This piece appears in the May 22 print edition of the Western Standard.

There are plenty of rules when it comes to donating to Canadian election campaigns. But what about un-elections? The "Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson" -- a supposedly local effort to force the Vancouver-Kingsway MP to run in a byelection after defecting from the Liberals to the Tories -- has been soliciting donations for lawn signs, buttons and who knows what else. Actually, that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned.

Elections Canada's finance rules are supposed to stop special interest groups from using big spending to promote narrow agendas, by limiting donation sizes and making contributions publicly known -- measures that don't apply to "de-elections." No one knows, in this case, which groups are using money to influence the democratic process, or how.

Industry Minister Emerson has called the agitators "partisan zealots" -- as opposed to any real grassroots movement in the riding. He may be right. When one group hired a plane to fly over Parliament Hill on opening day, trailing a banner reading, "Emerson: Call home!," it published the names of the 250 people who subsidized the stunt (though not their donations). Turns out, there were many special interests involved -- from unionists to anti-war activists to anarchists -- loads of whom don't even live in Emerson's riding. Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Until Elections Canada says so, the best we can do is offer a glimpse of some of the folks who paid for the airplane prank, and the opportunity to bring their own politics to bear on the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway.

- STEVE JANKE

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:30 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 4 kb.

1 . . . that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned. Why? The only people that should be concerned are the people doing the donating, and why is it our responsibility to tell them how to spend their own money? Elections Canada's finance rules are supposed to stop special interest groups from using big spending to promote narrow agendas, by limiting donation sizes and making contributions publicly known -- measures that don't apply to "de-elections." These are the same spending rules that you have railed against in the past, right? Show a little backbone and either stand up for the principle that there shouldn't be rules about spending limits, or admit your own partisanship. Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Wow! Nanny-statism at its worst. Don't trust the voters to be able to make up their own minds -- the special interest groups are making them up for them, right? Come on, Angry. If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business? Why are you defending anti-democratic, nanny-statist spending controls and behaviour modification rules? And why would you use Emerson as the hill to die on -- the guy was elected by virtue of the party he belonged to, and then switched. Both he, and you, should show a little bit more respect for both the democratic process and for voters.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 04:26 PM (4EUc/)

2 True Investigative Journalism By Angry When moonbats like these, or when the Polaris Institute publishes it pap, bloggers like Angry do the goog and find out how biased they are, and quiets the noise.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 18, 2006 04:44 PM (PjbIr)

3 "If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business?" You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it?

Posted by: DCardno at May 18, 2006 04:54 PM (qN4VR)

4 It looks like a lot of the people named are on the left...just like 80% of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway. Now I wonder what would get them all riled up?

Posted by: steve d. at May 18, 2006 04:55 PM (sw5R/)

5 You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it? You bet it does. But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:42 PM (4EUc/)

6 I also find it amazing that he is characterizing these as "hidden enemies" and that Brian is calling Angry's post "True Investigative Journalism". As Angry points out, it was the guys who hired the airplane that, themselves, published the donor list. This is hidden? This took investigation to uncover? Puh-leeze.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:47 PM (4EUc/)

7 bob has a point, Steve.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 18, 2006 05:48 PM (Rn5Ph)

8 "But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient" bob, Could it be that, even if one disagrees with a particular legislation, we can all agree that there should be a level playing field? Despite what anyone thinks or wants, the liberals put the rules in place regarding election spending. The looney left are circumventing their own laws by acting as a coalition. steve d, You may be right about the politics of the majority of V-K constituents (but I sincerely doubt it. I'd be interested in seeing where you get your number from). There may or may not be a byelection in that riding. There will be a federal election sooner or later. Those 80% of which you speak can make their decision whether or not they want representation in the new Conservative government, at that time.

Posted by: Rob R at May 18, 2006 05:54 PM (y9Fs6)

9 Well David Emmerson was right about one thing -- they were partisan zealots. They can spend their money wherever they feel best. Actually I couldn't care less who funded that particular stunt, however this horse is dead. I didn't like it when Scott Brison and Belinda did it, and I don't like it when Emmerson did it. However, it is not against the rules. It is the rules that have to change. I would suggest you send letters to your MP and get them to do something about it on the hill. Otherwise I guarantee it will happen again. I have sent at least 5 emails to my conservative MP over the last 2 months. Hopefully if it comes to a vote, he will vote the right way. Heck, put the bug in happy Jack's ear -- look how fast he got a debate and vote on troop deployment in Afghanistan!

Posted by: morison at May 18, 2006 06:22 PM (DRtQx)

10 Like many people who are against the Election Canada spending rules, I -- and I imagine Steve is included in this -- simply point out that there is a dual standard being applied. Either Elections Canada should step in and apply the law to these people, or Elections Canada should acknowledge that the law is bunk. Steve is not the hypocrite in this situation. Steve is only pointing out Elections Canada's hypocrisy via the Western Standard article. I would rather that Elections Canada's rules regarding what I do with my money to be overturned so that I could do whatever I want with my donations. But, if they aren't going to let me do whatever I want, they better be willing to stand up and do the same when other people step on the rules. Is is hypocritical to point out a double standard? Or is that simply a person asking for fair treatment? You know the answer Bob and Dawg... don't be petty and obnoxious.

