Good article. Right on.
I've wondered all along why the NDP were pushing this byelection issue when they had a member leave their caucus and sit as an Independant. Besides she used the NDP name and money to get elected. Should have held a byelection. Same for Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison. We'd have byelections every month, if we did this.

Posted by: Ruth at February 11, 2006 11:33 AM

---

I'm embarrassed to admit how much I admired reading Garth's blog as he ran for election...

Only to find out he truly is a shameless self-promoter who puts himself and his so called standards above all!!!

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at February 11, 2006 12:02 PM

---

Great Post, Garth Turner tells us he is a man of principal and that this comes above all else for him, I would imagine, that is, until it affects him personally.

Like a lot of other people who take that Moral High Road

---

Posted by: Platty at February 11, 2006 12:02 PM

---

So... basically you've been vigorously defending Emerson's change of colours when the end beneficiary is the Conservative caucus.

But now that the caucus stands to lose someone who is ashamed and embarrassed that the Party leader has abandoned every one of the core planks in the Conservative campaign, so embarrassed in fact that he's seriously thinking the Party doesn't matter if he can more effectively represent his constituents while wearing different stripes -- suddenly it's all wrong.

Again.

Get well soon -- I imagine it must be terribly difficult to work a keyboard while wearing a whiplash collar.

Posted by: No-Tory-Us at February 11, 2006 12:17 PM

---

You can't sit in the Conservative caucus and still be the leader of the Garth Turner Party.

Posted by: DM at February 11, 2006 12:19 PM

---

Uhh, No-Tory-Us, all Steve wants is Turner to live by the same principles he demands Harper and Emerson to live by.

Put away the strawman for a moment and think rationally, shall we? It's exactly the same situation, only in reverse.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at February 11, 2006 12:29 PM

---

Caveat Investor
John Lawrence Reynolds
Friday, October 25, 2002

...Stan Buell, president of the Small Investors Protection Association, recalls one seminar he attended just before the current bear market struck. "The core of the presentation was to use the equity in your home," Buell says, "to borrow money on it and invest in the market. A lot of the people attending this seminar were older people. I'm sure many of them would have invested that way, and many of them would have lost a substantial part of their equity."

The lead speaker at the seminar was Garth Turner.

Criticism of his work ignites a fire in Garth Turner's eyes. People don't understand what financial commentators are trying to do, he suggests.

"It's so easy to sit on the sidelines and take a shot at the guy on the stage." We are seated in a small office near Turner's Bay Street TV production studio. "And you guys [the media] do it so well. I'm not complaining for myself. I've got a thick skin. I proved that in Ottawa." ...

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.WireFeedRedirect?cf=GlobeInvestor/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20021025&archive=gam&slug=RO11GURU

Posted by: JM at February 11, 2006 12:33 PM

---

"abandoned every one of the core planks in the Conservative campaign"

Oh, so he's not going to implement the Federal Accountability Act?
He's not going to cut the GST?
He's not going ahead with the childcare allowance?

Oh, wait, you've really got nothing on Harper. With the Libs struggling to even find someone willing to lead their failing debt-riddled party, you're just willing to just make things up. Liberal values, people, liberal values.

Posted by: Gin-sama at February 11, 2006 12:34 PM

---

And the dumbest comment has to be:

"...the Party leader has abandoned every one of the core planks in the Conservative campaign..."

Oh yeah. I can see how this affects reducing taxes, passing the Federal Accountability Act, cracking down on crime, scrapping the gun registry, and setting up a health care wait time registry.

How you extrapolated all that from a cabinet posting is beyond me.

Posted by: Yukon at February 11, 2006 12:34 PM

---

When Garth was running for the Conservative nomination in Halton, I sent him an email suggesting he step away and let someone with a fresh face and new ideas step up to the plate. I knew at that time that Brent Colbert would be the ideal candidate and could easily defeat Carr.
After this past week I see that I was right all along, Garth is not a team player, just another "ME" type of guy...

Posted by: dorionhawk at February 11, 2006 12:37 PM

---

Steven Harper’s communications directory has narrow this whole fiasco of putting a floor crosser and an unelected Senator in the Tory Cabinet down to what is ailing politics in this country.
Commenting on MP Garth Turner’s public spat over these appointments he said of Mr. Turner, “ he should not expect to be part of the team if he doesn’t play the political game”.
There we have it in a nut shell, forget the platform you ran under, forget the fact that the vast number of Canadians that voted Conservative in the recent election did so thinking that finally they would see an end to this kind of sleaze and forget the promise of giving individual MP’s more power to influence events on Parliament Hill.
We now know from the treatment dished out to Mr. Turner that Mr. Harper will not tolerate dissent; does this revelation really surprise anyone?
I count three election promises that have been broken since this story hit the streets, which cornerstone of the Tory election platform will we see sacrificed next, in the name of political expediency?
In closing, where is Monte Solberg, James Rajotte, John Williams and numerous other Conservative MP’s that went ballistic when those terrible Liberals (and they were terrible) did the same dastardly deeds.
The old saying, power corrupts has become prophetic, but hell it should take more that three weeks to corrupt all the recently elected Tory MP’s except one.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 01:13 PM

---

Those are very similar to my previous houghts:

http://potentpew.blogspot.com/2006/02/debating-david-emerson-defection-and.html

Posted by: Jonathan at February 11, 2006 01:17 PM

---

You have to be joking - comparing Garth to Emerson.

Garth received 500 emails in one hour, 1 million visitors in one day - who knows how many phone calls. Do you think people in his riding will be signing petitions against him? Do you think people in his riding will be doing a sit-in at his riding?

In less than one week, PM Harper has divided his own party, has acted within the rules which allow him to lead like a Liberal, clearly state that anyone who doesn't see how brilliant he is must be 'superficial', has sidelined long time & hard working member - Albonzy and others, has hidden from the media as if the worst scandal has happened, refuses to reply to Conservative members who email him (during the election I received emails from Harper but not now.)

