This move makes Con + NDP = 154; if Milliken stays on as Speaker it changes the balance of power such that the Conservatives can be propped up by any of the parties while before only the Libs or Bloc could help them pass legislation.

Posted by: fjm at February 6, 2006 01:38 PM

---

It may very well be that Emerson will be a good minister, perhaps even with Conservative policies.

But why did he then run as a Liberal?

Since he did, he should not become part of a Conservative government, just as Belinda should not have become a Liberal minster when elected a Conservative.

This is not a good start for Harper, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 6, 2006 01:39 PM

---

An accurate analysis, Steve. The Emerson posting is almost unique in Canadian governmental history; it seems to have been made, not for political reasons, but for governmental reasons, i.e., for the good government of Canada.

All our experience of politics has been focused around partisan politics. This instance, remarkably, has nothing to do with such a narrow focus - As Harper has consistently maintained, his focus is on Canada and its people. Not a political party.
We can criticize - but- Emerson's 'crossing the floor' has nothing to do with 'maintenance of political power'. It has, instead, one agenda - maintenance of the power of Canadians and getting good government. Quite a difference.

Posted by: ET at February 6, 2006 01:42 PM

---

Anything can be justified, but it doesn't mean it is right. This is what people expect of Conservatives - to justify their actions while blasting their opponents for doing the same thing.

And one thing you forgot to mention was the Brison defection - that went over real well with Conservatives.

Do as we say, not as we do.

Posted by: Peter D at February 6, 2006 01:48 PM

---

What an interesiting point of view to have about crossing the floor. It's ok when there is nothing to gain but when something happens that you don't like then there is a problem with it. Reasonable people would call that a double standard but I've noticed that generally most people will overlook things when its beneficial to their point of view. I've heard some pretty loud screaming coming from the dungeons of conservatism, its just good to know that the fight was never about integrity but about what to tell people that would get them elected.

On a side note, it doesn't bother me if anyone crosses the floor but it is funny to see the double standard.

Posted by: Fred at February 6, 2006 01:49 PM

---

Regardless of whatever rationale Harper may have used to anoint Emerson, it would take a hell of a lot of convincing if I lived in his BC riding and had just voted for him.

ONLY ELECTED FOR TWO WEEKS AND HE TURNS - SHEESH

Matt

Posted by: Matt Mullaly at February 6, 2006 01:52 PM

---

I disagree. It's the principle of the matter. If the Tories believed an MP should have to go through a byelection to cross the floor, it should be the case whether it works for them or against. All of the Tory detractors are looking for the first "do as I say, not as I do" moment of a Harper government to say "a-ha!"

Posted by: Darren at February 6, 2006 01:54 PM

---

Sorry everyone. I posted about 10 minutes too early. I had some extra bits to add, and I thought this was in draft mode. Just a bit at the end alluding to Stephen Harper's point of view.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 6, 2006 01:58 PM

---

I should also note that when Stronach crossed the floor, many CPC members complained that the will of the electorate was being over-turned. The CPC member in Emerson's riding came a very distant third - is this the will of the people? At least the Liberal party member in Stronach's riding came a close 2nd.

You guys can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try and justify it. But it is fun watching you try.

Principles - those things you use to get other people out of office and then go back on once you're in office.

Posted by: Peter D at February 6, 2006 01:58 PM

---

The people in BC will be thankful that Emerson has crossed over . With budget overuns it now appears that the Olympics will have a chance. I agree with ET this is a good decision on the PM's part, if he is the best qualified person around why not utilize his strengths.

Posted by: George at February 6, 2006 01:59 PM

---

Oh come on guess, Harper is buying votes just like the those Corrupt Liberals were buying votes. Come on you guess all drank the CPC kool aid and sang the song over Belinda and Grewal, should you be howling about Conservative Corruption and vote buying, bribery?

LOL, ROTFLMFAO

Hey don't blame me, I voted Green

Truly amazing from honest Conservative to vote buying, Corrupt Conservative in under 10 minutes. What's next Mr. Harper a National Daycare program, a federal gun registry?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

(ok I know it, I'm being an asshole, but I didn't think Harper would be this freaking stupid on his first day)

Posted by: Zorpheous at February 6, 2006 01:59 PM

---

Have to say my gut feeling is that I don't like it. It smacks too much of 'same old, same old' in the corridors of parliament. I hear your arguments about his qualifications (which I agree can likely only help), but it's the first day on the job and we essentially just pulled a Belinda.

Posted by: Jeff at February 6, 2006 02:01 PM

---

On the question of double standards. A double standard is applied when I say I disagree with something when it benefits you, but not when it benefits me. What I am suggesting that the "benefit" of Emerson's defection are extremely abstract, unlike the Stronach situation. Also, the potential problems with people shouting "double standard" ironically makes this less of a double standard.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 6, 2006 02:01 PM

---

This whole thing created an interesting conundrum as far as hypocrisy goes...

Diehard Liberals who applauded Belinda when she did it are now trying to look for a way to critisize Emerson without looking like hypocrits. Their spin seems to be: at least Belinda waited for 11 months and did it on "principle". BS.

And Diehard Conservatives who freaked out when Belinda did it are now trying to justify Emerson: Oh, well he brings experience and urban representation.

Either side is kind of weak... but I agree with what you said about Belinda having no political experience and being parachuted into cabinet. I don't especially like turncoats, but at least Emerson is bringing something to the Tories...

Posted by: Pete at February 6, 2006 02:03 PM

---

Emerson should have to run in a bi-election--that is only fair.
And no way should we take back Brison and stronach--that was a good move they made and they should stay with the Libs.
Emerson is really a Conservative--just don't like that he didn't state his intentions before the election. Also--why the Cabinet post? An insult to sitting CPC members--

Posted by: George at February 6, 2006 02:04 PM

---

Wow! Can you say logical pretzels? Give me a break. If anything Emersons switch is more sleazy because 1) the election was two weeks ago! not a year ago. Things change in a year, not so much in two weeks. 2) Belinda at least had some ideological reasons for leaving, and wasnt purely motivated by power.

Posted by: KC4 at February 6, 2006 02:09 PM

---

I have a serious problem with the principle.
However,Harper placed two members into the cabinet from two of the largest cities in Canada without representation. Both the MSM and the blogs saw this lack of representation as a problem. He has appointed a non-elected cabinet member temporarily into the Senate. This places a Senator in the cabinet (precedent)rather than a non-elected member of the public. This is a temporary position as opposed to all past Senate appointees.

Secondly, he gains cabinet experience in the Emerson case. But most of all, he now can say that two of the three largest cities have representation at the cabinet table.

Posted by: Walter at February 6, 2006 02:10 PM

---

Emerson who wants to hold a cabinet position in gov't has to run as Liberal in Vancouver to be elected. Now those that voted for him do and should feel robbed by his defection. Many lefties in van voted for him because of the party not because of him, yet lots of others voted liberal because he is a good right of center candidate and there wasn't a conservative to equal his credentials. He will have to take it to the people next election and he will have to do lots for Vancouver to justify the switch.