Posted by: Surecure at May 18, 2006 08:16 PM (5xF7M)

11 "But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient." Yes - but it's the other folks who get to call in the RCMP and throw you in the slammer. If you think that the 'de-elect Emerson' campaign is entitled to unlimited funding, then I expect to see you making the same argument for all political campaigns - not just when it is politically expedient for you

Posted by: Deaner at May 18, 2006 10:28 PM (kc0eB)

12 I'm sorry Steve, let me clarify. You're saying that these people should not be allowed to express their opposition to a politician? Is that your position? You may disagree with what they're saying, but please defend their right to say it. Whoever they are. Communists, Liberals, Palistinians, Greens, Executives, and anti-Olympians all enjoy the same liberties as you and I.

Posted by: Bowie at May 18, 2006 10:30 PM (YbpZQ)

13 Deaner, I did already make that argument, in my response to Dcardno's question. I don't want spending limits anywhere. And neither does Steve (is my guess) -- I just wish he'd apply his own standard all the time. Surecure. The point of Steve's article was not to point out that hypocricy -- that would have been a good article though. Alas, at no point does he complain about election spending limits during elections. Instead, he complains that such limits are not being applied outside elections, and that this is somehow hurting both Emerson and the voters. Read his last two sentences. Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 10:46 PM (fnZDj)

14 Bob - while you are certainly right about the democratic process and free speech etc. etc. - Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism. It would be very interesting to see if the "anger" would have abated if these self-proclaimed "angry - constituents" were not using this matter as a platform to keep their agenda's front page. Come on Bob - it is soooooo painfully obvious that this a partisan exercise - take off your rose colored glasses and take Angry's post for what it is - bringing forth information that shines a light on this tiresome exercise.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at May 19, 2006 06:40 AM (nMd+I)

15 Geez, for a story the dextro-avian moonbats said had no legs whatsoever, you sure seem to be interested in keeping it running. Must be something to it after all. Altogether now (singing), "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. And little man, little Lola wants you."

Posted by: McQuandary at May 19, 2006 07:28 AM (FAa2V)

16 Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism. Gosh, to think that people opposed to an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise are left-wing! Who knew? And left-wingers are activists! I hope Angry and Alberta Girl have had the good sense to alert Homeland Sec...er, CSIS.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 19, 2006 08:58 AM (Rn5Ph)

17 Oh man, get real. Steve didn't just publish their "lefty qualifications". Instead, he simultaneously argued--among other things--"... that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned." Balderdash! It isn't the voters money! It's the doners money -- all of whom identified themselves. Hardly "hidden activism". I don't mind Steve complaining that all of these guys are non-riding partisan hacks that should mind their own business. Good on him for doing so. But I'm a bit confused why he thinks that Elections Canada should be stepping in. He concluded: "Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Until Elections Canada says so, the best we can do . . ." Get that? He is arguing that Elections Canada should institute rules and regulations on how people should be able to protest outside of an election. As if it isn't bad enough during an election. Now he wants us to have to register our names and keep our receipts in order to complain about the government at any time? Is this really what we want? If so, it's a strange breed of conservatism that grows around these parts.

Posted by: bob at May 19, 2006 10:30 AM (4EUc/)

18 The government has rules for everything, including protests. The groups can protest all they want. They can picket, heckle public appearances, write letters and spam. However when a group raises funds to undertake a mass media political campaign, Elections Canada, has the right to review the group's fund raising and spending... For all we know the ring leaders of this little circus could be granting themselves a salary... Which would be perfectly legal - but it does give them another motive to keep the issue alive.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 11:48 AM (heo8b)

19 Actually the de-elect Emerson folks have become more than a joke. Kind of like the WWII Japanese soldiers who hid out in jungles for 20 years refusing to believe that the war was over. Everyone needs a hobby, and if they want to spend their time endlessly lobbying for something that's never going to happen, so be it. Observing their machinations is more entertaining than most TV sit-coms.

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 12:26 PM (QPPwV)

20 The theme here sounds like the outside agitator complaint gone mad. Nobody is allowed to complain who has an interest, and if they do not, why then they are outside agitators and have no business sticking their nose in..;... The sobering social fact that the saga of Emerson and other recent party jumpers illustrates is that politics in Canada is being hollowed out. One can see this in the numbers Statscan has produced based on the 2001 census on the distribution of income. Of the people who file tax returns more than one half have incomes of $23000 or less. The share of that group in total national income has DROPPED between 1990 and 2001 from 19% to 16.9%. And here is a true blow to the gut: The 10% of tax filers who had the highest incomes saw their share of national income RISE from 31.7 to 35.7 % lin the same period. And those in between? They lost or stood still. These numbers are absolutely devastating, given the short period covered. Where the poor are beling plunged deeper into despair, the middle classes are going no where, and the rich are becomeing outright bandits, there is plenty of cause for frustration and rage, but little for constructive political action. You can build or even maintain a democracy on numbers like that.

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:50 PM (eKaWT)

21 Error: last sentence should say "You cannot build..." And the source is a statscan study called "Federal Personal INcome Tax; Slicing the Pie" by Martineau Cat no. 11-621-Mie --no. 024. Data summary see page 7

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:54 PM (eKaWT)

22 BobR Sooner or later the 80% will get what they voted for in Jan 06? That's a comfort to them I am sure. Until the Spring of 08 the voters will just have to stuff it. I already know the Emerson plan. If he looks weak and unable to be re-elected he will end up the the Senate. The 80%is the combined Liberal and NDP vote in Vancouver/Kingsway.

