A hijacking in British Columbia
From the Canadian Press:
"Regardless of what Mr. Harper says, regardless of what the ethics commissioner says, this is a moral issue. Politicians should not be allowed to cross the floor the day after they got elected.''
Those are the words of Manuel Pereda, a Vancouver resident, who put out a bunch of his own money to pay for an airplane to fly in view of Parliament Hill today trailing a banner that read "Emerson: Call Home".
This is in reference, of course, to David Emerson's unapologetic move from the Liberals to the Conservatives.
Pereda even has a website, Message in the Air.
Pereda has launched a website called Message in the Air to raise money for the protest and register names of supporters for the stunt.
The names of supporters will be released on the day of the protest.
"Contrary to what Mr. Emerson and Mr. Harper are saying, this campaign is not sponsored by the Liberal party or the NDP. The people behind this are your average, ordinary citizens." [emphasis added]
Are we really talking about "average, ordinary citizens" who have decided to force a member of parliament to resign? Well, maybe not so ordinary, but more on that later.
Consider the big picture carefully.
If a minister does a bad job, I can, as a citizen of the country, ask that he resign. I have a legitimate complaint here, because as a minister, his or her portfolio affects everyone (as a general rule).
But an MP makes what is essentially a local decision that impacts his or her riding constituents. By what right can I demand that he or she resign? I have my own MP, my own voice in parliament. If I don't like what that other MP is doing, then I should count myself lucky that I have a different MP.
For instance, if I lived in Burnaby, I would have Peter Julian, a member of the NDP, as my member of parliament. A constituent of Burnaby, like Mr Harish Mahendru, should probably worry about how well Peter Julian is representing his interests.
Then why would Mr Mahendru donate money to this effort to remove an MP of another riding?
The same goes for Pierre Gaulupeau, who is represented by Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh.
The same goes for Cierra Dahlquist, who is represented by NDP MP Libby Davies.
The same goes for Jason Detlor, who is represented by Liberal MP Hedy Fry.
The fact is, without too much effort, I can find all sorts of folks on this list of people who don't want David Emerson to represent the constituents of his riding, who want to undo the fair vote undertaken by those constituents, but who are not numbered among those same constituents.
Strangely, to me at least, these same people are proud of the out-of-riding meddling. Take Kevin Chalmers, who is leading the "de-election" charge, who himself is not a resident of David Emerson's riding:
Officials with the campaign to De-elect David Emerson say they have received donations totalling $2,000 from as far away as New Brunswick enough to cover the cost of signs and buttons and were seeking additional donations Saturday.
But these are just "ordinary citizens", right? Not all of them. Manuel Pereda is quite insistent that he was never political in the past. What about Malcolm van Delst? She donated money to Pereda's effort to have David Emerson removed. She does not live in the riding (she lives in the riding represented by Hedy Fry), but she ran in the BC Provincial Election in 2005 for the Work Less Party. She garnered 0.33% of the vote in Vancouver-Fariview. The provincial riding of Vancouver-Fairview overlaps the federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway (everything west of Main Street and south of 16th Avenue).
The Work Less Party platform is to help the environment and reduce unemployment and cure athlete's foot by instituting a mandatory 32-hour work week. Just because it has never worked in Europe anywhere it has been attempted certainly doesn't mean it won't work here, right?
Well, whatever. But what matters is that we might have an example of one political party attempting to influence election results after an election via this "de-election" back door. Yeah, the Work Less Party is essentially irrelevant, and has run only provincially in British Columbia, but it still makes me nervous.
What about Douglas Gook, who is not represented by David Emerson, but rather by Conservative Dick Harris in the riding of Cariboo-Prince George. Douglas Gook was the Green Party candidate for Cariboo-Prince George. He lost. Why should an environmentalist candidate in Cariboo-Prince George be allowed to meddle with the riding representative elsewhere? If the defection was not of a Liberal to a Conservative, but a Conservative to the NDP, do you think Douglas Gook would be meddling then?