Posted by: rob at February 6, 2006 02:12 PM

---

Honesty, integrity, accountability TALKS
and hypocrisy WALKS. What happened to the "change for principled government' spiel?

I suppose if we think and convince ourselves hard enough we can justify anything. We can always find excuses to take the low road which leads me to the question: Is there ever a time to do the 'Right and Honorable' thing?

Floor crossing... bad, floor crossing for a reward... pathetic, enticing floor crossing and giving a reward after campaining on ethics, accountability and change... __________.

Mike_RoA

Posted by: at February 6, 2006 02:12 PM

---

Originally posted by Steve: "On the question of double standards. A double standard is applied when I say I disagree with something when it benefits you, but not when it benefits me. What I am suggesting that the "benefit" of Emerson's defection are extremely abstract, unlike the Stronach situation. Also, the potential problems with people shouting "double standard" ironically makes this less of a double standard."

I don't even know where to begin with your ridiculous position. You can try and rationalize it all you want but petty distinctions in experience or circumstance do not make your arguement hold any water. You were among those who vehemently opposed Stronach crossing the floor and like it or not crossing the floor is crossing the floor. This is clearly a double standard by the Harper government and the peter McKay video is glaring proof of that double standard.

Posted by: Fred at February 6, 2006 02:18 PM

---

The media and the Canadian people are going to be super critical of the Conservatives. This is why I can not understand why they would pull such a stunt this new into their term. Stephen better have some slam dunk ideas coming forward in the near future or the conservatives may find more Liberals in cabinet seats!!!

Posted by: Bruce at February 6, 2006 02:20 PM

---

It is early days yet. I am going to wait awhile before passing judgement on PM S.Harper's moves. For sure, he shows a capacity to surprise us. Give him time.

Posted by: Sharon at February 6, 2006 02:22 PM

---

As a Conservative, I am totally against this maneuver. Emerson was elected as a Liberal, the people who voted for him expected him to serve as a Liberal. If he has unhappy as a Liberal, he should have run as an Independent or a Conservative. Stephen Harper is making a huge mistake by rewarding Mr. Emerson for this deception.

Posted by: RM at February 6, 2006 02:42 PM

---

So when do the blogs start calling Emerson a whore? Or was that label only applicable to those who travelled across the Floor in the other direction?

Just wondering.

Posted by: snowbound at February 6, 2006 02:43 PM

---

> As a Conservative, I am totally against this maneuver. Emerson was elected as a Liberal, the people who voted for him expected him to serve as a Liberal. If he has unhappy as a Liberal, he should have run as an Independent or a Conservative

Ditto here.

Posted by: at February 6, 2006 02:49 PM

---

If Mme Belinda Stronach dropped out of York University and not having completed even one year, then we must saddened for creating of the torture's chambers of GULAG of unemployment, poverty and humiliation for the scientists and academic immigrants, who gave their lives for their education and careers. Blinda Stronach then became the CEO of a multi-billion giant company owned by her father; Magna International Inc with over 80,000 employees and over $ 20- billion revenue.

Please don't be surprised if Mr. David Dingwall has been entiteled to his entitlement by receiving of the servance $ 417,780 and more; these are all about democracy and meritocracy in the Liberal party of Canada.

Blinda Stronach or David Emerson are lokking for their own interests; they don't care what does it mean a democracy.

The rule of law is ignored.

People in Canada are not entitled to the truth.

How long people are ignored and law are viloated?

Abbas Diba

Posted by: ASbbas Diba at February 6, 2006 02:50 PM

---

It is inconceivable that the PM would turn into a politico so quickly. What is good for me is good. Time to revisit the Alberta Separation movement. He boned us, smiling the whole time. The sad part is I believed the crap he spouted before and during the election, I voted for change and woke up to the same old same old. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Buck Nekkid at February 6, 2006 02:59 PM

---

ET:
"All our experience of politics has been focused around partisan politics. This instance, remarkably, has nothing to do with such a narrow focus - As Harper has consistently maintained, his focus is on Canada and its people. Not a political party.
We can criticize - but- Emerson's 'crossing the floor' has nothing to do with 'maintenance of political power'. It has, instead, one agenda - maintenance of the power of Canadians and getting good government. Quite a difference."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....If you tell me you believe what you just wrote, I'm gonna have an aneurysm.

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 03:03 PM

---

Wow - this was quicker than I thought.

Funny, how now that he is without any doubt your most accomplished minister, David Emerson is no longer the corrupt, tainted hack that you portayed him as previously.

He is, in fact, a very able, experienced and honourable man, like some of his former colleagues in the former Liberal government, including first and foremost the former Prime Minister.

So, what will become of your "Technoscam" bulldogs?

I have nothing but praise for Emerson, but I think it has now become obvious to all observers that Harper's protests on many fronts about the "corrupt and incompetent" Liberals and cries of righteous indignation at people like Stronach crossing the floor were mere theatrics designed to (successfully) foment anger at and mistrust of politicians, particularly Liberals and that his so-called "convictions" were merely declarations of convenience.

I will enjoy watching all of you who drink the koolaid bending over backwards to rationalize this in light of previosuly stated "strong convictions" of the CPC and Harper in particular.

This could get very fun very fast.

Posted by: canadian at February 6, 2006 03:11 PM

---

Now try to look at it my way. My vote was ripped from me when Belinda crossed the floor. It didn't make a differnce to those who continued to vote liberal (inside and outside my riding) as is evidenced by their voting choice. I refuse to shed a tear for any Liberal voter who has the same thing happen to them. In fact I hope it happens to them all of them as an object lesson

Posted by: paul at February 6, 2006 03:12 PM

---

I'm shocked that Harper appointed Emerson.
What about Jay Hill from BC? What about Moore, Ablonczy, Kenney....and all the other Conservatives who are loyal hard-workers?

Harper could have held a press conference with Emerson, where they both could've announced that Emerson wants to be a Con cabinet minister, so a by-election is being called. Micheal Fortier should run as well.

There was plenty of Conservative talent already!
So, what if there was no one from Montreal of Vancouver? There's been no one on the gov side from Calgary for how many years? The point is ridings and communities choose their representatives. If they choose with the minority of Canadians and their MP is in opposition, so be it until next time.

I was so excited to watch the swearing-in today, so excited about this new government and how it would act.

What a huge cynical let down!

Posted by: Angela at February 6, 2006 03:20 PM

---

This was a dumb move. Emerson might be more qualified than Belinda, so what. The Conservatives said they were different. They aren't. Now the urban centers are represented, big deal. Where's that Recall provision when we need it. This is a bad start. And what's this about the NDP being a factor? What are the chances that the NDP and Conservatives are going to agree on something that the Bloc or Liberals also don't agree with? Sheeesh

Posted by: Mike at February 6, 2006 03:26 PM

---

Walter: "This places a Senator in the cabinet (precedent)rather than a non-elected member of the public."

Yes, there is precedent for this appointment. >>> See reference, below. to the late P. Martin, Sr., father of the ex-PM PM, Jr.
Prime Minister Stephen "Bush" is such a dolt; has not read Canadian political history. That darn Brian Rove is behind this stuff; how can "they" be so cruella to the Liberals/ There oughta be a law.
>>>
The Leader of the Government in the Senate (French: Leader du gouvernement au Sénat) is a Canadian cabinet minister who leads the government side in the Canadian Senate and is chiefly responsible for promoting and defending the government's program in the Upper House. The government leader's counterpart on the Opposition benches is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The leader is selected by the Prime Minister.