Posted by: steve d. at May 19, 2006 02:26 PM (sw5R/)

23 Iam a statistical anomaly then. My income has gone from 18 000 to 35 000 in the past 2 years. Iam a crook? because my income nearly doubled? How about we try this on for size: People with low incomes, largely have themselves to blame, they didnt attend any post-secondary education, they havent continued to upgrade their skills thru Adult Continuing Education. In short they havent kept pace with the skills that employers demand of the new workforce. After finishing school it took me 7 years to land my first career related job. During those 7 years, I took every form of crappy dead end job I could find to make ends meet and pay off my useless student loans. Iam really sick and tired of those people who are stuck in the dead end life, blaming the world for their poverty, for their lack of achievement, for basically everything that has gone wrong in their sorry, pointless lives... So stop whining about the lack of income growth in the low end of the scale, get an education and move up the scale... Dont demand the scale be moved so that your lazy ass can live a middle-class TV-sit-com lifestyle as a short order cook.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 03:07 PM (heo8b)

24 Garhane: Tax filing is complicated by the fact that there are reasons to file a return even when one is not taxable, typically to qualify for means-tested programs or credits, or to establish RRSP room. In addition, individual income is less relevant than household income - a low-income or non-earning person can enjoy a pretty nice life if they are a member of a household with adequate household income. In another StatsCan study they determined the percentage of households living below the "Low Income Cut-Off" or LICO. The usual caveat applies; LICO is not a poverty line, since it measures relative income levels instead of absolute inability to obtain the necessities of life. At the same time, movements in relative indicators are still relevant. Look at http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060330/d060330a.htm - you'll have to scroll down about half to two-thirds of the page. There are two tables dealing with incidence of 'low income' (I'd paste them, but I am not sure how it would come out...): Low Income Rates by Family Types and Percentage of Persons in Low Income. Every singe family type showed a decrease in the percentage living below the LICO between 1996 and 2004 every one - Economic families, two persons or more; Senior families; Non-senior couples without children; Two-parent families with children; Female lone-parent families; and Single persons. Similarly, the proportion of people in low income declined - again, across the board. I find it difficult to accept your contention that the poorest in Canada are doing increasingly less well, and in any event, do not believe that this represents "politics being hollowed out" or in any way reflects upon Emerson's decision to cross the floor of the House.

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 03:59 PM (qN4VR)

25 Sorry - I should clarify one comment above: "Deaner" and "DCardno" are the same person -or at least they were the last time I checked. It was not an attempt to argue by sock puppet; just different "rememebr personal info" cookies on different machines. Apologies to bob (inter alia perhaps) for any confusion

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 04:14 PM (qN4VR)

26 If this is the biggest thorn in Harper's side, I am quite happy to sit back and watch. When the Tories win a majority government next time, the Emerson issue will be put to bed. I laughed when I saw the list of people. You gotta love BC. It's like a cereal, what isn't a fruit or a nut is a flake.

Posted by: jmo at May 19, 2006 04:36 PM (RaK4s)

27 "Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me." Give it up Bob. Pointing out that a de-election campaign is as political as an election campaign is not hypocrisy. Pointing out that rules about political campaigns should be applied without exception is not hypocrisy. It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them. The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken. One doesn't have to explicitly call something hypocritical for what that person is saying to make that implication. Did you never take high school English?

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:02 AM (5xF7M)

28 LMAO jmo! I love that line!

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:08 AM (5xF7M)

29 It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them. Except that sometimes he says they should cancel them and sometimes he says they should expand them -- depending on when it suits his argument. Not exactly principled. The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken. Ummm, what? Which law is being broken exactly? There is no law against protesting the government outside of an election, and nor should there be. Or are you actually advocating increasing the government's control over our democratic rights of free speach? Really? Did you never take high school English? Terrific argument. I'm not sure how it applies to anything that is being discussed, but at least it made me laugh.

Posted by: Bob at May 20, 2006 01:39 PM (fnZDj)

30 Amazing how the advocates for "less government" want more and more of it when the government is acting for them. Today, a "recall Emerson" campaign should be subject to regulation; tomorrow, allow protest only if its licensed. What's next? A firearms registry?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 01:49 PM (Rn5Ph)

31 Er...that's "it's." Must be my lack of high school English.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 02:12 PM (Rn5Ph)

32 Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable. bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE. Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"?

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM (V8DQH)

33 Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable. bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE. Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"? http://tinyurl.com/huyld

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM (V8DQH)

34 GeorgeDance I don't claim to know the voters minds. I do know they elected a Liberal. I think it is safe to say they expected Emerson to remain a Liberal. I do know that the riding has never voted Conservative. Although I cannot predict with absolute certainty that voters will opt for the Liberal or NDP candidate next time I would be bold enough to say it is likely.

