Liberal Party Minister Defects to Tories

[rifleman]

I would like to see the possibility of being able to appoint the best person to cabinet, regardless of the political party affliation.

 

[a_majoor]

I wish there were practices in place to require floor crossers to, at least, cool down and secure the support of their new party – especially before jumping into cabinet, but I would not want to discourage floor crossing, on any direction.  Burke reminds us that we should elect men and women of talent and judgment, not cogs in political machines.

A Parliamentary penalty box! That would also be a uniquely Canadian solution to this problem (also seen in British Parliament and the US Senate).

I would like to see the possibility of being able to appoint the best person to cabinet, regardless of the political party affiliation.

Prime Minister Harper also appointed a Senator as a Cabinet Minister, and there was a precedent for appointing a General to serve as MND, so as far as I can tell, there is no reason for the Prime Minister to be limited to sitting MPs from his own party. I am confidently awaiting the call even as we speak 

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to Edward's and Rifleman's thoughts:  Are those the real driving forces behind Stephen Harper and the real reason he was so comprehensively trashed by the Liberals?  Other observers, and I believe he, himself have defined him as a libertarian.  This may give him the appearance of being pragmatic or fickle, depending on point of view. While he may be an ideologue the real threat may be that his ideology does not include strong parties.

This would under-cut the Liberals, the Natural Governing Party; the NDP, the "Party" Party (ie the one with the strongest ties to the notion of the Party); and the Reform movement, the Party of the Grassroots; all equally.  It also presents a different view of how to tackle the democratic deficit - not through proportional representation which makes the parties stronger but through making every Member of Parliament answerable to their conscience and their electors.  The Commons and the Senate (assuming it has democratic legitimacy) then become recruiting grounds from which a government can be formed, regardless of party affiliation.

The big problem with this situation though is that very quickly "No party libertarian governance" can quickly become a "single party autocracy".

Fascinating to observe anyway.  Somewhat concerning but what the heck.  The system needs a shake-up from time to time.  I just hope there is a plan for putting the pieces back together after the grenade has been tossed in and the door closed.

 

[Pencil Tech]

OK, I am NOT a Liberal, I did NOT vote Liberal, and like many Canadians I voted for A CHANGE, remember that slogan from just a few weeks ago? The same few weeks ago when Emerson was telling the voters of his constituency that a Harper government would ruin the country? Well, I don't care how much some hate the Liberals and think this is a fair tit-for-tat kind of thing, but as one of the many who voted for a change, this is not any kind of a change, and don't tell me it is OK? So what's the point? I'm quite disappointed to see that the Harper government is not exactly off to a flying start. Well, if this is a preview of pork to come, we can vote for another "change" at the next election.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Stephen Harper told me all enemy coming into their lines are immediately brain scanned at the nearest Cdn Tire store auto dept and if they detect a memory of a smart thing Paul Martin did its to the Niagara Falls barrel slide for them

Harper has to build links to BC and the NDP Swamp there. This guy lives in a tree fort in the swamp - ie is a higher life form and has actually managed the forest vs slithering along the water's edge.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>but as one of the many who voted for a change, this is not any kind of a change, and don't tell me it is OK?

Since you elected not to keep your opinion to yourself, you have invited everyone else to tell you differently.  This is a change, and it is a big change.  The Prime Minister reached outside the elected MPs of his own party, not to prop up a minority, but to build a Cabinet.  The only thing which could have been more bold and worthy would be to invite Mr Graham or Mr Layton to sit in cabinet to represent Toronto more directly than any of the CPC MPs from the surrounding area.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, if this is a preview of pork to come, we can vote for another "change" at the next election.

Jeez. Can the guy spend more than a week at work before you start bellyaching. Give the guy a chance. So far he's been innovative and everything I could've hoped for. Let's see how his cabinet, including O'Connor, work out before calling for their heads. You want everything now? Go to McDonalds.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

For the record I am glad the CPC has formed gov't. As a parent of a 21 month old I can't wait for the child care checks to start rolling in. My wife and I organized our lives so we don't require childcare, thereby we only benefit from the CPC's childcare plan. I plan on saving the money and buying a Moped.

That being said, what David Emerson did was wrong. It may be right for Canada, it may be right for Cabinet but it is wrong for the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway. That is who's wishes David Emerson needs to respond to the most. Anybody who thinks he would have won that riding as a member of the CPC is kidding themselves. Pierre Trudeau at his most popular wouldn't have won that riding for the CPC on Jan 23rd. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet anybody on this site $100 that the CPC won't win that riding next time wether David Emerson runs or not*. In retrospect maybe I won't buy a Moped but save my money just to be on the safe side. Seriously though, if you want to bet PM me.