Early Canadian cabinets included several senators who would be answerable to the Senate for government actions. In the nineteenth century, it was not considered unusual for a senator to be Prime Minister. Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell served as prime minister from the Senate. Abbott and Bowell both found it difficult to lead the government from the Senate, however, and over time, the perceived legitimacy of the Senate declined. As time progressed, it became less common for senators to occupy prominent positions in Cabinet. From 1935 on, it was typical for a Cabinet to have only one senator who would have the position of minister without portfolio and act as Government Leader in the Senate.

In 1969, the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate became an official cabinet position with the appointment of Paul Martin, Sr. (father of the current [ex] prime minister, Paul Martin).

Occasionally, senators still hold senior cabinet positions in order to ensure regional balance in Cabinet if the governing party is unable to elect members in a particular region or province, e.g., when the Progressive Conservative Party formed the government under the leadership of Joe Clark in 1979, and when the Liberal Party formed the government under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau in 1980. However, it is usually the case that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is the sole senator serving in Cabinet. >> wikipedia

Posted by: maz2 at February 6, 2006 03:26 PM

---

Whats truly sad about the Emerson situation is that it could be a sign of things to come.

I always thought that Steven Harper gave me hope for this country. I just lost my hope.

How can a man I thought would bring about a 'common sense revolution' on the federal stage not have the common sense to know how hypocritical this move is?

Shame.

Posted by: michael staples at February 6, 2006 03:30 PM

---

The following are the bills of the last Parliament which the Conservatives brought forward - Emerson voted against every single one.

C-215 - Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence)

C- 248 - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school)

C-313 - Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts)

C-293 - Criminal Code (theft of a motor vehicle)

C-275 - Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident)

C-259 - Excise Tax Act (elimination of excise tax on jewellery)

C-215 - Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence)

C-265 - Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents)

C-283 - amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

See: New Blog to Remove Emerson

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 6, 2006 03:39 PM

---

This is a toss up for me.

On forming cabinet & government: I believe that government should be able to form cabinet up from the most qualified people, regardless of political affiliation. If someone is very well suited to something, and they're willing to work with the government in power, wouldn't it be nice if cabinet could transcend party lines? Philisophically, I oppose voting based on party lines anyways. You represent your constituents and their interests.

On crossing the floor: It's weak. It's a misuse of democracy, and there should be a by-election.

I oppose the action, but I support the idea of a qualified candidate coming to the conservative party. There would have to be a run off in order for me to enthusiastically support the decision though.

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 03:39 PM

---

Watch the liberal house leader on TV crying about this. Raising the issue as a "disrespect of the constitution" -- The reporters where actually pretty fair, starting naming off all the people that crossed the floor to become liberals. It turns out the problem isnt the action, its the timing. He says that its ok to cross the floor mid-session, but bad form and disrespectful to the constitution to cross the floor right after the election and before you actually take your seat in the house. Seems like sour grapes to me. And disrespectful of the constitution - the liberals didnt just go there! - the non-confidence vote is only a non-confidence vote when we say it is liberals.... Again its the pot calling the kettle black... the liberals have shown no respect to the constitution, the Canadian tax payer, parliament, and on and on...

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 03:43 PM

---

Steve, aren't you forgetting the Independen? Arthur may be the one holding the balance of power. Scary, eh?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 6, 2006 03:47 PM

---

Reading all the spin comments by you Conservatives trying to somehow place this in a favourable light is outrageously funny. Not to mention quite stupid in some cases.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Lack of experience and qualification on the part of the CPCs will have this out of control frieght train off the tracks quicker than you can verbalize, do as I say not as I do.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 6, 2006 03:47 PM

---

Gary: as a member of Paul Martin's cabinet, Emerson didn't really have a choice about his vote on many bills.

As for the "defection" itself? If Harper had formed a full coalition, people would understand what happened here. It isn't diminished because Emerson acted on behalf of his own constituents and all Canadians to accept a cabinet post.

That he is expected to sit with the Conservative caucus, and therefore be able to brief them on important matters in his portfolio, changes nothing in his need to represent every one of his constituents.

Posted by: Paul O at February 6, 2006 03:49 PM

---

Considering the fleecing we've gotten from the Liberals including the recent Dingwall trickery, I think we're almost even. I'm not particularily pleased about this apparent hypocrisy, but lets look at the pros and cons. We gain someone with experience, talent and no slouch or sleaze bag. Liberals loose a foot. B.C., Vancouver, gains a representative in Parliment. I could think of worse Liberals to defect, at least it wasn't on the morning of a non-confidence vote. I don't know if Emerson is a real coup but I think he is liked and respected. He is definately not despised.

Give Harper some credit, he's beating the Liberals at their own game, and getting us a better deal than Martin got out of Stronach. He's thinking outside the box and he's giving B.C. an opportunity to be represented. To be fair, Harper NEVER said he would ban crossing the floor. He said he didn't like it , it hurts when it's your own but it is actually un-democratic and prevents M.P.'s from doing the right thing for their constituents and their conscience. This could be a win-win situation. Appearances aside; can anyone say that the citizens of Vancouver, B.C. are going to be hurt by this representation?

A little O/T: for those who are ecstatic with McLellan losing her seat; is the irony of her former position being scrapped, deemed UN-NECESSARY, lost on anyone? I loved this decision the most. Harper was thinking out of the box on a lot of things. By eliminating this position, he doesn't play favorites with McKay or Cannon. he also leaves Canada with less government.

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 03:49 PM

---

Well, at least the 18.8% all 8679 of them) who voted for a Tory Candidate in Vancouver Kingsway will be happy ;)

Not so sure about the other 81% however.

Posted by: Scott Tribe at February 6, 2006 03:51 PM

---

From the Globe and Mail:

"Speaking with reporters later, Mr. Harper defended both choices.

Of Mr. Emerson, he said he was long impressed with the MP's service as a Liberal. His appointment, he added, was intended to tap into Mr. Emerson's “very successful private sector career” and increase representation for both Vancouver and British Columbia within governing party."

Tap into Mr. Emerson's very successful private sector career. Lovely. They haven't been in power for 12 hours, and they're already throwing their principles out the window in order to make nice with corporate Canada.
Pardon my french, but what a shitbag. I hope that all you Conservative voters are proud of your so-called revolution. Ever get the feeling you've been had?

Meet the new boss....

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 03:52 PM

---

I don't see any up-side here.

When you campaign on electing senators and then
hand over the pork-barrel ministry to another
French Canadian establishment figure, appointed
to the senate AND take on board a thoroughly
dishonest liberal scum-bag, how can you believe
that we are going to change the way governemnt
works????

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at February 6, 2006 03:56 PM

---

lost support and plage down to toilet.

Posted by: george at February 6, 2006 03:56 PM

---

Cheri, "thinking out of the box."