Posted by: steve d. at May 20, 2006 03:05 PM (sw5R/)

35 Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"? I assume you're serious, so let me note first of all that most people vote for the party, not the individual,* in Canadian elections. Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it? *Source: http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=123⟨=e&frmPageSize=&textonly=false

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 03:58 PM (Rn5Ph)

36 Well one thing is certain: Emerson couldn't panhandle sucessfully in Vancouver-Kingsway let alone "win" another election. Hard to say where in BC he could win a seat, even if he runs openly as a Tory this time. It may turn out the way a poster above said, and Harper will just appoint him to Cabinet. As a member of the loose-knit "De-Elect Emerson campaign" I can assure you that any money that is collected is freely given by people of all walks of life and many different ridings all across Canada for the purpose of trying to bring democracy back to V-K. People buy the buttons and lawn signs, and take the time to send our pre-printed postcards to their MP's and to Mssrs Emerson and Harper. Even some Conservative voters have given their support, which says a lot about how much damage Emerson and Harper did to democracy in V-K. We won't quit. Though we may not win the battle to hold Harper and Emerson accountable for the pillaging of democracy in Vancouver-Kingsway, we will keep fighting. Anything less, and we all might as well roll over and let Harper, Emerson et al select who they want to "govern" Canada. Steadfastly, Locusta emersonia

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at May 20, 2006 04:03 PM (nnihx)

37 Steve d. Wrong, the voters in V-K elected Emmerson to represent them, not a Liberal, not a NDP, nor a Consvative. That is the way our federal parliamentry system is suppose to work. That is way floor crossing should never be eliminated. The fact that you and the de-elect Emerson campaign do not understan this fundamental of Canadian politics is typical. The system needs to be reformed to break the power of the party.

Posted by: dkjones at May 20, 2006 11:19 PM (CZIJU)

38 It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22. I'll leave you to your little world.

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:46 PM (5xF7M)

39 I also wonder where all the money went that was collected for lawn signs----because---I drive through that constituency almost daily and so far have seen ONE lawn sign. So where does all the money go? Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at May 21, 2006 02:29 AM (vntGg)

40 Oh, don't have any concern over that Horny Toad. As bob and Dawg like to point out, this isn't an issue of tracking political donations to see where the money goes.

Posted by: Surecure at May 21, 2006 08:23 AM (5xF7M)

41 dkjones I am all for breaking the power of the party. I understand that crossing the floor is also part of the game. However, like most other unfortunate occurences you never expect it will happen to you. When a voter enter the voting booth he doesn't think about whether or not their man is going to cross the floor or become corrupt, or any number of other negatives. They enter the voting booth in hope and good faith that the person is going to stand for the things he said he stood for. In this case Emerson said he stood for Liberal beliefs against Conservative beliefs. There is no getting away from that fact. To say a man had a change of beliefs a week after the election is laughable. To say he is a political opportunist would be more correct. Should we be electing opportunists or men of principle?

Posted by: steve d. at May 21, 2006 11:21 AM (sw5R/)

42 It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22. Wow! Another terrific argument. You're on fire in this thread. Help me understand. You claim that a law has been broken, but you can't seem point to any such law. Failing that, you seem to believe that if a law preventing unregistered, unlimited, political demonstrations by private citizens using their own money outside of elections doesn't exist, it ought to -- despite the fact that you, yourself, don't like the law that prevents such spending during elections. I guess you're right, I am confused.

Posted by: bob at May 22, 2006 12:46 PM (fnZDj)

43 Hats off to you, bob. There's really nothing much left to say. Game, set and match.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 22, 2006 05:43 PM (Rn5Ph)

44 "Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it?" Not all of it, Dawg. I can get that I'd probably be upset, and I get that some people in Van-King (some of whom voted for Emerson) are upset with his party switch; almost 1000 have been upset enough to do something like join a protest or put up a free lawn sign; a couple have been upset enough to vandalize Emerson's office. That's not news; some voters get upset whenever this type of thing happens. What I don't get is your conclusion that, because these people are upset, that somehow makes Emerson's actions (unlike those of every MP who's done the same thing) undemocratic - and that therefore tossing the MP out of office, throwing out the votes of everyone who elected him, suddenly becomes the democratic thing to do.

Posted by: George Dance at May 23, 2006 06:21 AM (vJoqB)

45 Everybody who voted for Emerson knew that as an MP he would have the right to cross the floor, and might do it. Just like any other successful candidate.

Posted by: ebt at May 23, 2006 01:36 PM (7y2db)

46 Shopping for cheap jerseys? Our top reviewed site shows you the power of a comparison search engine. Save money and find discounts on top brands, or products. Can't decide what you want? Dig in a little, read product specs & reviews Cheap nfl jerseys ★★★★★cheap jerseys, nfl jerseys cheap free shipping and fast delivery.Shopping now!

Posted by: Jaguars jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:31 AM (wmdzq)

47 Melody Spring

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 10:14 AM (cSvSl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In the struggle to oust David Emerson for the crime of representing the people who elected him, the tone has often gotten nasty. People have been arrested after pushing and shoving at sit-ins, for example.

As we all know, Emerson was elected by the people of Vancounver-Kingsway while running for the Liberals. He crossed the floor to join the new Harper cabinet, a move that has been endorsed by the premier of British Columbia and the mayor of Vancouver. Nevertheless, there are many people trying to force a new by-election.

One of those people is Manuel Pereda. He is not a political operator like anti-Emerson activist Kevin Chalmers, but works for a Vancouver renovations company.

Perhaps that explains Pereda's effort to meet Emerson half-way:

Emerson spoke briefly about the tone of his recent meeting with protester Manuel Pereda, which recently broke new ground in establishing a line of communication between the two groups.

"Mr. Pereda and I are in many respects not that far apart," Emerson said. "The issues are really more complex than most people really know about with crossing the floor... If you're going to not let people cross the floor then you are putting more power in the hands of the political party and is that truly a democracy?"

A constructive meeting? An effort to find a way to make those constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway who are angry realize they are still represented in Ottawa?

Then why this curious statement?

Both Manuel Pereda and the De-Elect Emerson Campaign have said that Manuel Pereda acted on his own in meeting with Emerson.