Now for those people who see this as a positive because now Vancouver has a place at the cabinet that is true. I suppose in a way Stephen Harper had no choice but to find an MP to switch because unlike the case of Quebecer Michael Fortier who is part of the cabinet as a Senator, Vancouver lacked someone who could have represented it, like say a popular coroner turned mayor turned senator that had his finger on the pulse of Vancouver for a very long time. Oh wait there was someone: Larry Campbell. I know Larry Campbell and the CPC aren't on the best terms, didn't he a few weeks ago state he "would be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare"? No? Oh, that was David Emerson. From the reaction to his appointment it sounds like he wasn't far off.

*I checked the forum guidelines to see any prohibitions on offering bets and couldn't find any, but if it is there and I missed it or it isn't within the spirit of the guidelines then my offer to bet is cheerfully withdrawn.

Bart

 

[Pencil Tech]

OK, I am really, really, really glad the Liberals got tossed out. Brad, tell me differently if you want, but this was all so supposed to be about ethics and accountability, remember? Surely what Emerson and Harper have done is worse than Stronach and Martin, no? Stronach can at least say that she left because she found herself at odds with the policy and direction of the party she was in and crossed the floor (and of course was rewarded with a cabinet post - all dirty politics, no question), but this guy was just elected as a Liberal in a riding he wouldn't have had a prayer of winning as a Conservative, and days later, he's an instant Tory cabinet minister. The accountability thing was supposed to be about accountability to the voters, above all else. The people who voted for Emerson really got cold-cocked here, I think much worse than in Stronach's case ( because people in Aurora obviously already know that the Stronach family are openly big Liberals, and she got re-elected, anyway). But if it's just a matter of "they're all sleazebags but I like these sleazebags better" that's fine, I can understand that. But that doesn't make this "bold and worthy".

And sorry Recceguy about the bellyaching, but I'm not the only one bellyaching about this. Just check out the quotes from Alberta Conservative MPs Diane Ablonzcy, Myron Thompson and Ken Epp today about this (of course we wrote the book on bellyaching here in Alberta  ;D). I'm sorry, I don't see why Harper had to do this. Now, he's got dissent in his caucus and contoversy right on the first day. I actually want his government to have a fair shake and get a chance to run the country better than the Liberals did, so I'm a little disappointed, sorry.

 

[Gunnar]

I think the nominations were made for efficiency, not political reasons.

1.  No representation in Vancouver, coupled with a minority government, and the need for expertise when it comes to things like the Olympics, cabinet, etc.....makes Emmerson a good fit.  Remember, in a minority, or even in a coalition government, there is precendent for having representation from other parties.  'Cept under the rules of cabinet, you have to vote with cabinet....but as a member of another party, you would be expected to oppose cabinet....since we have a (weak) minority, and not a coalition government, it made sense to ask Emmerson to cross the floor.

2.  Is his defection as bad as Belinda's?  Depends on who you're talking to.  Belinda deserted the party she once tried to lead at a critical moment.  Emmerson left immediately following his election as a Liberal.  Belinda got a fat cabinet appointment not because they needed her expertise, they needed her vote.  Emmerson got a cabinet position on his merits, and crossing the floor was a means to that end.

Now, Emmerson will have to square things with his riding, most of whom did not vote Conservative.  However, if  you hearken back to the days when your MP was representing your riding and the electorate wasn't playing partisan politics....why did people vote for him?  If it was for partisan reasons, then when the Liberals lost the election, they essentially lost any clout they had with the government.  You want this guy to hang on on the off chance they can bring down the government again, so that upset Liberals can have another kick at the can?  Or would you rather that he have a seat at the big table, and be in a position to make things actually happen for a major city?

The reason I ask this is because I've seen the reverse happen, notably in Chretien's time.  He essentially told the farmers in Saskatchewan that without Liberal votes they could kiss representation goodbye.  Saskatchewan was ignored completely for the following 4 years.

3.  I have a question....if this situation is so bad, how would you reccomend that the minority government attempt to address the needs of all Canadians coast to coast without regional represenation?  Should they just pick some inexperienced guy to head these portfolios just because he's Conservative, or would you rather they had a capability to address the needs of Canadians?  I'm asking because the cabinet is regionally balanced, has representation from all major cities (indirectly in the case of Toronto), has representation for regional political issues (like Josee whatsername for International Relations...the whole "getting Quebec to the international table" issue they promised during the election) and appropriately rewards the party stalwarts so as to benefit from their continued goodwill and experience...

I think if you look at the nominations from these angles, and think of the cabinet as a project team for actually GOVERNING, in a minority government setup, then you might see why some of these choices were made.  Otherwise, you may as well pull a name out of a hat and say "right, you're Vancouver, don't screw up" and expect Vancouverites to be suitably annoyed and pressure their MPs to make the government fall, watch nothing get accomplished so that you can demonize the Conservatives again.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Senator Campbell might be just fine representing the metro Vancouver area in cabinet, but he's not exactly in Emerson's league regarding all the other files which are going to be dumped in Emerson's lap.  Emerson has what most would consider to be a fairly solid political and business resume.  Harper wanted a small gang, so it makes sense for him to grab as many twofers and threefers as he can get.