Thinking outside the box would be, when Emmerson was crossing the floor PMS Harper would stop him and tell him to go back saying something like, we don't want turncoats that betray their electorate .

What Harper has done is what every spineless PM has done before him. Smack dab in the middle of the box, a golden opportunity wasted.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 6, 2006 04:01 PM

---

Was Emerson ever really a Liberal? I mean he was a logging executive before being elected as a liberal. I have a feeling he was a blue liberal. Whatever, this will blow over in less than a week. We now have something we didn't have before, "representation" in a "city." We just have to accept this and move on. We cannot start fighting each other again and wind up with bitter inside fighting...there are not enough of us to split the vote, so don't be stupid.

Posted by: Simpsonite at February 6, 2006 04:02 PM

---

Lack of experience and qualification on the part of the CPCs will have this out of control freight train off the tracks quicker than you can verbalize,

--Ahhh the return of Wrongo Rono...

Lack of experience in government is a virtue. The Framers of the constitution of the united states, imagined a future legislative assembly filled with farmers, tradesmen, and merchants. Not lawyer after lawyer, followed by more lawyers. A degree is nice, but I don't think its necessary to be elected or even become a cabinet minister.

We should also be wary of people who prepare their entire adult lives, for politics. Paul Martin & Bill Clinton spring to mind as leaders who spent their entire lives preparing for office. At best, I think we'd call the results mixed. (can we say train wreck?) Stephen Harper, has had a life outside Politics, and when he leaves public life you can bet he'll return to private life - not to some lamer lobbyist or law firm - but to a real life job.

Posted by: at February 6, 2006 04:03 PM

---

It's about the often difficult separation between tactics and strategy.

The reasons for picking Emerson are sound on all fronts except the 'democracy' issue. To maintain governance moral legitimacy, this must be addressed, but perhaps not now, tactically.

A by-election should be set for a year, or two years from now to give the people of Emerson's riding the chance to endorce or reject their new Minister based on seeing his performance in the new government on the BC portfolio.

By promising to do this now, on a set date two years from now, the democratic issue can be addressed without giving up the present tactical benefits.

Posted by: brock at February 6, 2006 04:04 PM

---

Oooops that was me...

Twistin Ron's tail.

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 04:04 PM

---

Emerson is a good guy and good Minister. And this is coming from a Liberal in BC.

He would have hated Opposition, which is why he bailed. He is definitely a doer, not a guy to sit on the side and criticize.

So where does that leave us?

Emerson: takes a hit on integrity but still doing what he does best.

Moore, Ablonczy, Hill et al: On the outside and probably choked.

PM Harper: taking a snot-kicking on ethics and the "democratic deficit" on day 1.

Libs in BC: Pretty livid

Tories: mostly unhappy with the dramatic ethics dump on day one, but in the end happy with Emerson

Canada: better off with Emerson in Cabinet, but with a very cynical electorate today

Posted by: Not surprised at February 6, 2006 04:06 PM

---

Its amazing that the drivel on this blog is being promoted as incisive conservative commentary. When you folks grow up and discover what a democratic, principled, conservative point of view is, perhaps I'll be back. Judging by what I've seen here, that will be... never.

Believe in the democratic process? Yes or no?

Yes? Then the Emerson poaching is wrong. End of story.

Posted by: Democratic Conservative at February 6, 2006 04:06 PM

---

I've always wondered; when a pol crosses the floor, what happens to all the folks in the background who worked for the candidate before his/her election, ie the campaign manager? What about the riding office staff? Are they all miraculously converted to their boss' new faith, or fired and replaced by members of his new party?

Posted by: dmorris at February 6, 2006 04:09 PM

---

Democratic Conservative:

Bravo!!

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 04:09 PM

---

Curtis said, "The Framers of the constitution of the united states, imagined a future legislative assembly filled with farmers, tradesmen, and merchants."

Curtis, you wanna know what's really funny about this. I was born and raised on a farm, became a tradesperson and now run a business, making me merchant.

Would you vote for me?

VOTE FOR WRONGO RON!!!!!!!

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 6, 2006 04:22 PM

---

Objectively speaking, it's just plain crass when an industrialist minister crosses the floor to rescue a party going down for non-confidence.

It would seem more crass if the voting public knew the motive was not simply to gain a ministry position, but to control the Human resources ministry.

There, an industrialist can grease the skids under the feet of thousands of Magna employees so the majority are re-classified to full time, part time status. Few if any benefits and no pensions to worry about.

Belinda’s advantage: Some people think she's not too swift. Caution!

Naturally, if an experienced and thoughtful Liberal wanted to cross the floor to the Conservatives, well, that would be class and not crass at all, Objectively speaking, that is. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 6, 2006 04:24 PM

---

Sure, Id vote for you wrongo...

Which riding did you win the Conservative nomination for?

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 04:24 PM

---

Harper's cabinet
by Romeo St. Martin

[PoliticsWatch updated 11:25 a.m. February 6, 2006]

Many of the new ministers came from Harper's shadow cabinet, pictured here in July of 2004

The following is the official list of ministers named Monday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Stephen Harper -- Prime Minister

Jim Flaherty -- Finance Minister

Peter MacKay -- Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Marjory LeBreton -- Leader of the Government in the Senate

Rob Nicholson -- House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

David Emerson -- Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver - Whistler Olympics

Lawrence Cannon -- Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Maxime Bernier -- Industry

Diane Finley -- Human Resources

Gordon O'Connor -- Defence Minister

Gary Lunn -- Natural Resources

Carol Skelton -- Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

Monte Solberg -- Immigration Minister

Jim Prentice -- Indian Affairs

Vic Toews -- Justice Minister

Stockwell Day -- Public Safety

Michael Fortier -- Public Works

Tony Clement -- Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Jean Pierre Blackburn -- Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

John Baird -- Treasury Board

Greg Thompson -- Veterans Affairs

Bev Oda -- Heritage and Status of Women

Chuck Strahl -- Agriculture

Josee Verner -- International Cooperation

Rona Ambrose -- Environment

Loyola Hearn --- Fisheries and Oceans

Michael Chong -- President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport

> ElectionWatch 2006

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 6, 2006 04:26 PM

---

Worst than this would be to reward his campaign co-chair with a Ministerial appointment and ensure that he doesn’t have to answer questions in the House.

Posted by: steve in bc at February 6, 2006 04:31 PM

---

Curtis...Maybe I should run for a conservative seat. When the CPCs get decimated after the imminent non-confidence vote there'll be plenty of ridings to chose from.

Will you endorse my nomination?

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 6, 2006 04:39 PM

---

One aspect that seems to have escaped everyone is that Harper seems to have regarded the legitimacy of his government as dependant on representation from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

He has risked his government of appointment of 3 ministers from the GTA, a senator from Montreal and a Liberal from Vancouver. To me, it speaks of courage, a belief on the need for full representation, and a pragmatism that speaks well of where the new government will go.

Posted by: Robert Radford at February 6, 2006 04:39 PM

---

Liberal Ron; did you say the same thing when Belinda hopped into your bed?

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 04:41 PM

---

Don't forget, his co-chair was appointed and not elected to the senate today. Wasted my voted on a party that wanted to change the way government operates. Took Harper a couple of minutes to do the same as the Liberals.