Pereda the traitor? The De-Elect Emerson Campaign is the operation run by Kevin Chalmers, a former Emerson campaign worker and a Liberal Party operator.

Apparently the problem was that Emerson had set a condition on the meeting with Pereda. Since Emerson has stated he is unwilling to resign, he felt any meeting on that topic would be a waste of time. But could there still be a useful discussion without getting into resignations?

Pereda thought so. Kevin Chalmers, on his website, makes it clear that any meeting with Emerson must focus on Emerson's resignation:

Recently, after being forced by the presence of national media to accept a constituent's meeting request, Emerson met with one of the many disenfranchised voters of this riding. Emerson only agreed to do so only on the condition that the voter, Manuel Pereda, vowed to not demand for his resignation.

The Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson finds this price of admission far too high.

And that's why Kevin Chalmers doesn't get a meeting, while Manuel Pereda has actually seen some progress, as reported on Pereda's website:

After the meeting, Mr. Pereda stated that he planned to abandon his demands for Mr. Emerson’s resignation, as the minister’s mind is set and Mr. Pereda prefers to use his energy to begin a broader, non-partisan debate on the electoral system. Mr. Pereda’s stance aims at opening the dialogue with all political parties and citizens groups to encourage the start of electoral reform debates. Mr. Pereda made it clear that his stance represents the view of only some of the Message in the Air supporters and that he will continue to applaud the efforts of other groups demanding a new by-election.

Amusingly, Pereda was also forced to highlight the schism in the anti-Emerson crusade (while at the same time trying to downplay it):

Members of the media have been asked to correct reports that were published stating that Mr.Pereda is still a leader of the Campaign to De-elect David Emerson. Mr. Pereda was one of the initiators of the CDDE but he is no longer directly involved in that campaign. Mr. Pereda still has De-elect Emerson signs outside his home because he supports the idea of keeping the issue alive until electoral reform debates get started. Mr. Pereda now chairs the Message in the Air Society.

One wonders if there were any fireworks at the meeting between Chalmers and Pereda. Did Pereda try to convince the true believers at the CDDE that his way was likely to pay dividends? Did Pereda leave, or was he given the bum's rush out the door?

Why is Kevin Chalmers being so dogmatic? Why won't he participate with Pereda in an effort to reform the electoral system in an organized and measured manner instead of relying on sit-ins and airplane stunts?

As Manuel Pereda said, he is interested in the "broader" debate. Chalmers is only interested in Emerson. For Chalmers, this is personal. When something is personal like that, it is either because that specific person has been seriously hurt (so this is about vengeance) or that specific person stands to gain tremendously by winning (so this is about fame and fortune). My gut tells me Chalmers thinks he has something to gain from taking Emerson down -- the fame and fortune motive. That's why he's not interested in the broader implications of electoral reform, and that's why he has no time for people like Pereda who aren't willing to stay focused on Emerson to the exclusion of all else.

The real question is, though, whether there are other people like Pereda in the CDDE who just want to have the same discussion Pereda had, and so can be pealed away from Chalmers.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:15 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 884 words, total size 6 kb.

The ongoing bleating about David Emerson is pretty tiring. Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in Burnaby, BC, making a speech about child care. In the CTV piece on the story, there is a picture of a person carrying a pair of signs with the standard accusation of hypocrisy. The caption is as follows:

Alexander Lamb, a constituent of David Emerson's, carries signs as he arrives at the Willingdon Heights Community Centre to greet Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Burnaby B.C. Tuesday, April 18, 2006.

Is he a constituent? The picture was provided by Chuck Stoody of CP. Did Stoody ask Lamb where he was from? Did he do any follow up? Or is Stoody assuming that Lmab is a constituent?

Or did the people at CTV provide the caption themselves? And if so, the question stands: how was it established that Lamb was a constituent?

Why do I ask? Because I checked every "A Lamb" in the phone book (and I managed to get the postal code for the one "A Lamb" of the ten without a postal code listed in the phone book), and not one of these people is a constituent in David Emerson's riding.

There is a business called "Alexander Lamb Antiques" in the riding. It is a commercial building on Main Street, just three buildings south of East 16th Avenue. Alexander Lamb might have a room in the back and live on the premises, but with all the folks from outside of Emerson's riding making trouble, I tend to be suspicious. But then maybe I'm the one guilty of beating a dead horse here, constantly checking on where these protesters are from.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:50 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

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.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:30 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 1332 words, total size 9 kb.

1 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 05, 2006 01:25 AM (CjcOZ)

2 Idiots.

Posted by: John Crittenden at April 05, 2006 01:36 AM (q3a5q)

3 Excellent post. Very informative. This should be in the papers and TV.

Posted by: Roy Eappen at April 05, 2006 01:41 AM (x9M4y)

4 "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 05, 2006 10:28 AM (9OXmC)

5 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 05, 2006 10:46 AM (heo8b)

6 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 05, 2006 11:30 AM (sw5R/)

7 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 05, 2006 01:42 PM (/WgcG)

8 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 05, 2006 02:08 PM (9OXmC)

9 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 05, 2006 02:20 PM (soGww)

10 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 05, 2006 02:43 PM (/WgcG)

11 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 05, 2006 02:44 PM (9OXmC)

12 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 05, 2006 02:49 PM (9OXmC)

13 Your post confirms further why recall is a bad idea.

Posted by: hatrock at April 05, 2006 02:53 PM (Rgo6u)

14 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 05, 2006 03:01 PM (soGww)