Furthermore, Harper could have had a truly brilliant week - simply by not appointing these 2 people in the first place. WHY NOW - WHY PAY THE PRICE? Is our Conservative party so poorly equipped with unskilled people that Mr. Emerson is completely necessary for Canada's future as some blogs worded it.

People: We have real battles ahead - it makes no sense for Harper to be dividing the party now. No one else is to be blamed but the brain trust around Harper. Unless you think Harper is right and the other 50,000+ people (half+ the party) in the party are just the dumb public.

The only argument I have heard so far is to wait to see what happens. Sounds like the Liberals - wait for Gomery to start, wait for the report, wait for the 2nd report. Everyone knows you are using the waiting argument when you have little positive to say to support your argument and are hoping like hell that enough time passes so people forget.

Thanks to the Conservative blogs who have adopted the Liberal approach to all problems for the past 12 years - just wait and you will see the benefits.

Visit link to hold Conservatives accountable

Posted by: Gary McHale at February 11, 2006 01:17 PM

---

Since the Emerson, Fortier affairs, I can see there really is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives are now frothing at the mouth to defend the indefensible and are personally smearing anyone who disagrees with them, and the Prime Minister is personally muzzling his MP's. How Liberal can you get? What happened to standing up for what you believe in? What happened to democracy? I voted for change, but never again.

Posted by: chattyida at February 11, 2006 01:20 PM

---

Can everyone please leave out "moral high ground', or "principles"( not principals}from this discussion of the used car salesmen in Ottawa who give the rest of that honourable profession a bad name? I am a (thrifty, frugal,budget conscious, cheap) taxpayer who does NOT want to see a flood of byelections, at a cost of about a million bucks per. That's a lot of money to an average clod like me. Let Emerson and Turner stay whereever they land. Once the House is in session, draft some rules on "crossing the floor", (not to be confused with cross dressing, which is probably an honorable act done by principled persons who occupy the moral high ground.} A workable rule might be a waiting period(6 months?) after an election.

Posted by: dmorris at February 11, 2006 01:24 PM

---

Love reading some of the rants pasting Garth Turner...we all know that when you start attacking the messenger and resorting to the old rationalization arguement that the other side has won the day.
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 01:28 PM

---

I wont attack the messenger other than to say Garth Turner I think is pissed he wasn't offered a Cabinet post himself. He was in Mulroney's cabinet but Harper didn't even give him a look. I personally think Garth would be VERY happy with this Emerson appointment if he too was on the gravy train.

That said, I was very on the fence about Emerson. The partisan in me loves the fact the Libreals have it happen to them, but the princpled Reformer in me dislikes floor crossing. I think if this is the worst thing Harper does, it will blow over. We don't like it, it is wrong, it makes little sense in light of the quality of people out of cabinet, BUT..and it is a big but; Stephen Harper we have learned does not rule or lead by looking at polls, or doing what is commonly held up as the popular decision. Sometimes he bends to be more socially acceptable, but basically we have a guy who leads by his gut instincts. His Gut told him to take Emerson and take the heat for it. I would rather have a leader that does what he thinks is best, than a guy who has 56 "priorities" to suit whatever is in the headlines.

Emerson should sit in a byelection, maybe at another seat in BC if it comes open.....because I think he committed political suicide in that riding he is in now....

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at February 11, 2006 01:44 PM

---

Guardsman you are a butcher of facts. When you state that you are quoting a speaker please quote accurately (see his 1:13pm).

The quote from the communications advisor was:
"In this government there's got to be a certain amount of team playing," Stairs said. "You know you're on a team or you're out saying what you want to say."

This weakens your argument because the advisor actually suggested that there is room for independent thinking but there must be a willingness to work as group member.

The quote you attributed to him came from the words and opinion of the journalist. Here is the story in full.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/02/11/1436759-sun.html

Posted by: Definitely Maybe at February 11, 2006 01:54 PM

---

William Stairs, Harper's director of communication, said Turner shouldn't expect to be a part of the team if he doesn't play the political game.

Right from a column by Stephanie Rubic, Parliamentary Bureau for the Sun newspaper chain...contact her and make that accusation,"butcher of facts".
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 02:02 PM

---

We use the charter for everything in this country. Where does Freedom of Expression come into play here. Should Emerson be free to change his politics and cross the floor.

Posted by: RJM at February 11, 2006 02:02 PM

---

Personally I support Harper and his appointments and Turner when he spoke up on the same principle. For too long we have been judging our PM & MPs by the Liberal rules. No other party but Liberal and no dissent in the Liberal ranks. It has led to what is so evident a democratic deficit of stupenous proportions. The PM must be able to pick for his cabinet the best person for the job. There are too many factors that make up that determination to begin to list. Suffice it to say that so long as Emmerson and Fortier are called to the cabinet because they are qualified and not because they will vote to forstall the fall of the government then they are welcome into any cabinet that forms executive government in Canada. Garth Turner is also welcome to express his views as an elected MP. That is what democracy and freedom of speech is all about. It is refreshing to hear people on the government side ctriticise the government instead of the the trained seal approach that the Liberals have perfected so well that the average Canadian thinks that is the way all party members should behave. However it is funny to see the contadictory position that Turner has placed himself in by upholding principles that could never work in a true representaive democracy. The invention of political parties came after the invention of Parliament and must always play a subservient role if democracy is to thrive in the parliamentary system.

Posted by: Joe at February 11, 2006 02:13 PM

---

The conservatives need to pass the bill outlining the new rules for crossing the floor or leaving a party as soon as possible. In the mean time,legally, the old rules apply. Morally, the conservatives need to address not just optics, but the morals of saying one thing, and doing another. The Liberal Constituency needs to be paid back its hundred grand. You don't take other people's money under fraudulant pretensions; in retrospect, at least, that is the people's perception out there, and perception is everything in politics.
A by-election date for Emerson needs to be set a year from now, with the announcement made by him presently. otherwise the courts will keep this issue dragging on and on.