What about Bryan Baynham, who also donated to de-elect David Emerson, who is not represented by David Emerson but by Liberal MP Blair Wilson? Mr Baynham is an executive member of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi constituency association (provincial BC Liberals). Wife Jane Baynham, who also donated to de-elect David Emerson, actually wrote a letter to the editor arguing against a recall effort targeting a provincial Liberal MLA Joan McIntyre:
At a time when we are begging for smart, honest, hard-working people with integrity to run for public office, it upsets me that a small group of people with a single issue are impugning the reputation of an excellent MLA.
McIntyre has worked extremely hard over the last few months, travelling up and down the corridor listening to and consulting with individuals, groups and municipal politicians and doing her best to represent the opinions of all her constituents. The highway is only one issue and I think that the Save the Bluffs group should remember that.
Too bad David Emerson doesn't earn the same consideration. But then he's a Conservative now, and the Baynhams are important people in the provincial Liberal Party.
What about Bill Forst? He donated to the "de-elect" fund. Is he just an ordinary grassroots constituent? Not at all. He is the president of the West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast Federal NDP Riding Association.
That's right. The president of some other riding association for a party that is not even directly involved in the Emerson party switch.
But that doesn't stop Forst from meddling in that other riding's business involving those other parties.
I get the distinct feeling that the moral outrage is very limited in scope -- it offends the moral sense of these political left-wingers -- Liberal, NDP, Work Less, Green -- that the Conservatives picked up a seat.
Regardless of the motive, it definitely seems that this grassroots effort involves a lot of political professionals in other ridings who work for other parties. But then it's hard to tell from just a list of names. We don't even know how much was donated, where the money came from, if it included funds from party accounts and not just personal accounts, where the money went, even if it was kept in a separate account, and if there was more than what was required to hire the airplane, where the extra went.
The de-election campaign stinks. It has all the earmarks of an effort that is in the process of being hijacked by professional political movers and shakers, none of whom are constituents, but who are using this to pursue a different agenda.
Which brings me back to Kevin Chalmers. He is not a political neophyte. He knows who these people are that are helping Manuel Pereda, and quite possibly donating to his own effort as well. He knows what these people want. Yet he insists he is leading some kind of local grassroots campaign. Why would he let his campaign be used? The simple answer is that it advances his own agenda. An agenda that goes beyond David Emerson. Something more personal. What is it? I can only guess.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Why oh why can't I read this in the Province or Sun here in Van. There has not been a day since the Emerson crossing that Province has not pimped this story. Never looked behind the scenes, simply "reported" on these ongoing staged events.
Great one Angry. This one rates a hit on the Pay Pal button.
Posted by: ward at April 5, 2006 01:25 AM
Idiots.
Posted by: John Crittenden at April 5, 2006 01:36 AM
Excellent post. Very informative. This should be in the papers and TV.
Posted by: Roy Eappen at April 5, 2006 01:41 AM
"The de-election campaign stinks. It has all the earmarks of an effort that is in the process of being hijacked by professional political movers and shakers, none of whom are constituents, but who are using this to pursue a different agenda."
The same could be said about the Emerson switch.
Either way, perhaps you could publish a list of who, in your estimation, is allowed to be indignant about the Emerson switch, and who is allowed to protest it. Or maybe you could just email the 'approved' protestors a button they can wear, something like:
"My disgust with David Emerson and his switch has been vetted and cleared by Steve Janke"
Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2006 10:28 AM
Clearly the Emerson thing has been hijacked by everyone involved to prove some irrelevant point or other.
The NDP love the issue, and will continue to pour money on it, in hopes to force an election where they figure they have good prospects of picking up a seat. They're not wrong about that. Its just a political calculation for them... If not in the near future, then in the next election - which may not be that far off.
The media will continue to report on the protest, and quietly fan it, keep the story alive. In the hopes that the liberals can use it too keep their fortunes alive back east. With a "see, they're just like us" argument.
Its rather funny, that people would be shocked - shocked - that politicians would attempt to manipulate a political issue to their own political advantage.
The best that we can hope for, is that the softwood lumber stuff gets solved, and then maybe all of these protestors will go away.
