially rose in a standing ovation to a phrase that has consistently ticked me off. Don’t get me wrong, I respect David Suzuki quite a bit, and joined in the applause several times later on that day. He is an extremely erudite and engaging man who has done wonders for heightening the profile of environmental activism in this country. But when Mr. Suzuki went to the clichéd and weathered old method of criticizing Stephen Harper by connecting him to George W. Bush, I had to voice my disapproval. Needless to say, my voice from the back section of the conference room at the Palais des Congres was drowned out by the cacophony of a thousand other cheers and golf-claps.

Stephen Harper has been described as too much of an extreme republican, too ideological, too right-wing, a neo-con, George Bush’s “poodle”, Bush’s “cheerleader”, and just about everything but George Bush’s principal secretary. But does this accusation actually hold any weight? If Harper and Bush happen to agree on a certain policy issue, is it suddenly the case that Canadians are being subjugated to American power and annexation is looming ominously around the corner?

I have no problem with people criticizing Harper on what they believe is wrong with his policy. If someone disagrees with the Prime Minister or his government’s view on any particular issue or an overall governing philosophy, I am completely open to having a discussion or debate on it. But when someone stoops to connecting Bush and Harper where no connection exists, it is demagoguery in its worst form, meant to stir up the passions and stereotypes, not the ideas or the minds, of a crowd. Invoking this hollow connection does nothing but lower the level of discourse in a discussion about policy stances. My favourite example of this connection is when a blogger once equated the two leaders by stating that they both use PowerPoint:

“PowerPoint, a technology familiar to anyone who’s seen the inside of lecture hall lately, allows us to shroud our speech in bullet points, on the theory that that’s all anyone will remember anyway. Harper, incidentally, isn’t the first politician to use it. It’s been employed most effectively by U.S President George Bush and his crack PR team.”

What?!? Harper and Bush both use PowerPoint? Oh dear god, the invasion is just around the corner!

Harper and Bush disagree plenty, but I shouldn’t be forced to make a list of all the things that Harper and Bush differ on to make my point. The simple fact is that as people who use similar political philosophies in governing, they will, from time to time, agree on certain points. Back in December of last year, Ezra Levant was heavily criticized for questioning whether it was appropriate for Stephane Dion, a citizen of France, to lead Her Majesty’s Official Opposition in Canada. “Back off”, the vast majority of political commentators declared in defense of Dion. “We’re not questioning his loyalty”, they said. But you will see no such defense when politicians and critics routinely question Harper’s loyalty to his country by accusing him of being a cheerleader or a poodle.

So why does the ad hominem ensue? Because it’s effective, and because the average Canadian has always been afraid of the United States’ dominance in international affairs. But taking similar stances on policy issues that have nothing to do with the United States does not threaten Canadian sovereignty. As one of our major allies and a country to which we are physically attached, the United States will often hold the same position as Canada does. Artificial connections based on fear tactics only discredits the criticism being leveled at any given government initiative or position. No one would care if Canada and Djibouti happened to take the same stance on an issue. If that were to be the case, would we accuse Harper of being Prime Minister Ismail Omar Guelleh’s poodle? Would the Toronto Star allege that Harper is catering to Djibouti’s People’s Rally for Progress? Could we be on the verge of annexation by Djibouti?!?

The connection between Harper and Bush is founded upon fear of the porous cultural, economic and political barriers between our two countries. But this fear is unfounded. Let’s raise the level of political discourse in this country. Let’s start talking about the real issues.

Cheers to Joe, Up to 125 Again

Well, this should have happened a while ago: Joe Comuzzi joins Tory ranks today.

This brings the count of Conservative MPs in the house up to 125. I'm wondering if this was strategically timed. The Conservatives are reeling a bit from the Bill Casey ejection, and this seems like it may revitalize the spirits of the Tories. I'm surprised there hasn't been more reporting on this.