Posted by: brock at February 11, 2006 02:14 PM

---

It scares me how much you and I think alike. Garth is a sore loser for not getting a cabinet post. He is a cry baby. And yes it would be dripping with irony if he partially crossed the floor to sit as an independent only two weeks after the people of Halton elected him as a Conservative. Garth is a loser.

Posted by: ferrethouse at February 11, 2006 02:28 PM

---

The National
Your Turn with the party leaders
Stephen Harper, Conservative Party
Jan. 19, 2006
Peter Mansbridge: Next question is coming from a city you're very familiar with, from Calgary.

Colleen Belisle: Hello, my name is Colleen Belisle and I have a question for Stephen Harper regarding the accountability issue. In the past 18 months, I have noticed a number of MPs crossing the floor after the election. This makes me wonder why I should, as a voter, go and vote when my MP can change parties after the election. Mr. Harper, are there any policies that you plan to enforce after the election regarding this issue? Thank you.

Stephen Harper: My short answer is no. And I understand the voters' frustration. You can imagine I feel that frustration as much as anyone. I was the victim of a number of the particular incidents that the voter is referring to, that Colleen's referring to, but the difficulty, Peter – I know that many members of Parliament have put forward various proposals that would restrict the right of MPs to cross the floor, force elections, or whatever. I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that it would create anything other than a situation where party leaders have even more power over the individual members of Parliament. And, as you know, I've said that, of course, I've said that for a long time that I think our members of Parliament need more authority, need to be able to represent their constituents' views, and they may make very bad decisions in crossing from a good party to a bad party or, more particularly, a winning party to a losing party. But that all said, I haven't seen one yet that I'm convinced creates a bigger problem than it's actually trying to fix.

Peter Mansbridge: Do you think voters are as uncomfortable as Ms. Belisle points out when these kinds of things happen? Because if they are, one assumes that they are looking for direction from their political leaders to prevent this from happening. As you pointed out, some parties, the NDP has said it would force an immediate election. Do you think something has to be done?

Stephen Harper: Let me give a concrete example of an alternative situation. The Conservative Party of Canada, the new Conservative Party was created because people left actually no less than three separate old caucuses, two old parties, and joined with a new party, and I think there is widespread consensus among not just members of the old parties, but members of the public as well that this was a good thing to create a stronger opposition, to end the fragmentation of the conservative movement in the country.

Now, you know, this kind of law could have forced us into a situation where we were having 75 byelections. So, you know, that's a problem with any of these proposals. We understand, I understand why people want them, and, believe me, there's a couple of cases that have happened where I'd love to have a law like this, but there's also a lot of downsides when you think it through. As I say, in a practical matter, I could see how party leaders could really abuse that particular provision to make it even more difficult for members who may disagree legitimately with their party to operate within the party.

Posted by: Sharon at February 11, 2006 02:44 PM

---

"Commenting on MP Garth Turner’s public spat over these appointments he said of Mr. Turner, “ he should not expect to be part of the team if he doesn’t play the political game”."

Please indicate when he made these comments, and the source.

"I count three election promises that have been broken since this story hit the streets, which cornerstone of the Tory election platform will we see sacrificed next, in the name of political expediency?"

Please specify which three promises they broke.

Posted by: IronLady at February 11, 2006 02:46 PM

---

Garth speaking out is clearly not being a team player, but really, I don't see the similarity between sitting as an independent who votes with the Tories (which I am betting Turner would do) and crossing the floor.

Besides, if Turner ran again as an indpendenet, fifty bucks says he'd win.

Posted by: ALW at February 11, 2006 02:50 PM

---

The hypocracy I've seen from the person who runs this blog is laughable. I do not believe that becoming an idependant is "crossing the floor". I hope that the next year and a half of conservative government continues as it had started. It will be satisfying to have them wiped off the map again.

I love how "conservatives" always use terms like morals. It's ambiguous enough so that each person can take their own meaning from it, but has built in connotations that people fall for when they want change. There is no such thing as a moral character in politics.

Posted by: Fred at February 11, 2006 02:53 PM

---

Guardsman:

"Commenting on MP Garth Turner’s public spat over these appointments he said of Mr. Turner, “ he should not expect to be part of the team if he doesn’t play the political game”."

Please indicate when he made these comments, and provide the source.

"I count three election promises that have been broken since this story hit the streets, which cornerstone of the Tory election platform will we see sacrificed next, in the name of political expediency?"

Please specify which three promises they broke.

"promise of giving individual MP’s more power to influence events on Parliament Hill.
We now know from the treatment dished out to Mr. Turner that Mr. Harper will not tolerate dissent; does this revelation really surprise anyone?"

Oh please. Has anyone shut GT up? Has anyone shut down his blog? Sounds like freedom to me.

The only problem I have with GH is his blog whining. How many individuals do you know would openly discuss disagreements they have with their boss in public? How many bosses do you know would put up with it? If SH has a problem with GT discussing in public what should be discussed privately, I can't say I blame him.

I don't have a problem with GH stating he believes in by-election of floor-crossers; I do have a problem with his saying that the appointment violated the party's platform. It's not in the platform, SH doesn't agree with by-elections (as he stated during campaign). Senate reform has to be in place first before it can be implemented. So if anyone is being dishonest here, it's GH himself.

Posted by: IronLady at February 11, 2006 02:56 PM

---

Originally posted by Yukon Gold: "Uhh, No-Tory-Us, all Steve wants is Turner to live by the same principles he demands Harper and Emerson to live by."

Were those the prinicples that said he wouldn't appoint an unelected Senator, or the ones that had him say that the conservatives were against people crossing the floor to get cabinet positions?

You and your ilk are a joke.

Posted by: Fred at February 11, 2006 02:57 PM

---

Ah Fred. FYI Going from Governing party to independant is exactly "crossing the floor" Since the term came from the practice of seating Government on one side of the house and non government on the other side of the house with the "floor" between them. Going from government to opposition or oppostion to government means that the involved MP is "crossing the floor"

Posted by: Joe at February 11, 2006 02:59 PM

---

Originally posted by Joe: "Ah Fred. FYI Going from Governing party to independant is exactly "crossing the floor" Since the term came from the practice of seating Government on one side of the house and non government on the other side of the house with the "floor" between them. Going from government to opposition or oppostion to government means that the involved MP is "crossing the floor"

Yo genius. You awake? Becoming an independent is not joining the opposition.