Posted by: Curtis at April 5, 2006 10:46 AM
I certainly hope Harper includes the discouragement of floor-crossing in his ethics reform. There should be a decent interval between being elected and leaving the party that you have just been touting for the party you have just been bad-mouthing.
You should be forced to sit in the party under whose platform you were elected for at least six months. At that point you should have to sit as an independent until re-elected.
It doesn't help the Parties. They are trying to show themselves as being significantly different from one another. To have people moving to a different party a week after the election gives evidence to the claim that the difference is more style than substance. It feeds cynicism towards politicians and politics in general.
Posted by: steve d. at April 5, 2006 11:30 AM
Angry:
Very good post. We disagree on Emerson's fitness for Cabinet, but the campaign to force a by-election just drips with duplicity. Your digging is very valuable.
Steve D, all your idea will do is give the parties yet more power over MPs. The six-month thing is a bad idea: what if an MP is elected and his party forms the government, and then he hears something he can't live with in the Throne Speech? Is he supposed to grit his teeth for six months and support the government, even against his conscience? And that, just because his constituents liked the colour of his signs?
Dave, try and stick to the subject. I don't like the Emerson appointment, but not living in Van-Kingsway I don't have any right at all to call for a by-election. Your "approved protestor" taunt at Angry is a sophomoric evasion.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at April 5, 2006 01:42 PM
Jim:
So if these kinds of shenanigans start occurring frequently, Canadians are not supposed to speak out or protest it, until it happens in their riding?
what if I live in Ontario or Tuktuktuktayuk or wherever, and I'm furious about Emerson, I have no right to protest that, and I should keep my mouth shut?
Imagine if we extended that theory to foreign affairs for instance:
Canada has no business in Afghanistan. that's not our soldiers' country.
Canada should not have fought the Nazis in WWII. Canada isn't Germany, let Europe deal with their own affairs.
Environment:
Factories are polluting rivers and streams, but since the river behind my house is clean, I can't speak out against polluters.
Human Rights:
We have no right to speak out on human rights abuses in other parts of the world because we don't live there.
And by the way, does Angry live in Van-Kingsway? If not, where does he get the right to comment on the goings-on over there? Shouldn't he keep his nose out of it and mind his own, since it's not his riding?
I love it when I can take sloppy conservative thinking and tear it a new one.
Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2006 02:08 PM
Events in Afghanistan clearly have had an impact in this continent. Frankly, it is rather offensive to suggest that your anger at David Emerson is the moral equivalent of defeating the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorists hiding with them.
But aside from that weird parallel, the fact is that the people of that riding have the representative they voted for. If they aren't happy with that representative, they'll have an opportunity to toss him out at the next election. If they are really not happy with their representative, they can try to accelerate the process.
But for you or me to be unhappy with their representative and try to force them to pick again is the height of arrogance. What if the next MP decides he can do more with the Conservatives than with the Liberals or NDP and switches too? Another election? Until a leftie sticks?
I'm not making comments on the goings on inside of Emerson's riding. I'm making comments on all the people outside of the riding driving those goings ons.
Posted by: Steve Janke at April 5, 2006 02:20 PM
But evidently not with a touch of class. Nor even a soupçon.
"So if these kinds of shenanigans start occurring frequently, Canadians are not supposed to speak out or protest it, until it happens in their riding?"
No, and that's not what I said.
Moreover, I've been clear, here and elsewhere, that I don't like the Emerson "shenanigans", as you call them. I do not feel the least constrained about criticizing the government over them. But the issue of forcing a by-election is directly between the member and his constituents in a way that all the other issues you bring up is not.
Get your own straw man, Apprentice Ripper of New Ones. I'm not minded to play one for you.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at April 5, 2006 02:43 PM
Steve:
you conveniently forget to mention that the representative the people of Van Kingsway voted for presented himself as a Liberal, and "Stephen Harper's worst nightmare". The representative they have is NOT the one they voted for. I know you'll never agree with this, because you can't bring yourself to be honest, but those voters were cheated. This isn't a case of 40% of the riding voting conservative. Only 18% wanted a Conservative. And this also isn't a case where the riding has gone back and forth over the years. It's as Liberal a riding as you're gonna find.