15 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 05, 2006 03:08 PM (ucHAZ)

16 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 05, 2006 03:16 PM (sw5R/)

17 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 05, 2006 03:22 PM (9OXmC)

18 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 05, 2006 03:50 PM (heo8b)

19 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 05, 2006 04:02 PM (ucHAZ)

20 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 05, 2006 05:32 PM (3qUz4)

21 Or do conservative values include bringing back slavery? what planet are you from?

Posted by: xena at April 05, 2006 06:13 PM (gtT0g)

22 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 05, 2006 11:13 PM (TaDbz)

23 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 05, 2006 11:39 PM (PsShO)

24 Re aniel @ 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 05, 2006 11:56 PM (fMdST)

25 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 06, 2006 03:30 AM (e/acA)

26 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 06, 2006 10:37 AM (heo8b)

27 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 06, 2006 10:42 AM (/WgcG)

28 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 06, 2006 03:19 PM (9OXmC)

29 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 08, 2006 12:31 AM (TaDbz)

30 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 (2GVBQ)

31 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 (2GVBQ)

32 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 (KmX2j)

33 I really want to believe that its safe to listen to you. I just read the preliminary report about the inquiry into why people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV from contaminated blood and blood products. Hundreds of people in Scotland, including haemophilia sufferers and other patients, were given contaminated blood in the over a period of about 20 years. Which is completely beyond belief. I found this site on home remedies for piles and everything looks to be true.

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 07:08 AM (9SWLe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Way back on March 14, I put up two posts concerning Kevin Chalmers, the Liberal organizer with the "grassroots" campaign to de-elect David Emerson, the member of parliament (and Paul Martin cabinet minister) elected as a Liberal, who then crossed the floor to join the Conservatives and sit in cabinet.

Old news, I know.

But the posts were about bigger issues. One was concerning the fact that Chalmers was not even a resident of Emerson's riding. The other was about the raising of money to fund this de-election campaign without any accountability. We have strict rules about how much money a person can donate to elect an MP, and where it may come from. This is to avoid having money corrupt the process (I'm not necessarily agreeing with the rules, but that is their stated purpose). Doesn't it make sense to worry about who might be trying to turf an MP as well, especially if they cast themselves as a "local" group?

These are important points, in my opinion. But I haven't seen them discussed by any of the main stream media columnists. I'm bringing it up again now because today on CTV's Question Period, the Liberal strategist made a snarky remark in reference to a discussion about the Federal Accountability Act, refering to the Emerson appointment as if it was unethical -- which of course it wasn't. I've always thought it was entirely ethical, and I certainly didn't need the Ethics Commissioner to tell me so, but for what it's worth, he agreed completely.

So Emerson and the government are in the clear, but no one is asking the hard questions of Chalmers -- Where is the money coming from? How do you justify meddling in the affairs of someone else's riding? Why are you doing this?

Why are you doing this? I'd like to have that one answered. Call me a cynic, but a Liberal fighting so hard for accountability and ethics? I have to believe he's working to achieve a different goal. And not just to embarass David Emerson and Stephen Harper. Something for the Liberals, or something for himself.

Parliament opens this week, and if the media tries to squeeze more mileage out of the Emerson appointment in the days and weeks to come, I'm hoping a member of the media takes the trouble to dig around on the other side. I think there's a story there.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:35 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

You know Kevin Chalmers, the former campaign coordinator for David Emerson, and now the leader of the effort to "de-elect" Emerson for having the temerity to join cabinet.

Well, on the donation page on the de-election website he writes the following:

Send to:

Suite 359 - 3495 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R3

Any questions please contact us by email or phone at:

Email: info@emersoncampaign.ca

Notice that no actual phone number is provided.

Well, I checked the registry for emersoncampaign.ca, and Kevin Chalmers used the phone number (604) 924-9212. That turns out to be his home number at 145 Keith Road West in North Vancouver. Interestingly, that is in Don Bell's riding North Vancouver.

Kevin Chalmers does not live David Emerson's riding of Vancouver Kingsway. David Emerson is not Chalmer's member of parliament. Chalmer's is represented by Liberal MP Don Bell. Judging from the lack of a de-election campaign, Chalmers is pleased by his representation by an opposition MP first elected in 2004, and who has never held a cabinet post.

Maybe Kevin Chalmers can explain why he feels the need to de-elect someone else's member of parliament. Apparently just as he is happy with his representation by Don Bell, he knows that the people of Vancouver Kingsway would be happy to have a new member of parliament. But then why isn't there someone in David Emerson's own riding who is leading the charge to de-elect David Emerson?

Can't those Vancouver-Kingsway people organize their own town hall meetings?

As a Vancouver-Kingsway grass roots driven organization we would like to extend a formal invitation to Mr. Emerson to attend and participate in a town hall meeting with his constituents.

I think he meant "a North Vancouver-based Vancouver-Kingsway grass roots driven organization".

A "carpetbagger" is an outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality. I guess that makes Chalmers some sort of anti-carpetbagger, an outsider who seeks the failure of local politician.

Maybe Chalmers can explain which is more dangerous to the parliamentary system: that an elected member of parliament joined the cabinet at the request of the prime minister, or that people might be able to force by-elections in ridings that aren't their own.

Imagine a riding in BC that is heavily NDP running de-election campaigns targeting a Conservative MP in Alberta. Or vice versa. Then you will understand why we have a riding system in which members are responsible to their own constituents.