Posted by: at February 11, 2006 03:01 PM

---

If a person in an independant then he is not part of the government ergo he is in opposition. And thanks for the genious compliment it means a lot coming from one with such outstanding credentials as yourself.

Posted by: Joe at February 11, 2006 03:05 PM

---

Originally posted by Joe: "If a person in an independant then he is not part of the government ergo he is in opposition. And thanks for the genious compliment it means a lot coming from one with such outstanding credentials as yourself."

There is only one official opposition moron. You should actually learn this stuff before you speak. Crossing the floor would entail joining another party, usually the party in "opposition".

Posted by: Fred at February 11, 2006 03:08 PM

---

Right on Steve. Garth is just a big bundle of contradictions.

Posted by: Peter at February 11, 2006 03:15 PM

---

Sorry Fred I again will take the time to explain to you that in this parliment the opposition consists of Liberal, NDP, Bloc and one independent. There is one leader of the loyal opposition the leader of the party that ran second to the governing party, but all MPs not part of the governing party are opposition MPs.

Posted by: Joe at February 11, 2006 03:15 PM

---

Thank you Steve for this post. I watched closely with awe as Garth, seemingly by sheer force of will, knocked off a relatively well-liked Liberal incumbent despite a media-driven frenzy in the Toronto area to block Harper from power. In just a week, he has blown all the goodwill he has earned, and has committed political suicide. I loved the guy, right up until he stepped into every TV studio he could find on Thursday to throw his own party under the bus. Then he goes and threatens to quit! He's acting like a petulant little loser. My guess is he will leave the party, but only after another week or two of his colleagues treating him like a coughing third-world chicken.

To the poster who said he would get re-elected as an independent - nothing could be further from the truth. No chance, no way, no how. No one wants an independent as their MP (unless it's Andre Arthur, and people actually like him). Gary Carr would get his seat back in a second in a by-election.

Posted by: NCF TO at February 11, 2006 03:23 PM

---

To all of you out there that are in a snit, no matter what side of the fence you're on I would like to propose to you that you are witnessing an event that could put Stephen Harper right up alongside Boris Karpov. In the interview before the election with Peter Mansbridge Harper stated that he was not happy with elected members that crossed the floor, he made no bones about it. He also said that it would be difficult to change the process because it has been happening for so long. So Stephen gets elected and convinces Emerson to cross the floor, sparking outrage within the Canadian electorate, MSM, and some elected members in the Commons. Absolute furor from the MSM. Enter Garth Turner, supposedly smacked down by Stephen for spouting off about the defection. Now we have the foundation for a private members bill from Garth or whoever to bring forward. Placed on the floor of the Commons, Harper has the opportunity to deal with floor crossers early in his term. In the present climate no party would dare to vote against it, result the Bill passes. Stephen Harper and the CPC government have dealt with their first political crisis and are lauded for bringing in a piece of much needed legislation.

In a blog on another site someone said that Stephen Harper is no Blair, Reagan or Thatcher. Since he is relatively new to politics on the international scene perhaps time will prove that the aforementioned may pale in comparison to Stephen Harper.

Posted by: Antenor at February 11, 2006 03:36 PM

---

My name is Steven Harper

I’m the leader of this land

The people just elected me

Because they thought I was a principled man

In just one day I proved them wrong

By suddenly changing course

What we said in Opposition was just a joke of course

So all you whiners go away

Were now upon the throne

By adding Emerson and Fortier to our caucus

We’ve created a national groan

Did you really think we’d keep our word?

Now that power is in our grasp

So all you gullible voters bow down and kiss our ass

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 03:52 PM

---

One's view on the floor crossing thing depends on one's view of parliament.if you view MP's in the traditional parliamentary sense,that is we vote for the person, and that they represent their constituents , then floor crossing is not a monumental event.if you think of then as a bunch of trained seals or 'nobodies' then it is a big event.the fact that stronach, brison ,& emerson crossed the floor isn't anything outrageous in the parliamentary tradition(Churchill not only ratted he re-ratted)What's outrageous is Martin's rejection of parliamentary tradition in avoiding an immediate nonconfidence vote.people should more clear about the object of their ire.it is not MPs crossing of the floor , it is the abuse of traditions which work in our parliament like the explicit laws work in the US.Canadian politicians(Paul Martin)who behave like US politicians(without their restrictions)ruin our faith in our government.If you are pissed off with emerson stronach et al you are seeing the symptoms not the disease.

Posted by: mostly harmless at February 11, 2006 04:45 PM

---

come on, you can't have it both ways. on one hand you're happy Emerson changed party, the heck with the fact that he was elected as a liberal and on the other hand you're against it if Turner wants to sit as an independent because he was elected as a conservative. stop playing both ends.

Posted by: marcel at February 11, 2006 05:17 PM

---

It does seem unusual that a member of a party would criticize the leader in a public forum on his bloq.

It's interesting what "Mostly Harmless" said about traditional parliament being that we vote for the man and if the man we vote for figures he can better represent us, we encourage him. Sounds like that's what Emerson felt he could do.

Posted by: Pat at February 11, 2006 05:35 PM

---

I found out what the problem with Garth is - check out the bottom of his blog - it say's:
"Copyright © Hon. Garth Turner, P.C., M.P. - Member of Parliament for Halton, Ontario"

Notice it says P.C not Conservative - Garth still thinks he is in the Mulroney/Cambell Government.

Or did he fool us all and is a Progressive Canadian plant?

Posted by: pale at February 11, 2006 06:00 PM

---

I recall watching an Apprentice episode last season when Trump commented on the importance of loyalty. Any guesses what Garth's fate would have been?