And I wasn't suggesting any sort of moral equivalency. I was just taking your position, and extending it logically to other areas. And in doing so, I happened to show what a stupid position it is. There's that sloppy conservative thinking.
And your "until a leftie sticks comment" is such a blatant straw-man argument that you should send it to Bush and see if he'll use it. It's not about 'til a leftie sticks, it's about misrepresentation and fraud. The people of Van Kingsway had the option to vote conservative, and they overwhelmingly chose not to. Then Harper and Emerson told those voters to go fuck themselves, they were getting a conservative anyways.
And as far as the people outside the riding, well who else is supposed to confront Emerson when he's afraid to show his face in his riding?
Personally, I don't have any problem with people from all over Canada protesting Emerson. When you steal one person's democratic right to choose, you threaten to steal it from all.
Think of it as a (sorely needed)neighbourhood watch program for politics. Someone breaks into my house and I'm not home? I want my neighbours to call the cops.
Somebody steals a riding's right to choose its representation? Well the neighbours can't call the cops, because that's who the crooks are, but they can sure raise a stink.
Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2006 02:44 PM
Jim:
"But the issue of forcing a by-election is directly between the member and his constituents in a way that all the other issues you bring up is not."
Who's forcing the by-election? Nobody. They're asking for one, they're protesting, but nobody is forcing anything. they can't.
I'll quote from you again:
"Get your own straw man...I'm not minded to play one for you."
Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2006 02:49 PM
Your post confirms further why recall is a bad idea.
Posted by: hatrock at April 5, 2006 02:53 PM
Dave, I forget nothing, conveniently or otherwise. I did not mention his party because the party is irrelevant. We vote for MPs, not for parties. A system based on party vote would have each party submit a list of MPs to be selected based on popular vote, much like in Israel.
40% wanted David Emerson. They still have David Emerson. Case closed.
Certainly the Ethics Commissioner thought so.
If you don't like that system, change it. But stop making special rules in an ad hoc manner. Party switching is allowed in the system. Period.
That all these people, including major players from other parties, all outside of the riding, see fit to reject the democratic choice of this riding because they don't like what the choice chose to do, and somehow think it's all right to nullify that choice, is dangerously destabilizing. The vote was taken. It was fair. There are no do-overs until the next election. And when that happens, the people of that riding will pass judgment, not you or I.
Posted by: Steve Janke at April 5, 2006 03:01 PM
So, who SHOULD be the next representative for vancouver-kingsway? Will it be the NDP candidate Waddell? The same one who as a provincial cabinet minister persuaded Gordon Wilson to come over to the NDP while winning as a PDA? I would have to think this should disqualify him as a candidate.
This incessant bleating and whining has now become amusing. Why is it the left can never drop anything? Move on, prepare for the upcoming battles, not re-fighting old lost ones. Notice that the Cons regrouped, examined why they lost previously and prepared for the next election. The result?
Posted by: enough at April 5, 2006 03:08 PM
Jim Whyte
In the unlikely event that something new and surprising is revealed in the first speech from the throne then the member should stay and try within the party that he represents to change whatever is bothering him. Do you walk out of any partnership or working agreement the first time you disagree? No, I still think you owe the party that helped bring you to dance a little more than,"Thanks for paying for my ticket bud, see ya."
Ultimately, you don't change very much for very long. If a member is determined to go then he should go. However, I think for the health of the system and out of respect for Party and Constituents, there ought to be "a cooling off period" before you leave the Party.
Posted by: steve d. at April 5, 2006 03:16 PM
Steve:
Keep building those straw men. Nobody has made any special rules in any ad-hoc manner. People are protesting, just like they have a right to do.
And that reminds me: you mention 40% of the riding voted for Emerson. You'd think that if they supported him, they would have held rallies of support, maybe even counter protests to show how much they want David Emerson to represent them. Where's the overwhelming show of support?
And as long as you're talking about the Integrity Commissioner, why don't we look at some of the other things he said:
"Relative to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, this disquiet is reflected in the large gap between the values underlying the Preamble to the Members’ Code and the detailed conflict of interest rules within the Code itself. The Members’ Code sets out in its Preamble the principles upon which the rules of conduct are premised. Of particular note, I refer to Principle 2 (b) which reads as follows:
“2. Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected
(b) to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Member and in the House of Commons; “(emphasis added).