Maybe Harper wants to defect to the Liberals to become its leader?

Posted by: Michael at February 6, 2006 04:41 PM

---

"... doesn’t have to answer questions in the House"

As Harper pointed out at his press conference (following his first cabinet meeting), the Senate does have a Question Period as well, where questions can well be posed to the Minister.

He also pointed out that bringing Emerson into the Conservative caucus is not done as a partisan move, and is nothing against the Liberals as such. It is done, as he said, for the sake of a stronger Cabinet, and for the Country.

Also, the House will be recalled for April 3.

Posted by: Paul O at February 6, 2006 04:42 PM

---

DemocraticConservative, Guess you will have to get with the times. Both parties have morphed closer together where there are fiscal conservatives and libatarians scattered in both today.

Welcome to the more complex new world. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 6, 2006 04:43 PM

---

Completely and utterly disgusted.
I don't think the Harper knows how much this hurt them. Those of us that convinced our friends/relatives/neighbors that the CPC would change the way things work, are now embarrassed to show our faces at the family reunion. As of today, I am officially out of choices for truly honest government in Canada. Alberta Seperatism here I come.

SHPM, you sadden me greatly. Such hope you instilled... gone. You gave up a huge chunk of your core support, for what???? I feel like puking.

Posted by: DemandMore at February 6, 2006 04:44 PM

---

and it gets better:

David Emmerson on election night:

"I'm going to be Stephen Harper's worst enemy," he warned. "We're going to stir the pot and you better believe we are going to make a heck of a lot of noise."

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 04:44 PM

---

I think there are a couple of brave picks.

Rona Ambrose - Environment. I didn't think the Environment minister would be from Alberta, because of the stink over Kyoto, and a charge the the environment minister would be in the pocket of big oil (like everyone else from Alberta)

Stockwell Day - I thought he would be Foreign affairs.

Peter McKay - I thought would be deputy PM, But Stephen Harper is right. We dont need no "vice presidents"

Maxime Bernier -- Industry - Its nice to see women getting outta the 'human resources' glass box, and getting a real meaty assignment in cabinet.

All in all, I think the government is off to a good start.

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 04:48 PM

---

Dave, He is Harpers worst enemy.
His move today will cost Harper huge (if there's anything smart about the electorate).
If I had a magic wand, I'd give the greens a Majority in the next election.
Note to self: buy 2 years worth of mouthwash.. can't stop puking.

Posted by: DemandMore at February 6, 2006 04:50 PM

---

I wondering where all the low life losers are who called Stronach a whore for crossing the floor. I will be waiting with great anticipation and pleasure when the radical right fades away into the depths of history only worthy of shame. I suppose appologies are out of the question from radical extremists who have more in common with fundamentalist Islam/Christianity than any sort of real common sense or dignity.

Posted by: Mike Harris at February 6, 2006 04:52 PM

---

DemandMore

you're right...and believe me, I'm loving this.

Conservatives all across Canada have their "whaddaya mean Santa's not real????" face on.

priceless.

Posted by: dave at February 6, 2006 04:54 PM

---

Cheri, I've never been a fan of Belinda and I certainly wouldn't allow her into my bed. I like sex but I don't like getting screwed.

I thought it was shrewd of PMPM to woo her but secretly hoped she would not be re-elected. The Liberal party was not purged enough for my liking.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 6, 2006 04:59 PM

---

Well if harper wants to tick off core supporters his call.

It's no surprise solberg got into cabinet with his dissing of stock just to bring steve back I'm sure was a 100% calculated move to turn to lib lite. Funny the more the party adopts the liberal platform they seem to take on their attitude is it time for reform 2 the west wants out? Film later.

Day 1 didn't go so well,...

I'm complaining to the liberals in my office?

Not good,

if he came across he should have sat in the back bench for the first cabinet.

Posted by: DrWright at February 6, 2006 05:02 PM

---

Thanks Ron for your honesty. It was probably hard to say out loud that you thought Martin was shrewd but Harper isn't. I don't like this any better than you and I'll be the first to admit I called Beilinda the W word when she crossed. The point is how do Emmerson's constituents feel? They went from having someone on the back benches on the morning of the 24th to having a hard working Cabinet Minister representing them and their province today. If you can bare to be honest for a second more, I'm sure you'll admit that many people vote to be on the band wagon. Maybe his constituents were hoping for a Liberal win?

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 05:14 PM

---

Coyne has the only 'save face' idea I've heard, and the minimum I would need to see before putting the CPC back on to probation status:

"Then I think the Prime Minister would be well advised to alter course, admit he made a mistake -- two, actually -- and get out in front of this. There's a simple way to do it, one that could even turn a retreat into an advance. Announce, no later than tomorrow, that both appointments will be put before the people: Emerson's, in a byelection, allowing his constituents to pass judgment on his change of party; Fortier's, in Quebec's first-ever Senate election."

Posted by: DemandMore at February 6, 2006 05:15 PM

---

"He also pointed out that bringing Emerson into the Conservative caucus is not done as a partisan move, and is nothing against the Liberals as such. It is done, as he said, for the sake of a stronger Cabinet, and for the Country."

Yeah, and ex-PMPM said that BS's floor-crossing had nothing to do with the imminent confidence vote that his government faced. The press gallery promptly laughed in his face.

Stephen Harper just burned a big chunk of his credibility. It doesn't reach laugh-in-face level yet, but there's no way to spin this as anything other than a disgusting start to this government. Today was supposed to be the day we finally got rid of the Liberals, we finally got to do things our way, and we end up with an unelected partisan hack and a Liberal turncoat in cabinet! What a bucket of cold sewer water dumped on the day.

I think I'll call it "Strike One".

Posted by: Ian in NS at February 6, 2006 05:16 PM

---

Curtis...Maybe I should run for a conservative seat. When the CPCs get decimated after the imminent non-confidence vote there'll be plenty of ridings to chose from.

Will you endorse my nomination?

What do you mean? there are currently 200 seats with that are open or quasi-open. This is the high point for open seats. I think that the conservatives will get a majority in the next election. -- if the liberals give the Conservatives 18 months - 2 years to clean all the skeletons out of the closet, it could be a while before liberals are allowed to govern again.

I cant sign anyones nomination papers, as Iam not a member of the conservative party.

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 05:25 PM

---

Maybe his constituents were hoping for a Liberal win?

Thats a hard one to buy. I think Mr Emerson did a good job as an MP. The Americans have the concept of 'coat tails' I dont think the liberal party had any coat tails out in the west. Any MP that got re-elected out here, was inspite of their party, not because of it. Ralph Goodale, is another example, he got re-elected because he has a strong political machine in his riding.

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 05:30 PM

---

I don't know if you were being sarcastic ( I hope not because Mr. Bernier is a great man), but Maxime Bernier is a man.

Posted by: Angela at February 6, 2006 05:53 PM

---

It's rare that two separate events in life are the same. In this case, the circumstances of Belinda's defection were very different from that of Emerson's. Do you think Miss Nepotism was poached by Martin for her talent and record, as is plausibly the case with Emerson? Magna stock dropped considerably when her dad appointed her Magna boss - the market says she's a dog.