(re: Emerson) Harper has been consistent, clearly stating that he doesn't support legislation preventing MPs from crossing the floor. Also, see Sharon's comment above @ 02:44 PM

(re: Fortier) Existing rules are the rules for Liberals or Conservatives, at least until Conservatives are given the chance to address Senate reform. Senate reform should not receive much resistance from the opposition parties now after their outbursts.

Posted by: anonymous at February 11, 2006 06:03 PM

---

Conservatives seem to have forgotten that motives and purpose matter most. Harper has no bad motives in his recruitment of Emerson. He's getting an experienced businessman, a governmental presence in a major city (good for the next election), and an opportunity to connect his government to the forthcoming Olympics (reducing the inevitable Conservative Party vs. The Canadian Olympics story that eventually would have been played out in the MSM.) Over the long run, its great politics. At least it would be if people in the party just would realize it and get in line.

This is an opportunity for good Conservative government not a display of corruption (ala Belinda.)

Posted by: Pat at February 11, 2006 06:18 PM

---

Poor Fred. First he loses the election, and now he loses all sense of reality.

I'll spell it out so even you can understand it:

Garth is ticked because a person elected as a Liberal snagged a cabinet post. Garth is thinking of sitting as an independant.

Emerson > Liberal > Conservative

Turner > Conservative > Independant

You see the connection? Still not? Okay. If Emerson has to face the voters, then so should Turner.

My "ilk" gets it. How about you, Freddy? Got it now?

Posted by: Yukon Gold at February 11, 2006 06:48 PM

---

Perhaps Tory Garth Turner should cross the floor and join the corrupt Liebral party, if he could stoop that low (He would be better going independment rather than boarding a sinking ship)

Some Liebrals suggest that the they have ethics? Strange. When the books are opened and Canadians see how the Liebrals wasted my hard earned tax dollars then only a Liebral can say, "these is our ethics."

One good thing about what has happened through this is that NOW Canadians want Paralament and Senate reform. While the Liebral's were in power this never made it past the last two Liebral Prime Ministers. Now will the Liebrals call for senate reform?

And now the Liebrals see that crossing the floor to another party should not be awarded with a high profile cabinet post - as what Belinda received from the Liebrals.

So in the long run PM Harper has brought these issues to the forefront and Caadians WANT change in the way the government works - even the Liebral Party. PM Harper has done Canada a great service - now thre will probably be change.

*

Posted by: Clown Party of Canada at February 11, 2006 07:08 PM

---

In BC, the Emerson debacle has been deemed by all parties, including conservatives, as further indication of our system's 'contempt for the voter'.

The ‘contempt for the voter’ issue that has surfaced so soon with the election of a ‘different’ government, highlights once again the fact that Canada is a distorted, unrepresentative, partial, democracy created under questionable circumstances in its transition from colony to statehood of sorts.

The divisions of powers between federal and provincial jurisdictions originally set down, have been increasingly eroded by successive statist, centralizing, Federal governments encroaching other jurisdictions, first, by excessive taxation, and then deeming autocratically to return some of this money to provinces in return for diminution of provincial jurisdictions. Inevitably, this insatiable, arrogant, Federal jurisdictional grab has yielded increasing arguments for both Western and Quebec first, alienation, and then separatism. The terms ‘fiscal imbalance’ and ‘democratic deficit’ are very polite terms for describing a distorted undemocratic reality underlying so much of the malaise and waste that defines Canada today.

‘Canadian democracy’ was pieced together under a variety of regional compromises under colonial supervision at a time before the telephone was invented, and has never been modernized as such, though it has been changed by ever increasing undemocratic power by the central state at the expense of the regions.

The system of checks and balances engaged as a result of a revolution against the crown in the US does not exist in Canada. In Canada’s system, promulgated in a colonial-era under the crown, there is no separation between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of governance. There is no election that elects the executive as separate from the legislative. The legislative election is in fact an election of the executive since this executive controls the party.

In Canada’s distorted ‘democracy’, the executive controls the legislature under a fpp system where ‘majority governments’ are consistently elected with a minority of votes. After more than a century of such ‘contempt for the voter’, most voters don’t bother to get on the voter’s list or bother to vote. With half not voting, and a further 10 percent not on the list, ‘majority’ governments elected by 40% of those who vote, ‘represent’ no more than 20% of the Canadian electorate as a whole.

The executive controlling the MP’s, called ‘trained seals’ because they are wholly under executive power, representing 20% of the voters, making another Canadian distorted ‘majority government’, then also has the power to appoint (and hence control) the judicial branch, along with the legislative branch. Just in case the legislative lower house should get it wrong under these circumstances, Canada’s transition from colony to state also came up with an upper house, a ‘chamber of sober second thought’, which nevertheless consists wholly of members appointed by … this same PMO executive branch.

But all this power vested in the executive ruling Canada with 20% of potential voters is not enough. The executive branch also controls all heads of lucrative contract-letting crown corporations, commissions of enquiry into government and PMO wrong-doing, the state media, and everything else of ‘national significance’. Under such a distorted version of what can only be described as a very partial version justifying the term ‘democracy’, it comes as no surprise that such undemocratic conditions have ensured that Canada, for most of its history, has been ruled by a one party state.

‘Contempt for the voter’ under this system is an ingrained part of the historical political culture of Canada. There is no greater ‘contempt for the voter’ than a ‘majority’ government ‘elected’ by 20 percent of the potential electorate. There is no greater ‘contempt of the voter’ than a PM-appointed whole upper chamber. There is no greater ‘contempt for the voter’ than to make the PM’s voter-elected MP’s act like trained seals. There is no greater ‘contempt for the voter’ than to make the majority of elected MP’s irrelevant in the legislature. There is no greater ‘contempt for the voter’ than to give a PM’s autocratically-appointed judiciary the power to govern over and above the elected legislative branch. There is no greater ‘contempt for the voter’ than a regionally skewed system where a vote cast in the Maritimes is worth twice a vote cast in the West. ‘Contempt for the voter’ is part and parcel of this Canadian governance system of largely cosmetic version of ‘democracy’ by modern standards today.