Accordingly, although technically there has been no violation to the rules of conduct of the Members’ Code, the incident in question does raise the whole issue of whether the Principles upon which it relies have been respected."
And if ANYONE is rejecting the democratic choice of the riding, it's David Emerson. He took Liberal money, Liberal volunteers, and even talked about being a strong opposition voice. He screwed his constituents, and yes indeed the people of his riding will pass judment.
Is there anyone out there willing to bet on Emerson's chances in the next general election?
I've got 100 bucks that says Emerson bows out just before the next writ is dropped, Harper appoints him to the Senate, and leaves him in cabinet.
If Emerson runs, he's toast. And I'll put a million bucks on that one.
Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2006 03:22 PM
And that reminds me: you mention 40% of the riding voted for Emerson. You'd think that if they supported him, they would have held rallies of support, maybe even counter protests to show how much they want David Emerson to represent them. Where's the overwhelming show of support?
Common, this is Canada, happy people dont protest.
I dont think Emerson will run agian - atleast if the next election is called and not forced - I think he'll bow out with something along the lines "running agian would only serve as a lightening rod for those who have oppossed my floor crossing"
If he gets caught in a suprise election, I dont think he could be re-elected.
Posted by: Curtis at April 5, 2006 03:50 PM
I can go as far as saying that I am pleased that liberals and lefties are upset. Screw 'em. Bankrupt philosophy and bankrupt of ideas.
They have dragged this country down, everything they touch turns to crap.
There was nothing malicious about this while remembering the party the Liberals had after the Belinda defection.
A case of shared OCD. Take your medication and pipe down.
enough
Posted by: enough at April 5, 2006 04:02 PM
Someone should make an effort to establish in law that a person's vote has value. What Emerson did is fraud, plain and simple, and he should be facing criminal charges. Not only did he defraud the voters in his riding (and to argue otherwise would be ignoring the fact that many people vote for a party or an ideology, not an individual), he also defrauded the Liberal party. They should be suing him to recover the costs of his campaign, and those volunteers who promoted him should recover their costs, at a fair wage.
Or do conservative values include bringing back slavery?
Posted by: Daniel W. Gerous at April 5, 2006 05:32 PM
Or do conservative values include bringing back slavery?
what planet are you from?
Posted by: xena at April 5, 2006 06:13 PM
David Emerson raised significantly more money than was spent in his campaign. Perhaps the Vancouver-Kingsway Liberal riding association should turn over those extra funds to the V-K Conservative riding association since the donors made their pledges for Emerson as MP?
I, too, find it hilariously ironic to hear the shrilling of the lefties over this issue. It's a dead-horse issue but go ahead- keep beating it all you like!! I don't think the corpse minds although you've disturbed a few of maggots.
Posted by: Mac at April 5, 2006 11:13 PM
These folks that you pointed out from outside ridings are the real danger. I suspect that the people of the Kingway riding are probably pleased that their MP is now a cabinet minister rather than a opposition back bencher.
The only people who seem to really be upset with this are those who want more seats for some other party other than the conservatives.
I live in a riding that has gone conservative for the last 3 or 4 elections, and now when we get a conservative government the riding went NDP. AAAGGGHHHH!!! That's a crime I gotta tell you. I think there should be a law that if you have voted in a MP who sat in opposition for years and years and then that MP loses only to find his/her party is now in power then that MP should automatically win by default just because of the best efforts thing and warding off bad luck and all that.
The only people complaining about emerson are those that don't want the conservatives to get more seats. However joe sixpack voter has gotta be tickled pink.
Posted by: at April 5, 2006 11:39 PM
Re:Daniel @ 5:32
The rule says members can cross, period.Not when or to whom.If D.E. has to pay everything back, then so should B.S.,S.B.,et al! Personally,I would find this acceptable as it would only increase the debt of the LPC further!