I do feel just terribly for the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway.  Emerson was one of Martin's picked parachute candidates intended for a cabinet appointment, which no doubt the voters knew when they elected him the first time around, and now they have been deprived of their revenge on those evil fiends Martin and Emerson: to see Emerson re-elected and staring enviously at his former chair across the floor among the government benches.  I mean, really: do you think they voted for Emerson hoping he would be a cabinet minister in a new minority or majority government, or hoping he would be a prominent critic in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?  If they would rather have a Liberal or NDP opposition member represent them than a CPC cabinet member, I hope Emerson gives them a shot in a by-election.  Maybe he can be parachuted into a riding more interested in having representation on the government side.

I've been reading the "ethics and accountability" song and dance on many Canadian blogs.  The ethical objection seems to stem from ... nothing.  Why?  Because no ethical rules have been violated by either appointment; instead there is a lot of vapour based on personal preferences which would seem to indicate that much of the Canadian blogosphere must be on the verge of attaining sainthood due to the virtuous lives they lead, lacking only a miracle.  The accountability objection in Emerson's case stems from a desire to hold Conservatives more accountable than Liberals (ie. by-election right now! dammit!), and in Fortier's case from some vague idea that Question Period in Parliament - to which Fortier will not initially be subjected - is something other than a forum for long-winded evasion of questions.  If Harper wants to roll out the gravy train, there is a handful of other Senate vacancies.  Maybe some people should judge what he has not done as well as what he has done.

I find quite amazing the amount of heat generated compared to, oh, the preceding twelve years of Liberal government.  Suddenly a zero-defect mentality has taken root in Canadian federal politics.  Maybe it would be best if the government falls quickly so we can go back to our collective low-stress shrug at the mischievous playful antics of those merry Liberal rascals.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Mr Sallows,
The Larry Campbell comment was slightly specious, as there appears to be way to much idealogical space between him and the CPC, as well as you mentioned he wouldn't have the experience for the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics portfolio, well not the first one, possibly not the first two anyway. The point was to illustrate that there must have been a better option than stabbing an entire riding in the back.

A riding that has elected one PC candidate in 53 years, the entire length of time the riding has existed as a separate entity.  I could go on ad naseum about the voting patterns in Vancouver-Kingsway but I will pass along this little piece as being illustrative:

The difference in the percentage between the Communist candidate and the Conservative candidate in the recent election was 18.4%. The difference between Conservative and Liberal was 24.7%. The Conservative candidate had a voter support closer to the communist party candidate than to the Liberal candidate. The reason Emerson was parachuted into that riding was because it was a "safe" seat for the Liberals, Sophia Leung having held the seat from 1997-2004. There is no way he would have or will be elected as a member of the Conservative party in this riding.

Emerson could have resigned as an MP and been appointed as a temporary Senator. That way the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway get to push the reset button on their MP and Emerson is saved the embarrassment of being buried in third place in a by-election. I personally wouldn't have minded if Harper had appointed a bunch of temporary Senators to meet the perceived talent and geographic shortfall. I may be navel gazing from BC but it seems there is much more of an uproar over Emerson than there is over the Fortier appointment. If anyone in the rest of Canada sees it differently let me know, I could stand to be corrected.

I was just as appalled as I am now whenever someone switched allegiance going back to when Jean Charest switched from Fed PC to Quebec Lib to lead it. I wasn't posting much earlier so that's why I never commented about the other times this happened.
Bart

 

[Brad Sallows]

I understand perfectly well that the voters are angry because they voted for a coloured horse and the horse changed colours.  I tend to make a habit of voting for a candidate as a person, so I don't relate directly to that sentiment - I would only be pleased if my chosen candidate were suddenly whisked onto the government benches and into cabinet.

My guess is that the government will try to retain Peter Milliken as speaker, and if not him, to get the independent or another Liberal into that chair.  That will preserve the viability of a CPC-NDP voting coalition.  I think it instructive to note that only one member has crossed: just enough to make that coalition viable.  It could mean only Emerson was approached, or that everyone else who was approached has either abided by a request for confidentiality or chosen to maintain confidentiality.  In short, while Harper might have fiddled with the numbers in a way some people find offensive, it sure looks like he fiddled the minimum amount necessary to achieve very specific aims (and to get a lot more substance per member than blindly trolling for backbenchers to prop up the party).  That would not be the signature of a man with unconditional disregard for propriety.

If Emerson had been appointed to Senate, one of the obvious advantages - the arithmetic in Parliament - would be negated.  The riding might elect a NDP member, but it might not.