The official announcement of Joe Comuzzi's new party membership will be made by PM Harper on Tuesday. Interestingly enough, this will be the first Conservative MP to sit in Thunder Bay - Superior North in more than 70 years. I wouldn't expect him to continue to be in the House for very long, though. The man is 74, and I doubt he'd run in the next election. Regardless, for putting his riding before his party, here's to Joe.

Consensus Through Fire

Whenever I think of the phrase ‘support the troops’, I hear it in my head through the rich and booming voice of Family Guy’s Joe Swanson (also Seinfeld’s David Puddy). “Gotta support the troops. Yeah.” In light of the recent controversy over whether or not ‘support the troops’ stickers should be displayed on Toronto’s fire trucks, I tried to do some reflecting and researching. What does it even mean to support the troops? If, I assume, it means more than simply supporting the war, what is the nuance behind the phrase? Is the phrase, as the left often proclaims, a means of quashing dissent? Is it a retort to silence any criticism from opponents to the war? Do those who support the war use the phrase as grounds from which to accuse someone of being a traitor to the country?

I have no doubt that supporters of the war have used this phrase for these purposes. But those who use the phrase must first look at what the phrase really means. The difference between supporting our troops and supporting the war must be distinguished. Interestingly enough, one must look to those who claim not to support the war but simultaneously claim to support the troops. As much as I disagree with the views of those who want to end the mission in Afghanistan immediately, I have no doubt that they truly hope that our troops will come home safe, whenever that may be.

And therein lies part of the answer to the question. To support the troops is to hope for their eventual safe return and to add one’s thoughts to a collective of well-wishes. It is to subscribe in the belief that if the country as a whole yearns enough for the safe return of our brave men and women in combat, they will come home unscathed, if only through our united will. To support the troops is to remember the strength of conviction that prevails in the Canadian armed forces and their determination to serve our country. Moreover, it includes remembering those who have fought and died in harm’s way. Finally, we must understand how dangerous their mission is and appreciate the daily sacrifice they are making for our sake.

From this, I believe I can find a broad consensus. This phrase is not a partisan one, and should not be twisted such that it becomes so. Each person has his or her own interpretation of what it means to respect or to understand. To one, supporting the troops could mean pressuring one’s elected representatives to bring the troops home immediately. To another, this could mean holding high the torch that fallen soldiers threw with failing hands, gritting one’s teeth, and continuing to pursue the goals that those in the armed forces tried so hard to reach. What’s more important here is to understand the communal hope that binds us, the collective wish that connects us, and the common desire that those who serve may come back safe.

A Swipe At Senate Reform

In a recent column in ‘The Hill Times’, former Vancouver mayor and current Liberal Senator Larry Campbell accused the Conservative government of neglecting British Columbia. At issue was Senate reform and recent Conservative attempts to change the upper chamber. In criticizing the proposed legislation before the Senate, Senator Campbell suggests that if Harper were really serious about “true reform”, he would re-distribute Senate seats to increase the disproportionately small number of seats that British Columbia holds.

Firstly, it seems ironic that he, as an unelected and appointed Senator whose term lasts until 2023, is accusing the Harper government of neglecting British Columbians. It is ironic because he is part of a group of Liberal Senators that have refused to support a series of initiatives that will make the upper chamber more accountable and, in practice, elected – something that a majority of British Columbians (indeed, most Canadians) desire. In fact, according to a recent Decima poll, 72% of Canadians agree with Harper’s plan to impose 8-year term limits on Senators and 64% favour the broader set of legislation that Harper has proposed, numbers that I would suggest would be even higher in British Columbia. If anything, it appears that the person who is not fulfilling his obligation to represent the opinions of British Columbians is Senator Campbell himself.

Senator Campbell’s criticism is also completely unreasonable. To attempt to change the distribution of seats at this point in time would be extremely foolish. By ‘true reform’, Campbell is referring to constitutional amendments, a topic that, at the very mention of the term, still induces nausea in many British Columbians. Would it be wise for one of the smallest minority governments in Canadian history to engage in mega-constitutional politics when huge majorities have failed? Mulroney had the largest Caucus in Canadian history and one of the most dominant holds on the House of Commons, yet he failed in his attempts to democratize the senate. There have been countless attempts at Senate reform since the 1970s. None have succeeded.