By the way, didn't Election Canada or someone peg that debt at 30-40 mil?(They say it is only 3-4 mil,but Adscam is still missing 40 million, so any bets on where that is?)
Posted by: Bruce B. at April 5, 2006 11:56 PM
Can anyone explain to me why Emerson-Harper-the Conservative Party don't pay back the hundred grand the Liberal Constituency collected to elect Emerson? Just because the Liberals in Ontario acted unethically, is that an excuse for the Conservatives to do the same?
Posted by: hoffman at April 6, 2006 03:30 AM
Why didnt the Liberals repay the money Belinda used to get elected?
The Emerson floor crossing wasnt an ethical problem. Even the Conservative hater ethics commissioner said so.
Posted by: Curtis at April 6, 2006 10:37 AM
Hoffman:
Because nobody owes a political party anything for costs incurred in a campaign. Contributing to the cost of someone's campaign, whether you're an individual, a corporation, an organization or a political party, does not and must not buy the elected member's vote.
Steve D:
'Do you walk out of any partnership or working agreement the first time you disagree? No, I still think you owe the party that helped bring you to dance a little more than,"Thanks for paying for my ticket bud, see ya."'
It depends on the issue. Nobody trying to get anything done in politics will walk away the first time they don't get their own way, but plenty of irreconcilable matters of principle do arise. Then you withdraw your support for the party no matter what or when.
You (and many others) are confusing the nature of political parties; the individual (voter or MP) grants or withdraws his support at his sole discretion and the party, whatever it may do for the voter or MP, has no continuing claim on support. You don't "belong" to a political party, and when you do, you're an automaton, one of Trudeau's "nobodies". That way lies elected dictatorship (which I suspect was Trudeau's dream).
Dave:
Correct, nobody is "forcing" a by-election. And on the nail of that one error in diction, you hang an entire argument? If I'm a pot, I'm still shiny copper at this stage. I stand by what I said.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at April 6, 2006 10:42 AM
Your one error in diction made it appear that the left was trying to throw a coup or stage some sort of electoral highjacking.
there are enough stupid, ignorant, false and defamatory allegations about the left floating around out there. No need for any more.
Posted by: Dave at April 6, 2006 03:19 PM
Your one error in diction made it appear that the left was trying to throw a coup or stage some sort of electoral highjacking.
That sounds like a pretty good description of what Chalmers and the NDP are trying to do.
there are enough stupid, ignorant, false and defamatory allegations about the left floating around out there. No need for any more.
When you add the stupid, ignorant, false and defamatory allegations to all the REAL illegal, unethical and immoral acts committed by the left, there is no need for any more Liberals.
Posted by: Mac at April 8, 2006 12:31 AM
People voted for Emerson so that he could get the softwood lumber fiasco fixed.
He crossed the floor to get the job done.
The job most people voted him in to do.
Why is there any debate?? Emerson goes the extra mile for NDP union jobs and the stupid, [shoot oneself in the foot], NDP politicos try to get him bounced for selfish leverage reasons. You would think some members could see how defeatest and ego political this is.
=========================
*This is one of those big, under-the-radar threats that we've been concerned about,* said Ken Dunham, director of the rapid response team at VeriSign's iDefense unit. *There has been a trend away from big-bang attacks to very targeted and sophisticated attacks that take place right under your nose. This is one of them.*
For an example of a stealth backdoor logging E-mail or blog post and,
Links about Spyware kits for sale on line, Israel / UK couple fined $423,000 for stealth ware sales. And other security info worth knowing about. http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 10, 2006 12:46 PM
This is a new twist everyone should be aware of before keying any sensitive data.
Malware lurks at gate-portal to log data.
http://tinyurl.com/s6x9h
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 10, 2006 06:47 PM
This isn't really on-topic here, but I couldn't post it where it belonged. I'm no Conservative, but I've been bothered enough by the reaction to David Emerson's defection to have been spent the past two months writing about it. I've been roaming the web looking for people who share my views, and was happy to find your blog and your list of allied bloggers.
Those interested in looking at what I've written on the subject can check out this link:
http://tinyurl.com/jlpz9
Posted by: George Dance at April 12, 2006 07:06 PM
 
|
|