My guess is that Harper is more forward-looking than most people, and wargamed a few of the potential critical geometries in Parliament during or before the campaign.  Many people are obsessed by the appearance of the decisions, and sadly very few have stopped to consider how the decisions can be seen to be sensible and beneficial in several important ways.

 

[Armymatters]

I had a chat with people living in the riding, and to say it bluntly, they are pissed off. I am hearing there may be protests outside Emerson's constituency office by people living in the riding to voice their displeasure. And Vancourites in general are also very angry, so he is now representing a very angry crowd of constituents. The president of the local Liberal riding association wants Emerson to pay back almost $100,000 in donations, and resign to force a by-election. In short, the word on the street is that everyone is angry.
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson-critics20060206.html

 

[RCD]

It is a sad day for our DEMOCRATIC process. It's slap in the face to all the voters.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is a sad day for our DEMOCRATIC process. It's slap in the face to all the voters.

Only if democratic equates to party/machine politics.

Did the electors of Vancouver Kingsway vote for David Emerson or just for a cog in Paul Martin's Liberal Party machine?  If the former they still have him; if the latter then maybe democracy was already in trouble.

Did anyone in Vancouver Kingsway really think David Emerson is a Heddy Fry clone or some kind of loony left wing-nut?  Look at his record; he is a pretty conservative fellow having been a bank and forestry company CEO and a high very priced provincial public servant.  He is, also, for better or worse, a man who puts a high value on himself. Emerson acted within his character, I think – not, perhaps, exactly as I might have wished but in character, all the same.

I still think one can, maybe should make a case that Emerson might be the pioneer of a good thing: elected MPs putting the best interests of their country and constituents ahead of the interests of their parties.

 

[Armymatters]

Only if democratic equates to party/machine politics.

Did the electors of Vancouver Kingsway vote for David Emerson or just for a cog in Paul Martin's Liberal Party machine?  If the former they still have him; if the latter then maybe democracy was already in trouble.

Did anyone in Vancouver Kingsway really think David Emerson is a Heddy Fry clone or some kind of loony left wing-nut?  Look at his record; he is a pretty conservative fellow having been a bank and forestry company CEO and a high very priced provincial public servant.  He is, also, for better or worse, a man who puts a high value on himself. Emerson acted within his character, I think – not, perhaps, exactly as I might have wished but in character, all the same.

I still think one can, maybe should make a case that Emerson might be the pioneer of a good thing: elected MPs putting the best interests of their country and constituents ahead of the interests of their parties.

I think it is the latter. The riding was considered a fairly safe riding when Paul Martin parachuted Emerson into this riding. I passed his riding office last day, and there were protests by constituents outside his riding office. And about the rumor I have regarding a petition: there is one started online, and there is word that there is another petition circulating by paper around the riding.

 

[Kirkhill]

Again Edward. 

I equate this situation to the debate over Proportional Representation.   I am not in favour of Proportional Representation although I think that the Single Transferrable Vote is better than First Past the Post (better to have a majority of luke warm supporters than a plurality of partisans).   The reason that I don't like Proportional Representation is that it puts the Party, and in particular Party apparatchiks, in control.

Now that may not be a bad thing If you are of the opinion that you and your Party wish to steam-roller an agenda to change society.  I am not thrilled by the prospect of being steam-rollered.

If on the other hand you want a representative democracy with your MP contributing to the debate on what constitutes effective policy and being able to hold the government in check then it is important that the MP be able to act as they see fit.  If you don't like their actions then you get to vote them out next time.

Our current situation, with strong parties and centralized governance gives rise to the unaccountable temporary dictatorships that passes for democracy in Canada.  This is true at the Federal and Provincial level.  In Alberta it means a Natural Governing Party.  In BC it means constant swinging of the pendulum between extremes.  Neither outcome is ideal.

 

[Armymatters]

Looks like the protests have now hit the Globe and Mail newspaper:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wxtories/BNStory/National/home
Quote:

But former health minister Ujjal Dosanjh, in an angry rejoinder to his former colleague, strongly supported demands that Mr. Emerson repay the money.

"Obviously it was Liberal money and Liberal support that got him elected," said Mr. Dosanjh, noting a poll last fall found only 20 per cent of riding residents surveyed knew who Mr. Emerson was.

If not Mr. Emerson, then the local Conservative riding association should return the Liberal campaign funds, because "they got an MP without having to spend any money," Mr. Dosanjh said.

If only 20% of riding residents knew who Emerson was, then I feel sorry for him...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Dosanjh thinks the CPC should return money because "they got an MP without having to spend any money,"?  I wonder if that guy ever listens to a clip of himself speaking or reads a transcript?  I wonder who paid for Belinda's campaign?

If only 20% of the voters know who their MP is, I feel sorry for the voters.  Thankfully, their ignorance is confined to their riding.