Update: Apparently this was revealed by Norman Spector on CKNW radio today. Darn.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:16 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

Kevin Chalmers, David Emerson's former campaign coordinator, is spearheading the effort to have the floor-crossing cabinet minister "de-elected".

At his website, we learn that this is not motivated by partisan politics:

We are a non-partisan, grassroots campaign. We are not aligned with any political party.

They accept donations:

We welcome donations of all sizes -- every contribution helps.

Please make cheques out to:

Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson

As far as I can tell, this is not a registered political organization, or a charity. It is not a publicly traded company with shareholders. We're not in an election, so I'm not certain whether the so-called "third party" rules apply to restrict the amount of money spent. Kevin Chalmers is not registered as a lobbyist, so we don't know who he is talking to about this issue.

The bottom line is that we have his word for it that this is a non-partisan grassroots campaign. It might have started out that way, or maybe this Liberal Party organizer got the idea from somewhere else. He might be getting his money from somewhere else, too. Heck, the NDP came second in the riding -- who is to say money isn't being moved into this campaign from there.

We don't even know if Chalmers is making any effort to restrict donations so that only David Emerson's constituents are putting up the money, or if he is happy to accept money from any Canadian living anywhere in any amount who wants to meddle in the politics of Vancouver Kingsway.

Actually, if I were Chalmers, I'd probably want to keep that a secret too. Though partisans might be happy to accept help from any source as long as it advances their agenda, people who are not so sure about what to think about Emerson's move into cabinet would probably feel a bit angry if they learned that some outsiders were trying to force the issue and turf their candidate.

I wonder if anyone is looking into this.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:24 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

I've checked, and I can't find any stories of vandalism aimed at Belinda Stronach's riding office by angry conservatives:

Two men are in custody facing mischief charges after Vancouver police caught protesters dumping manure outside embattled MP David Emerson's constituency office early Monday.

Recall that recently four people were arrested for assault by trespass for staging a sit-in. This included Kevin Chalmers, David Emerson's former campaign coordinator and currently the CEO of White Tiger Consulting. White Tiger had two major contracts with Canfor, the lumber concern for which David Emerson was formerly the CEO. I'm guessing no new contracts will be going to White Tiger anytime soon. I wonder how the other partners at White Tiger feel about that?

Enough about those arrests. Back to the today's batch of arrests.

The names of the manure dumpers weren't reported.

Conservatives aren't devoid of passion. I bet plenty of people who felt betrayed by Belinda's defection to the Liberals in order to sell her vote for a cabinet post had petty revenge fantasies.

But then one of the things that seems to identify a liberal is being "liberated" from the bonds of common decency, or even the requirement to act within the law. Do you feel strongly about an issue, especially if it's just feeling against something without clearly for anything else? Then you aren't confined to letter writing, or peaceful protests, or personal boycotts, or exercising your vote at the next election. You're a liberal! You are allowed to do whatever you please.

As long as it makes you feel good, right?

Don't worry about the police and the law. Just call whatever you did direct action, physical political intervention, or even street theatre. Plenty of ways to spin vandalism and assault in such a way as to suggest that the appropriate response is applause and adulation instead of a hefty fine and possibly a criminal record.

Maybe it's the conservative way of seeing the world -- realisitically -- instead of the liberal way -- idealistically -- that prevents conservatives from engaging in this sort of thing. Call your "direct action" whatever you want -- it's still a petty crime committed by petty criminals for petty motives. Nothing like a healthy dose of realism to reveal stupidity for what it is.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:58 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

It appears that the NDP has had enough of being told that they have two sets of standards, one for right-wing parties and one for left-wing parties. Or perhaps one for temporary allies and another for everyone else.

Whatever.

In any case, while the NDP was calling for an ethics investigation into former cabinet minister David Emerson crossing the floor to join the Conservatives and so join Stephen Harper's inaugural cabinet, not a word was heard from the NDP about neophyte MP Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to join the Liberals and enter cabinet on the eve of a confidence vote.

The fact is, as I've argued before, neither are really matters of ethics, but of political calculation. Politics can be ugly, but in the end, it is up to the voters to pass judgment.

Still, it appears that the NDP is now trying to be retroactively consistent:

The NDP is asking ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro to expand his investigation into parliamentary floor crossing to include Liberal Belinda Stronach.

Shapiro is already looking into the decision by David Emerson to leave the Liberals for a Conservative cabinet post just after the January election. Stronach crossed the other way last year, abandoning the Tories to sit in Paul Martin's cabinet.

New Democrat MP Pat Martin says the two incidents are so similar, they cry out for a joint investigation.

Joint? Does that mean a joint judgment too?

I'd say there is a 50-50 chance that Shapiro will refuse to investigate the Stronach situation. He'll come up with some excuse, like that it happened too long ago, or that the election cleans the slate, or that since she is no longer in government and no longer in cabinet, the issue was rendered irrelevant.

Part of me hopes he does come up with an excuse. Just one more reason not to trust him. On the other hand, things could get interesting if he does investigate Stronach.

Consider this. Stephen Harper is refusing to cooperate because, frankly, choosing ministers is the prime minister's prerogative. It is a matter of his judgment, not of his ethics. If Shapiro agrees to investigate the Stronach case, will Paul Martin agree to cooperate? Will Belinda Stronach? Which is more important -- keeping the Stronach situation under wraps and in the past, or putting Harper on the hot seat?

