Tomorrow's Conservative Slogan Today

Join Stephen Harper's Conservatives - where failure has no consequences.

On common ignorance

Sure, it may look bad that the catastrophically-suffering Larry Smith has no answers as to what a trade agreement with Japan could possibly hope to accomplish when he's been selected as the Cons' spokesflack on the issue:

He was asked, at a news conference where he announced a study on a possible trade deal with Japan, a basic question on what barriers to commerce currently existed. He was there last Wednesday on behalf of International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan.

"I am not informed about all the details," Smith replied. "You'll have to give me another two or three months before I respond to that question."

But let's be fair to Smith: if he can't name any trade barriers worth addressing with far-reaching anti-government agreements, that only puts him in the same general category as everybody else pushing the same position.

No coincidence

Is there much doubt that the attitude of entitlement and unaccountability from Stephen Harper's Senate cronies such as Larry Smith and Don Plett has something to do with this?

Canadian senators were already under scrutiny on their first day back from winter break, with the results of a new poll indicating one-third of Canadians want to see the Senate abolished -- an increase of about 27 per cent since 2007, the last time the question was asked.

A rich history

The Globe and Mail helpfully reminds us of the history of the Canadian Senate:

The Senate has always been a House under a cloud.

The Fathers of Confederation cobbled it together in part to protect people like themselves against the rabble, which is why senators still have to meet a property qualification: “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor,” as Sir John A. Macdonald put it.

And on this point at least, Stephen Harper can proudly claim to be the heir to MacDonald's legacy of using the Senate as a means for the better-off to override the will of the masses. Just ask Larry Smith:

Recently appointed Conservative Senator Larry Smith on Wednesday denied he’s using the Senate to boost his chances of becoming an MP, saying he has taken a “dramatic, catastrophic” pay cut to serve the public.
...
“In simple terms, he added, “the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut. And I have a family — I have obligations.”

Senators are paid an annual salary of $132,300.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Words and phrases for your mid-week reading.

- Tasha Kheiriddin unloads on Stephen Harper for his latest promise-breaking set of Senate appointments from Senate reformer's perspective:

The case for abolishing the Senate just got another boost with the announcement by newly-minted Senator Larry Smith that he will be seeking a seat in the House of Commons, as the potential Conservative candidate for the Montreal riding of Lac-St-Louis.
...
That Mr. Smith will collect his $132,000 a year Senate salary, while spending time beating the bushes of Lac-St-Louis – and presumably very little time on the job in Ottawa – is insulting to taxpayers generally, and to the riding’s voters in particular.
...
So why is Mr. Harper committing a personal foul against a member of his own team? This decision is right up there with axing the mandatory long-form census, and musing about rewriting O Canada: a game plan that drops the ball.

- Dubya at LRT has a radical proposal which would certainly shake up the Canadian political scene:

What I would propose is for the BQ and NDP to begin to work together in Parliament. I would suggest the parties cooperate like the CDU and CSU in Germany. This would have the advantage of making the combined party the official opposition immediately. This would help end the sham that Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party are actually an opposition to the Harper Conservative government. We should always remember the original name of John A. MacDonald’s party was the “Liberal-Conservatives”. It is time to end the sham that the Liberals are an opposition to the elitist-globalist government of Stephen Harper. The Liberals and Conservatives are different factions of the same party vying only for patronage and power. All the while they laugh at the people who think they are different.
...
(H)ere is what these groups would federate around and for:
1) no austerity in Canada
2) no war for Canada
3) no deficits paid for by people filled with corporate giveaways.

The budget would be the only whipped vote. Every other vote would be free. Yes free. Free like they are supposed to be in a democracy.

Of course, there would likely be some significant obstacles to such cooperation in both parties as they currently stand - and I for one would be inclined to see the NDP work more to pick up Bloc voters than to formally team up with the party. But with some pundits already theorizing that the Bloc may be looking for ways to get around the argument that it can't contribute to the governance of Canada, it's certainly worth contemplating how different the political scene would look if the two parties perpetually dismissed as standing no chance of power could cooperate to get close to it.

- Thomas Walkom traces the current demise of CPP improvements to the rise of the Wildrose Alliance. But I'd think there's reason for suspicion that the federal Cons would have looked for reason not to move ahead with a valuable public program even if Ted Morton hadn't sabotaged the idea.

- Finally, E.J. Dionne's column on the need for progressives to win some business support is worth a read. But I'd argue that there's a big difference between a broader "business community moderately supportive of social reform" and single-issue corporate ally which can turn a specific program to its own ends - and a stronger focus on the former might do a world of good in avoiding the ability of the latter to hijack a progressive agenda.

On the bright side

Sure, the bad news is that the Cons have arranged for Larry Smith to campaign for them at public expense. Your money, their candidate, et cetera.

But let's look at the good news as well: assuming Smith does step down from the Senate come election time (a custom that even Michael Fortier didn't dare to break), then at least we'll avoid having to provide him a Senate salary and benefits in the long term - in contrast to one of Harper's non-candidate options to stack the upper chamber. And if Smith's run for the House goes as well as Fortier's, then he may be off the public payroll altogether in short order.