Not the case with Emerson, who is near universally respected and can speak without sounding vacuous, like Stronach. That's a fair comment; she's a horrible speaker. The geographical considerations at play in Emerson's SPECIFIC case also make it DIFFERENT than Belinda's case.

Does this mean that Emerson = good and Belinda = bad? No no no. It means that they are different. Not the same. But different. The Liberals had an opportunity to pass anti-turncoat legislation and they did not - they are the bad guys here. Don't blame Harper for playing by the rules, he didn't make the rules but he'd be a damned fool not to use the rules to his advantage especially when he is a seat away from a CPC-NDP majority. He'd be Joe Clark.

Defeating The Statists isn't a pretty job. I think there should be legislation requiring turncoats to run in a by-election, but we don't live in that imaginary world. Keep the heat on the CPC to pass anti-turncoat legislation and all will be good.

Posted by: Anonalogue at February 6, 2006 05:58 PM

---

Either way, if you like a guy because of the job he did when he DID have a say, would you be as satisfied if he didn't have a say? Would you turn around and vote for the the guy who stands the best chance of being in the Cabinet of the Government in power? Many people vote that way. Many people vote for the least of two evils. They hold their noses or don't vote at all. There is a lot of cynicism in politics and I think a lot of people have voted and will vote for the person rather than the party unless they want to send a message to a particular party. If the Dingwall settlement were known before the elction, would the good people of Vancouver/Kingsway have still voted Liberal? Turnout was about 60%, not much dif, from provincial average of 2004 election, so I would suspect there wasn't much drive to see him in or out.

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 06:03 PM

---

If your aunt had hummmm she'd be your uncle.

If the Dingwall deal had been known before the election, we have no way of knowing what would have happened. Sure we'd like to think it would changed everything, but that's pretty unlikely.

As a western voter, my vote rarely lands with a government. I understand some people - particular in that big English speaking eastern province do this - but I never understood this. Basically your giving your franchise to a pollster. People who think like this, and vote like this, probably should be discouraged from voting.

Posted by: Curtis at February 6, 2006 06:29 PM

---

Analogue, you make good points I missed. There are a lot of old reform ideas that I and many others including Harper thought were good at the time. People change, politics change, we think, we discuss, we change, we evolve. Harper has said and proved that many ideals, after sober second thought, are not very practical, cost efficient and sometimes turn out to be un-democratic. Case in point is having National referendums on everything under the sun, an old Reform Party ideal, they are expensive difficult to word for legislators and voters to understand and often no-one wants to live with the results and finds a way to have them overturned. Or you keep going/spending until you get the results you want.

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 06:32 PM

---

Curtis; everyone has been jumping on the Liberal band wagon the past couple elections, Buzz, First Nations Leaders, Premiers, Mayors, Americans... need I go on? Thankfully Americans and teens can't vote or we'd have a sea of Red and/or Orange. MSM has played a huge part in the perception of who is winning.

Liberals do not base their policies on common sense, decency or democracy, they base them on how many people they can draw to the polling station, ie: legalized pot, lower voting age, immigration policy, banning hand-guns etc.

Everyone is so turned off by scams and antics such as Stronach, Reid, Emerson and Dingwall that the only way the Liberals can entice votes (worth $1.75 each) is to get new groups to participate and hope like hell that the angry and apathetic stay at home.

Posted by: Cheri at February 6, 2006 06:58 PM

---

I don't like the idea of floor crossing but I'm willing to see how things turn out before becoming all apocaliptic. At least Vancouver will be represented in cabinet even though they didn't have the sense to vote for it. Watch for a softwood lumber resolution within months. Watch for three or four more defectors within the same time frame.

Posted by: Clayton at February 6, 2006 07:32 PM

---

A disappointment to say the least. I voted to get rid of people I felt were no longer worthy of being our leaders. This stuff sickens me. Brian Mulroney had enough Irish in him to say publicly "Ya dance with the one that brung ya" Mr Harper should take a page from his book.
Mr. Harper has not lost my vote yet but another move like this and Michael Ignatieff starts to look awfully good

Posted by: crowbar at February 6, 2006 07:55 PM

---

As a conservative I'm disgusted. Groucho put it well:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Posted by: Drained Brain at February 6, 2006 08:10 PM

---

Everybody should take a pill.
Yes the appointment of Fortier was strange and the move by Emerson political opportunism both by Harper and Emerson but let's have faith that Harper has made the right decision in the long term.

Lets everyone think back to the first day of the election campaign when Harper raised the issue of same sex marriage. All the talking heads and the punditry said he made a critical error and this will lead to the lose of the election.

Guess what the strategy proved to be right. Harper is not a fool and this will pass and more important issues will be there to fight about.

Harper should appoint Diane Abloncy as the parliamentary secretray to Fortier and carry the Public Works portfolio in the house. She is smart, capable and would put to rest the question of leaving her out of cabinet.

Posted by: Mervin Hollingsworth at February 6, 2006 08:13 PM

---

The Emerson floor-crossing is the perfect illustration of why the CPC members are called "cons".

Posted by: adnohr at February 6, 2006 08:32 PM

---

Well, as Peter MacKay would say..."at least dogs are loyal."

Posted by: steve at February 6, 2006 08:45 PM

---

Unless there is a very compelling case put forward by Harper (i.e. for Emerson), I don't think I will ever consider to vote CPC in the future.

Enough tactical voting, I'm going to stick with my ideological home from now on. Vote Libertarian!

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 6, 2006 08:47 PM

---

Merv, you crazy titfucker ... if Diane is good enough to carry the full weight of Public Works in the House (and she is), give her the damn portfolio in the first place. And covering Montreal in Cabinet, what about one of the other Quebecer duly elected two weeks ago ? Fuck Fortier, he's a sham and his appointment is nothing more than payback.
As sleazy a move as any Liberal could muster. And I'm a Tory ! Been one since the great Bob Stanfield's days.

Posted by: Barney Rubble at February 6, 2006 09:05 PM

---

Disappointed and disgusted. Perhaps Stephen Harper has been rubbing shoulders too much lately with those in the province where corruption and boondoggles have been rampant for years.

Selling one's soul for votes continues to be the way our Prime Ministers and politicians operate.

Canada - the land of corrupt dictators.

Posted by: Prober at February 6, 2006 10:13 PM

---

Seems like a pretty good first day. Haven't seen anything on the liberal leadership non-race since before noon. :)

Also, as I commented on Coyne's blog before he gave up on us - The voters in Emerson's riding voted for a right-of-centre cabinet minister. They had one yesterday and they still have one today.

All this fuss will die down. People have been criticizing Stephen Harper for years. So far they've been (mostly) wrong.

Posted by: Paul at February 6, 2006 10:21 PM

---

Meanwhile, the public interest group Democracy Watch is filing a complaint to the ethics commissioner about all three controversial cabinet appointments.

Democracy Watch had given Harper high marks during the election campaign for his accountability act, but are already disillusioned with the new PM.