Given the colossal failure of mega-constitutional politics in the past, Harper’s plan seems quite logical and sound. His intention is to implement smaller, bite-sized reforms to socialize the Canadian population into expecting an elected senate, an expectation that will create an atmosphere in which Canadians will overwhelmingly support an elected senate and any constitutional changes thereof. The key to mega-constitutional reform is massive and Canadian-wide public and political support, and unfortunately, this is not currently the case. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, such simplistic demands as an instant increase in the amount of senate seats that B.C. holds is uninformed and foolish. Larry Campbell, as a man who is supposedly accustomed to politics and purports to represent the interests of the country as well as his province, should know better.

So What Are Those Newfoundlanders Mad About?

...well, not just the Newfies. Apparently the Nova Scotians are a little upset about this whole Atlantic Accord situation too. Since I'm currently residing in Vancouver, it puzzled me as to why people on the East Coast are so upset. According to a friend of mine in Newfoundland, the Conservatives are taking a beating in the province, even in the Conservative stronghold of St. John's. Apparently, everyone is talking about the 'Atlantic Accord fiasco'. But what are they really saying beyond the rhetoric of feigned betrayal? Does anyone even understand what the Atlantic Accords entail?

The ‘fiasco’ starts with the concept of equalization payments. The equalization payment is set up to redistribute wealth between provinces. Simply put, equalization payments transfer money from the ‘have’ provinces to the ‘have-not’ provinces. Of course, there is a formula in place to determine how much payment a province will get, and the more revenue a province raises per capita before the transfer payments, the less transfer payments it will get.

As for the accords, there are two major points of relevance contained within them. Firstly, both provinces are to receive all offshore resource revenues as if the resources were on land (offshore resources are nominally under federal jurisdiction). Secondly, the federal government will essentially offset any loss in equalization payments that result from these revenues. In other words, the federal government will not include offshore resource revenues in the calculation of equalization payments. Since these offshore resource revenues are not included in the calculation of transfer payments, N.S. and Nfld. get more money in transfers than they would otherwise.

In the Conservative Government’s 2007 budget, a new equalization formula was proposed based on a report called the O’Brien report. The O’Brien formula puts a ‘cap’ on equalization payments if the two provinces’ fiscal capacity (i.e. revenues per capita) exceeds that of Ontario’s. This ensures that Ontarians won’t be paying money to the Atlantic Provinces even when these provinces make more than they do.

Was there a lie here? Was the Accord broken? The fact of the matter remains that nothing obliges the Atlantic Provinces to choose the new formula! The budget stipulates that the provinces has two choices: they can stay with the old formula and continue to be covered under the Atlantic Accords, or they can switch to the new formula, which promises greater short-term payouts with a cap that only exists if the fiscal capacity of the Atlantic Provinces exceeds that of Ontario. So what’s wrong here? What do Messrs. Williams and MacDonald demand? Well, as Andrew Coyne so eloquently put it, they want to “have their cake, eat it and spin it above their heads”. They want equalization payments, offshore resource revenues and no cap. If the provinces can choose the status quo, I see no wrongdoing here. Who loses? This is all about the provinces clamoring for more payments and revenues with no regard to the rest of the country.

The Accords are extremely technical and complicated, and I doubt that more than a few people understand why exactly they should be angry, if at all. I suspect that Atlantic Canada, as a peripheral region, may be overwhelmed by a tendency towards excessive deference to offense that is exacerbated by demagogic Premiers. These Premiers play on a feeling of inadequacy that is prevalent in almost all areas of peripheral Canada (essentially any area outside Quebec and Ontario). All this rhetoric about betrayal and lies are hyperbolic. I believe that any reasonable person, upon being presented with the facts, would realize that there is nothing to be worked up about, that all the provincial rabble-rousing is the same old intergovernmental posturing for a bigger piece of the pie.