Inevitably, under such systemic, undemocratic, and distorted conditions, ‘the Canada project’ remains in doubt, because only a genuine modern democracy can bring certainty to such an enterprise. “People get the government they deserve…” “A nation of sheep will be governed by wolves…” A political culture of cynicism and personal political hopelessness has been engendered over a century of such conditions in Canada. The Emerson imbroglio rubs that raw, disempowered, cynical nerve in the Canadian the electorate, such as it exists.

Posted by: brock at February 11, 2006 07:10 PM

---

Simplified. Turner is miffed, stamping feet and spitting at the boss. The boss may have seen this tendency and denied any real position for good reason.

Turner is a work in progress, still growing. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 11, 2006 08:20 PM

---

all I can add is keep the faith

Posted by: kelly at February 11, 2006 08:33 PM

---

Party leaders, particularly of smaller parties, will want to force this issue. With their limited resources, any elected member is more valuable to them.

I still think that any restriction on floor crossing, will give party leaders and party whips even more power to force MPs to vote to the party line. If the goal is to get more independence in MPs, this will have the opposite effect.

Posted by: Curtis at February 11, 2006 08:42 PM

---

There is only one reason why Mr Emerson's act of treachery has caused the furor it has; and that because it was instigated by Mr Harper- a man who portrayed himself as the champion of honesty, integrity and openness and who invited comparison against the base venality and stench of the Liberals. I, for one, believed him and voted for the Conservatives. It was the first time I had voted in a long time, sickened as I was by the deceit, outright lies and fraudulent means utilised by politicians on a rote basis.
All of the hot air about whether or not Mr Emerson acted within the rules is not deserving of consideration. Mr Harper is simply another con-artist. Mr Turner is right; having sold Mr Harper's views to his constituents he has been demeaned and discredited.
The next time I vote - and I will - I will vote for any party other than the Liberals or Conservatives; my small, personal protest. I am frankly repelled by the almost orgiastic display of partisan party politics exhibeted herein - some of it in tone and intent much the same as Liberal ducking, bobbing and weaving.

Posted by: MacGill at February 11, 2006 10:05 PM

---

Good News.
Bad News.

Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at February 11, 2006 10:51 PM

---

Mr. Macgill... you have mirrored what i'm thinking, you just phrase it much beeter than I. Thanks.

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 11:30 PM

---

Steve, hear, hear! This is a brilliant post!

Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at February 11, 2006 11:38 PM

---

MacGill, Guardsman. A con man is someone who lies to attain an unjustified end. Stephen Harper did not lie nor did he do anything even remotely unethical. We have a parliamentary democracy which in order to work has MPs who act according to their concience or their desire to get things done for the nation. Political Parties are late comers on the scene and when they exorcise unfettered power over their members they subvert the power of the people. The idea of parlimentary democracy originated with the premise of all members being independant and equal, all having an equal vote on who would be the leader of the government (PM) who would lead the opposition and who would be in cabinet. After a time blocs began to be formed in parliament and still later these blocs began to work to elect others of the same persuasion. The subversion of parliament is the idea that a duly elected MP was somehow beholden to the party under whose name the MP ran as a candidate. Stephen Harper correctly pointed out the error in making MPs slaves of their party and has since shown that he is indeed a man of his word.

Posted by: Joe at February 11, 2006 11:53 PM

---

Joe Joe Joe.....rationalization my good man is the bane of all evil
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 11, 2006 11:59 PM

---

But they didn't elect an independent in Halton

But how many people voted for Turner because they wanted a change from the Liberal culture of entitlement? How many of those supporting the Emerson crossover believed that the possibly less egregious Stronach crossover was wrong? I suspect that the current supporters of the Emerson crossover are blind to the absolute hypocrisy of their position and that does not make me at all optimistic about our future. People such as Garth Turner are the potential saviours of Canadian parliamentary democracy as envisioned by the British founders.

Joe Anderson

Posted by: joseph anderson at February 12, 2006 12:44 AM

---

Guardsman:

I guess any explanation of political theorey that doesn't support your anti-Conservative mindset is "rationalization".

Also, I think that maybe you don't know what "bane" means.

Steve initially pointed out that if Garth Turner were to apply his standards against floor-crossing across the board, and IF he were to quit the Conservative caucus, then he ought to be willing to submit to a byelection, too. That logic seems quite clear to me.

I haven't seen anything that indicates that Turner is being expelled from the caucus. He claims to have gotten pressure from Harper to publicly support the controversial cabinet appointments, and that he's been made to feel unwelcome in the party. Maybe he has been pressured by Harper, maybe he hasn't. So far, it's just Turner's word. As for being made to feel unwelcome, that's often a matter of perception. Just because someone feels something, doesn't mean it's particularly valid.

As for Emerson's appointment in and of itself... a minority government, by definition, must gain the support of MPs outside the party in order to govern. It makes the most sense to try to work with those MPs whose views are closest to party policy. Who are they supposed to try to work with, the NDP? I believe there were quite a few sitting Liberals who were growing increasingly uncomfortable with the increasingly-leftward tilt their party was taking. So, it makes the most sense to try to woo them, and as a result, Emerson is in the cabinet.

Or is that just another "rationalization"?

Besides, shouldn't you be happy there's an ex-Liberal in cabinet to counter the big, bad righties?

Posted by: idd at February 12, 2006 01:26 AM

---

Guardsman it is truly sad to think that an adult human being wouldn't know the difference between rationalism and rational. I simply pointed out that PMSH is acting according to his own standards, standards he stood by even when it did not serve his party and the standards long established by parliamentary tradition. It is you and your ilk that are rationalizing by thinking that not crossing the floor is somehow ethical. There is no ethics in pretending to support what in truth you no longer support. If MP Garth wants to cross the floor he is more than welcome just as MP Emmerson or Stonach or Brison or Martin or Kilgour or Parrish or Horner or ..... If you truly don't like MPs crossing the floor might I suggest we go to a republican model of government where elected representatives are more free to vote according to concience instead of constantly trying to support the executive branch of government. An election for PM appart from the election of the House of Commons would suit my tastes so long as the people's representatives are free to express and vote according to their personal concience and not the dictates of the party. How much bad legislation has resulted from gaovernment MPs failing to stand up to their party/leader on issues that truly impacted the well being of ordinary Canadians?