"New Prime Minister Stephen Harper has shot himself in the foot, if not the head, on the government ethics issue with some of his Cabinet appointments as they are clearly hypocritical and reveal a very weak regard for election promises and federal ethics rules," said Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch in a statement.

Posted by: george at February 6, 2006 10:26 PM

---

I've been thinking about this one all day. At first glance, it looks bad. But Emerson did a good job in his portfolio and maybe, just maybe, he was close to a resolution on the softwood lumber issue. This is an issue that is very important to BC and maybe he is the person in the best position to bring this issue to a resolution. If this is the case, it makes Harper look awfullly good.

As for Fornier, it is unusual and it was made clear that it is temporary. After all, the eastern MSM made a big deal out of there being no representation from the big cities and this solves that problem. At least, this is how I am rationalizing this.

I have made a comment on another post that there are a lot of right leaning libs who might feel more comfortable in a Conservative caucus and we may see more. I can't believe that Harper would do this on day one if he did not have a very good reason, he is NOT that stupid. Let's wait and see how this plays out.

Posted by: georgev at February 6, 2006 10:43 PM

---

Wow, it actually seems like Prime Minister Harper has a plan and a vision for this country. It may be early to be so bold but, I would guess that this P.M. sees out of the box and wants to be effective at representing Canada. To me this looks like a great chess player with no other motive than to do what is best for Canada with what he has available. Onward!

Posted by: Ty at February 6, 2006 10:49 PM

---

Ok I've been watching this long enough.

Yea at first glance I thought this was a crappy move on the part of Harper etc. etc. etc. for all the reasons already discussed.

after thinking about it for awhile a thought hit me...

from a Public response standpoint this was a bonehead move... one Harper had to know he was going to take a alot of heat over. so why do it...

well the only thought I can think of to jump into a fire like this one is to do it on purpose... which means he had a good reason... and the ONLY reason that could possible even closely compare to the PR disaster is that he looked around, found the best guy for the job, and decided (in the case of both Emerson and Fourtier) that having the right, competent guy running the file and working for the good of Canada was more important than the bad press.

if thats the case... which I kinda think it was cause no politician is THAT stupid... then Harpers cabinet appointments is the guttsiest political move I've seen.... EVER!

time will till but I think we finally have a PM who thinks that getting the job done right is more important that a short term PR hit...

hats off to Harper... my respect for him has increased imensely...

Posted by: Sierra at February 6, 2006 10:58 PM

---

The difference between Belinda and Emerson is that Belinda left after sometime in opposition and did not like what she saw and heard anymore. Emerson left after promising to be Harper's worst nightmare. Belinda said "it's not where you sit but rather where you stand". Emerson is quite clearly the opposite, it's not where you stand its where you sit. Tories can try to justify his move - the fact is it flies in the face of all the party believes in including "elected" Senator Fortier.

Posted by: Jamie at February 6, 2006 11:08 PM

---

TO the writer of an earlier post "Harper had a life outside politics" - what??? Harper has spent his entire, brief professional life, with the exception of a brief teaching post, as a political hack, either elected, as an assistant, or as the head of a right wing lobby group.

Some others, including Emerson and, yes, Martin, actually helped build significant businesses outside of government and only came to government to serve when they clearly did not have any financial need to do so.

Posted by: canadian at February 6, 2006 11:10 PM

---

Settle down with all the rhetoric. Some of you people are starting to sound like old spinning dithers spewing THE END IS NIGH!.
We may not like the fact that Emerson crossed the floor but that was HIS choice. Yes his constituency didn't vote for the CPC but I believe they also didn't vote just for the Liberals. They voted for HIM. Also go easy on PMSH. He offered the job to someone he believed the Canada and the government needed, an experienced non-partisian public servent. Not a "liberal scum-bag". SHEESH.
As to Forniers apointment, let's pretend that Stephen Harper somehow managed to unite the right and in the space of two years go from being "unelectable" to the 22nd Prime Minister. All the while facing critisms from the MSM and painted with the DEMON brush by good old Blind Side Paulie". I think he is a visionary. He has a long term view for the future of Canada. We mere mortals don't have all the information so lets show hime a little trust. I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until proven otherwise.

Posted by: hlyrad at February 6, 2006 11:23 PM

---

I have good news and I have bad news which do you want first?

Always a good idea to take the bad news first that way you walk away with the good news being the last thing you heard. Thus feeling good.

As much as I am disgusted about Emerson and disappointed by the Fortier Quebec pandering once again. You've got to admit it is smart politicing.

Harper was doomed to defeat in a very short time flash backs of Joe Who especially with his supposedly very very right wing hidden agenda.

Me thinks Martin was just waiting in the wings and letting Harper think he had a free pass untill the Libs held a leadership race but the Libs would move sooner rather than later to make the govt fall and Martin would be right there to step back into the role of Liberal leader in the next election. The numbers weren't good for Harper alot worse than MSM and people were led to believe IMHO.

Martin is a Megalomaniac and will always be one he didn't change his stripes just because he lost if anything getting 103 seats after all of the scandal and corruption just confirmed in his mind his devine right to rule.

Now at least Harper has time to prove that the proof is in the pudding. The softwood Lumber thing is already a fait accompli and will justify Emerson's Whoring ways which will convince many that the end justify's the means.

Fortier's appointment to Public works confirms in my mind the future completion of the Lower North Shore road finally putting in place the frame work to drive the final spike in Canada's national highway system with Newfounldand and Labrador becoming united with Canada once and for all with a fixed link. Also the completion of the Trans Labrador Highway will entice more Canadians to pass through Quebec either to go to NL or just do round trip tourism through Quebec and Newfoundland and LABRADOR. Enticing more Canadaians to visit and tour Quebec will further bond this great country of ours!

Posted by: NL Expatriate at February 6, 2006 11:27 PM

---

Wasn't Reform about being less partisan? Why not let the MP speak for his riding? From first reports it appears that Emerson is still a card carrying Liberal (albeit, prefixed by a small "c"). For my part he can stay a Liberal and still sit in Harper's cabinet. But we're counting on him to do a good job for his riding and for Canada.

Posted by: Walter at February 6, 2006 11:37 PM

---

These damn politicians! I already took Angry off my Shortcut list and was ready to get on with my life! Now Harper has me glued right back to the site. Emerson is a power hungry guy who threatened to walk if he didn't get a cabinet position in the new government(apparently, he didn't care which party WAS the government). The only reason he became a Liebral in the first place was he thought they would never lose. A local pundit said that E didn't show up for an all candidates forum because he was scared of what may have come out of it. If you look carefully at the ads run during the election it is obvious how insincere and listless he was. As for his skills on the softwood lumber problem, that is all BS. John Duncan from Vancouver Island North was light years ahead of him and could have been taken on in the role of envoy or special advisor even though he lost. For me the jury is out. E will have to earn his spurs.

As for timing, a better time to do this type of thing could not be chosen. If E is as good as he thinks he is, this will all be forgotten- who remembers "beer and popcorn"?

Posted by: at February 7, 2006 12:01 AM

---

What a relief to see Sierra and Hlyrad and Walter offer some balance to an unwarranted attack on *real* politics. Real often looks very crass, but those who elected Emerson don't really care where he sits.

The elected him to do a job for his riding. He had the guts to march over and grab an important seat. He is working for their and our benefit.

Harper knows about Emerson small *c* and has observed him closely. They work in the same bull pen. I trust Harper's evaluation of Emerson*s loyalty to Canada.

If Emerson delivers, he will be voted in again to continue the good work. Blue or Red, who cares, Just deliver the goods. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 7, 2006 01:43 AM

---

David Emerson is the new minister of international trade. Our most pressing international trade issue is currently softwood lumber exports to the U.S. Until a couple of years ago Emerson was president and CEO of the 2nd largest lumber company in the world. Pop a pill and do the math. We can resume the usual shrieking pious indignation once the next election campaign begins.

I'm sure all the Liberals and liberals and Vancouver Kingsway voters out there can rest assured that PMSH will let Minister Emerson vote with his conscience on gay marriage, unlike the previous administration. So they needn't fear losing a voter on an important issue like SSM, just so the government can better deal with something as trivial as international trade.

Posted by: Randy Buck at February 7, 2006 03:34 AM

---

Three cruise ships are about to depart Halifax, NS on an around the world cruise.

The respective Captains of these ships are David Emerson, Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison.

Which of these three Captains’ should you trust to get you back home safely?

Neither, all three have previously deserted what they have concluded are sinking

ships, what guarantee do you have they won’t do it again.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 7, 2006 06:49 AM

---

The disgust and disbelief that washed over me when I became aware of the two surprise appointments that Mr. Harper has made to his Cabinet has just about left me speechless.

Great job Mr. Prime Minister, your first day in office and your actions have clearly demonstrated that your public displays of indignation and outrage when Ms. Stronach crossed the floor to sit as a Liberal was one big farce.

Your appointment of Mr. Emerson and Mr. Fortier to your Cabinet has proven that voter apathy and cynicism toward politicians in this country is obviously justified, regardless of whichever party is in power.

I had high expectations that you and your new government would not show the same degree of contempt for the voting public as the previous administration.

Oh well, your not the first politician that has not lived up our expectations, and I’ll bet my shirt you wont be the last. Unfortunately.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 7, 2006 06:51 AM

---

Steve:

I know a really great chiropractor if you've hurt your back doing all those contortions and bending over backwards to support Harper on this.

And here I was thinking Conservatives were so rigid, when they are the most flexible among us.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 7, 2006 08:45 AM

---

Randy Buck; well said.

I suspect Vancouver voters may be more interested in legalizing green stuff, which is why it went red and orange. Could be why none of them give a damn about Softwood or the Olympics.

Posted by: Cheri at February 7, 2006 11:37 AM

---

Belinda's crossing was a special act of betrayal. She crossed at the 11th hour, to save a corrupt government, and to enrich herself with a cabinet post. A benefit she may never had achieved if she stayed with the Conservative party.

This is different from Emerson, who is crossing at a time, when the government isnt in danger, and will be working on issues that he's already very familiar with.

As far as the free votes on controversial social issues, do we know what his stance on anything really is? I haven't heard anything.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 12:00 PM

---

Bottom Line.....PMS Harper has a perverse way of displaying accountability and ethics.

Nothing better for job security than to have a bunch of seething clapping seals staring directly at your back.

Keep it up Stevie, Liberaland is just around the corner.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 7, 2006 12:50 PM

---

Man, the rhetoric that has been spilled here. The Libreals are indignant that someone could cross from their party when they stole 3 members in the last few years. Conservatives know the hurt of someone crossing the floor since we have been kicked in the teeth a few times, Belinda being the most glaring. That said, Belinda never fit in even with some of the Red Tories and I never could figure out why she was a Conservative supporter.

Emerson's crossing however is not the usual. One, Harper recruited the guy. He did this knowing the flak he was going to take, and he did this knowing that it would be a bolt out of the blue to Emerson. We know the "reasons" on paper it was done, and Harper's thoughts on the subject mean little to those who think this is the worst assault on Conservative princples and democracy.

I can say I am not happy with Stephen Harper. I do not like floor crossing, and I was hoping the Conservatives would bring in a bill to put some rules on it, but on sober second thought, I don't think you can regulate rules for people to represent their party and riding as they see fit. They have to be re-elected. Since there is likely to be an election in the next year to two years, Emerson will have to stand before his riding and get re-elected. He will have every leftie on the left coast gunning for him. He is taking one hell of a risk for 2 years maybe of governance. Harper is taking a huge PR hit from not just those who didn't like him, but those who supported him. I personally am not amused by Harper's change of heart, but I get some joy in watching the Libreal's twist themselves into pretzels trying to find a reason to say this is bad other than "you said you wouldn't do it".

I am left with the thought that whatever makes my enemy mad, can't be a bad thing. I am also left with the thought that Stephen Harper has 2 things. One is BALLS. He knew he was going to take a PR pounding, and did what he did because the thought it was justified for the country. He didn't do it to get Conservatives a good PR boost on the first day. The second thing is that Stephen Harper is unconventional. No one 3 years ago when he was elected to the leadership of the Alliiance would have seen him as PM of a united Conservative Party. Never underestimate him. He did what he did for a reason, and it wasn't to make himself look good on a cheap PR boost on the first day. That says to me that results matter above anything else, and unlike Paul Martin, he doesn't check the polls 15 times before he takes a shower. I may not like what he did, I think the people in Vancouver who thought they were getting an Libreal MP may be pissed, but if the country is farther ahead 2 years from now because of something Emerson did that no one else could have, then maybe all of this was justified.

I will just watch closely. Mr. Harper, we thought you were different. IN some ways you are...in some ways, same old, same old.

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at February 7, 2006 01:36 PM

---

I have to agree with you Mark.

I think placing restrictions on floor crossing would be a bad idea. Although it sounds good, especially after the Belinda stunt. One wonders what it would do to the democratic will of MPs. The party leaders and whips would have more power. I think we should do everything we rationally can, to reduce the concentration of power in Canada. Too much resides with too few, having a few people switching parties once in a while, although upsetting at times, is probably a good thing for democracy in the long run.

Posted by: Curtis at February 7, 2006 03:17 PM

---

100 + comments & everyone is going in circles.
Get over it
If everyone here can make better decisions than the current government than by all means you should all run for office.

Posted by: banjotom at February 7, 2006 04:30 PM

---

Why bother running for office? Just raise a bunch of loot for Harper and he'll let you pick your portfolio - no election required!

Posted by: jimbo at February 8, 2006 01:45 AM

---

Hey jimbo, I have $1000, can I appoint someone?
I PROMISE they will run in an election...somewhere...sometime....
Please?

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 12:40 AM

---

Sorry, my guy is a little busy for this election crap? How about $10,000?

Posted by: Lew at February 9, 2006 12:42 AM

---

What about the voters? They elected a liberal and found out that their vote means nothing, Harper, by his actions has shown that he cares not what the riding wanted and has thumbed his nose at the voters. Emmerson should resign and try to get re-elected under the conservative banner. This truly has been a sad day for democracy. The peoples will means nothing!

Posted by: Rod at February 10, 2006 02:36 PM

---