Posted by: Joe at February 12, 2006 02:14 AM

---

Guardsman at 3:52 lists clearly one common but simplistic view of a disingenous Harper.

The view is completely off base. Harper is not the unwholsome person you so acidly describe.

Garth is just miffed at not getting his way and decided to sputter out loud about it.

This only shows the wisdom Harper exercised by directing Garth to the backbench for now.

Harper was not taken in by Belinda either. Good thing. I do not think for a minute that she is stupid at all. Only that she is backed by a well financed advisory and very worthy of cautious respect.

This is off topic, but an experiment that may interest many.

For a long-shot fun experiment. I Registered a dot ca website with Canadian Internet Registration Authority. The CIRA, in other words. I have a pitch posted at
http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

This is just a shot in the dark, inspired by other high-position [directory wise] sites I have seen advertised.

10 and Words are two high ranking tags, so what the heck, it*s worth a gamble.
Do you know a dynamo Calgarian who needs a winner website? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 12, 2006 04:33 AM

---

Let's take this "you have to resign" thing one logical step further. If a party campaigns vociferously against wage controls and then turns around and introduces them, as Trudeau did in the seventies, should the entire party not have to resign? After all, people voted against wage controls and then had them imposed on them. Trudeau's whole party figuratively crossed the floor and sat with the Stanfield conservatives.

Or, pick any other meaningless great promise made by Liberals in the last twelve years. Getting rid of the GST? Ripping up the Free Trade Agreement?

Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2006 04:51 AM

---

All of these posts add up to one thing: Canada does not have a healthy democracy, and the 'democratic deficit' must be addressed before Canada can become a modern democratic nation. there are many democratic models around to compare and choose and modify for our particular federal national terms.

Harper's Emerson gambit is a result of this. the reason Harper has no MP's in some major cities is because of the fpp undemocratic electoral system. Only electoral reform will ultimately resolve any of this over the long term.

My hope is that the Conservatives and NDP and some Liberals combine at this unique historical time to push through vital democratic electoral reform. Gordon Gibson's model of a 'citizen's assembly' towards this can easily be applied by all parties to the federal scene. It takes the 'partisan politics' out of the process, and sets a set date.

Posted by: brock at February 12, 2006 07:00 AM

---

PLEASE...... What the damn Liberals did or did not do while they were in power in this country for practically all of the last 70 years has not one thing to do with this whole debate.
You can attack the messenger for pointing out that this was unethical, stupid and irrational, but hell there are just to many of them for that anymore and all indications are that the numbers keep growing.
The arguement that this whole affair is being driven by rhe Liberal dominated MSM just does not cut it folks, unless you consider such publications as the Toronto Sun and practically every major daily in the west, where Mr. Harper's largest support base of being tools of the Liberals or NDP.
I advise all that try to put a rosy look to this whole sordid mess to wake up and smell the coffee, this major snafu by Harper and his advisers has legs and is not going to just fade into the sunset or end up on the cutting room floor .
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 12, 2006 07:17 AM

---

Crossing-the-floor” rules sorta like the Designated Hitter in basesball. Most people have a strong opinion and will never change. Nevertheless, they all enjoy the game. And, once someone becomes a manager, they make the most of the rules to win the game.
Let’s face it, no one loses money, no one is physiclaly injured and the people get a chance to speak at most 4 years later. Most floor crossers get re-elected and legislation to prevent it can’t get traction.
Time to move on.
I'm not a fan of floor crossing. I'd rather see it balanced by recall legislation than outlawing it. MPs need to be able to make decisions and the onus should be on the electorate to reject the decisions.
Recall legislation would allow comments from constituents on any percieved error in judgement or promise not kept (see the wage & price controls above and remember the GST elimination promise in '93)

Posted by: davey at February 12, 2006 08:56 AM

---

In regards to the Emerson thing, Paul Jackson has an angle I've been promoting.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/02/12/1438084.html

here's an excerpt,

Aside from the scandals, there are rumours 10 or 12 Liberal MPs on the party's right may follow B.C. MP David Emerson and cross the floor and join Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives when Parliament reopens.

That would be a shattering event: Harper would gain 10 or 12 new votes, and the Liberals would lose 10 or 12 votes. In reality, that's a difference of 20 or 24 extra votes in the Commons.

Liberals...read it and weep....crossing the floor...ha......get used to it..!!!

Posted by: at February 12, 2006 10:43 AM

---

In regards to the Emerson thing, Paul Jackson has an angle I agree with.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/02/12/1438084.html

here's an excerpt,

Aside from the scandals, there are rumours 10 or 12 Liberal MPs on the party's right may follow B.C. MP David Emerson and cross the floor and join Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives when Parliament reopens.

That would be a shattering event: Harper would gain 10 or 12 new votes, and the Liberals would lose 10 or 12 votes. In reality, that's a difference of 20 or 24 extra votes in the Commons.

Liberals...read it and weep....crossing the floor...ha......get used to it..!!!

Posted by: William Wylie Ajax,Ont. at February 12, 2006 10:44 AM

---

Harper has made 2 illadvised blunders in a row and now continues to down play the fact with petty caucus tyranny which fires up more caucus squabbling...I have to question his judgement and the ethics of those who advise him.

Let's hope these are learning curve pains and not the norm.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at February 12, 2006 10:59 AM

---

He really should step down and run in a by-election if he wants to sit as an independent. And I don't see why he wouldn't. Emerson can't run in a by-election because he'd get clobbered. But I'd imagine Garth would actually IMPROVE his vote total if he stepped down and ran as an independent.

And how embarassing would THAT be for the Tories.

Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at February 12, 2006 11:14 AM

---

I posted in the wrong stream (whoops), but interesting article on Jason Kennedy, who garnished the largest amount of votes for a candidate, but isn't named to Harpers team.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byfield_Ted/2006/02/12/1438081.html

Posted by: tomax at February 12, 2006 11:53 AM

---

Interesting read:

http://www. ottawasun. com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/02/11/1437754.html

...It was weird enough that Emerson was holding a press conference by phone with journalists only a few blocks away, not to mention infuriating for the television networks that would get no video.

‘Stuck in traffic’

But when an operator came on the line after 30 minutes of elevator music, and announced there would be no press conference because Emerson was “stuck in traffic,” disbelieving journalists were left rolling in the aisles...

Posted by: tomax at February 12, 2006 12:57 PM

---

What I find interesting is of the 500 or so responses on his blog, he chose to show only the handful that didn't tell him to shut the fuck up on his website as a sign of voter approval... Nice try Garth.

Posted by: WilliamMacdonell at February 12, 2006 01:53 PM

---

I cant see how anyone is defending these appointments. Everyone knows the reason Harper got elected was because there was an outcry for accountability and honesty. The new minister of defence is an arms lobbiest ? What was it Harper said about limiting lobbiests influence in government? An elected senate has always been a sore issue with the conservatives. Appointing an unelected individual? Accountability ? The corrupt Public works department will be run by an unelected individual who wont even have to answer questions in parliament ? Lets face it, the vast majority of people vote for the party or the leader. If I was a liberal in BC and had worked on Emerson's campaign I'd be furious and demanding our money back. Some say good to do it so soon so people will forget. They underestimate conservative memories, just remember the party after Mulroney. Personally I dont care if Harper gets rid of the GST, I will not forget this.

Posted by: Perkunas at February 12, 2006 02:20 PM

---

Guardsman, you are what is known as a *Rigid Liberal*. Unbending in face of all logic and I guess that is a sort of loyalty.

Why are we talking about changing the electoral system. Changing to the Gordon Gibson model for instance?

Because a majority win delivers a dictator*s power and human nature blossoms corruption in that power envelope.

We electors then vote in the opposing power and if they win a majority, they also become corrupt.

So really, democratic balance in Canada is achieved by voting alternately, blue, red, blue, etc.

This seems somewhat crude. Lacking in grace and finesse and subject to balloons of fraud when the alternate party stumbles so badly so as to miss it's turn at bat. [Reform - Cons split and lack of readiness].

There is a valid appetite for regional representation then, but to be useful it has to be of solid design.

Good design means *clear and simple* the opposite of your TV remote that you will never fully understand. A tall order for those like Gordon Gibson to go grey over. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 12, 2006 02:28 PM

---

Perkunas. If you were asked who the best man was for the job, you would quickly say *Emerson*. Checkmate! TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 12, 2006 02:35 PM

---

Perkunas:

Feel free to correct me if I've misread you, but I'd guess you didn't vote Conservative this time, nor would you have been likely to in the future. If that is correct, then your "I will not forget this" threat is meaningless, anyway.

If, on the other hand, you did vote Conservative, then your pledge to not do so in future seems a bit rash. You'd vote against them over this one issue, no matter what the alternative? No matter how much of an improvement we see under a Conservative government? That's what's known as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What you're suggesting is that if a government isn't perfect, they deserve to be shown the door. They may be much better than the alternative, but they're not perfect, so let's turf them?

It's that mindset that makes people think what happened in Abu Graibh post-liberation is the moral equivalent of the real tortures and mass murders under Hussein. Neither is perfect, so they're both equally bad.

There is a concept known as "the lesser of two evils". Though I haven't read him in any detail, I believe that is something that Michael Ignatieff has written about. Given that no government will ever be perfect, I think it's the best we can ever hope for.

Posted by: idd at February 12, 2006 02:53 PM

---

Wow....never been called a Lieberal before..guess
my naivity is showing...after 13 years of what I consider to be one long bad dream, it was obviously to much to expect that the people/party that I supported in this election would actually live up to their promiise to do "government" different then what we saw from Chretien nad Martin.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 12, 2006 04:32 PM

---

You can rationalize any way you want, but there is no way around it:
- Emerson did something very unethical
- Harper is very close to being a hypocrite

I fear this will cost CPC dearly, it may in fact lead to another 12 years of the Libs, much sooner than we would like.

Huge mistake, Mr Harper, huge.

(For the record, I am a CPC supporter.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 12, 2006 06:58 PM

---

I have come to believe that if Mr. Emerson can complete negotiations with the U.S, and bring much needed jobs and capital back into the country, it is a very wise transition.

Politics aside for a moment, would you not hire the best candidate for a tough job? The folks out in B.C clearly would benefit from a deal.

Is it not within the realm of possibility that Stephen Harper is taking the long view? getting things done in a manner that is both legal and has precedent?

Perhaps some of the people here need to consider what can happen if we have a true leader here, one who will make the tough calls, but the country is better off for it.

Posted by: Robert at February 12, 2006 08:50 PM

---

Johan i Kanada, The roundup of noisy anti - Emerson protestors in Vancouver were the result of a phone campaign by NDP activists.

Reminds me of the Al-Jazeera announcements encouraging frenzied demonstrations in the streets prompted by the Emir of Quatar who happens to be the owner of Al-Jazeera.

Emirs of Quatar, Israel, Syria and Saudia Arabia fear the advancement of democracy and peace. The two things that will undo a dictatorrship.

What is it that the NDP hope to achieve with their telephone campaign for an Emerson protest team? Never mind... TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 12, 2006 09:49 PM

---

Guardsman, You have a very pleasant manner, and I should have refrained from labeling you as a *Rigid Liberal*. Gues you are more of an NDP person who may or may not have thrown in with Liberals.

Of course your choices are yours to make and there is never any personal offence in true debate.

Honour always goes to one's opposition who provide the reason for debate in the first place.

Debate moves everyone forward. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 12, 2006 10:07 PM

---

Turner has said in his blog that his is NOT contimplating sitting as an independent. The first time he heard that he was doing so was when he read the article. This is merely a case of the Sun chain activiting its responsibility to provide us with bad journalism. Carry on.

Posted by: Pete at February 13, 2006 08:56 AM

---