Since Belinda Stronach is vying for the leadership of the Liberal Party, you know that she would rather give Emerson and Harper a pass than submit to an investigation. Of course, a few Liberal contenders for the leadership might see this as a way of taking out the potential front-runner, and might join the call for the investigation to include Stronach. It'll be interesting to watch what happens.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:20 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Update: Looks like the NDP had enough of people pointing out the double-standard.

Are any of you constituents in Burnaby-Douglas? Is your member of parliament Bill Siksay?

Then go read this. When you are done, write to Mr Siksay, and tell him this:

Dear Mr Siksay,

As one of your 100,000 constituents, I appreciate the effort you make to represent me. One of those efforts should be to maintain and even improve the quality of government. Mr Dave Platten has written to you asking you to explain how David Emerson's move to the Conservatives is worthy of an ethics investigation while Belinda Stronach's was not. Your response was that if he wasn't a constituent, he was not owed an answer.

He is a Canadian, sir, and I believe any Canadian is owed an answer to such a question. But consider this to be a request from one of your constituents for an answer to exactly the question he posed. Here is his original email to you:

I have written to several NDP members and the NDP web site but have yet to get a response to the following question, the NDP are asking the Ethics Commissioner to look into the floor crossing of David Emerson, are the NDP asking the same for Belinda Stronach? If not, why not?

It would be nice if someone in the NDP Party could stand up for their actions and give me an answer, or is there not one to be found? Was there nothing for the NDP to gain by acting in the Stronach crossing?

The email was dated March 5.

It would be nice if you responded to Mr Platten directly, but if you consider typing his email address to be too much time spent away from focusing on the needs of your constituents, send the response to me, and be assured I will forward a copy to Mr Platten.

Mr Platten asked a very relevant question, and your response suggested that you would rather not answer it, perhaps because you don't have an answer. I hope this is not true, and I look forward to your explanation of the subtleties of what the NDP caucus considers to be ethical behaviour.

Please be sure to include an explanation of the NDP response to both the Emerson and Stronach situation and how they are somehow different, and so requiring a different response. Also let me know if your response is merely your opinion, or the working principles of the NDP for situations such as this one.

Make sure you include a full address so that Siksay knows you are one of his constituents and thus a worthy recipient of his vast wisdom.

The rest of us, apparently, are not counted worthy, so we're depending on you. Don't let us down. Let me know how it goes, and post comments to this entry with any responses you get.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:25 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

The Prime Minister has the duty to form a cabinet. Tradition dictates that cabinet ministers are selected from among the members elected to parliament. Politics makes it clear that the cabinet members be selected from among members of the Prime Minister's party.

Every MP looks to belong to cabinet. Of course, they do. They believe they have something to offer. They wouldn't run for elected office otherwise. But what of the pay and the perks that come with the job?

Is it a crime to look forward to those as well?

David Emerson was elected to Parliament. He was selected to be a member of Stephen Harper's cabinet. No one doubts his skill -- he was an effective cabinet minister in the last government.

But the NDP has called in the Ethics Commissioner because they allege that Emerson was enticed by the benefits of being a cabinet minister to take the job.

Well, d'uh. Being a cabinet minister is a lot harder than being an opposition MP. Of course, few NDP members will ever experience the difference. In a capitalist system, we routinely compensate for the extra work with extra pay, based on the perceived value of the work. A cabinet minister is seen as contributing significantly more than an opposition MP, so he gets paid more.

Enticement or compensation?

And even if Emerson took the offer so that he could get a limo, how are you going to know? Will Bernard Shapiro, the Ethics Commissioner, look into Emerson's soul, to make sure he was sufficiently motivated by selflessness?

This is why the Conservatives under Stephen Harper did not demand an ethics investigation into Belinda Stronach's defection. In that case, the MP involved was not suited to the portfolio, had no experience as a cabinet minister, and clearly was being offered a position in order to save the government from a non-confidence vote.

Well, when I say clearly, I mean it seemed obvious. But then, a cabinet post is not a new car. It's not like she was offered money to cross the floor. Belinda was assigned a job that had lots of headaches, and that would make her a major target during Question Period. The compensation -- the pay, the perks -- are hardly all that important to a multi-millionare like her.

In the end, the only perk that Paul Martin could offer to put her a step closer to the centre of power, and to put her in a position from which she could one day make a play for that power. Is that ethical? No. But then how do you prove motivations?

You can't, and so there was no ethics investigation demanded. Paul Martin had the right to make the offer, and Belinda Stronach has the right to accept it. It is simply beyond the power of any human to evaluate what motivates a person. The scope of the ethics commissioner is to evaluate whether an MP is using his position and his powers to earn some sort of personal profit.

Bernard Shapiro refused to investigate the way Tony Valeri personally profited from a land-flip deal with a businessman that made no economic sense, but that put thousands of dollars into Valeri's pocket, money from the bank account of a person who profited from government contracts. But he wants to investigate whether David Emerson's motivations were sufficiently pure when he took on a job the Prime Minister had every right to offer him, a job that will be difficult and is compensated appropriately.

No wonder Stephen Harper has no time for Bernard Shapiro.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:03 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.

Fatah leads the Palestinians for years. Now Hamas takes over. Will any Fatah politicians consider crossing the floor?

During the voting, a dozen Fatah gunmen walked near the parliament building in Gaza City, firing into the air. The gunmen eventually headed to a nearby meeting of Fatah leaders, demanding that their party not join a Hamas government, with one masked gunman saying any Fatah politician who did would be killed.

I suppose David Emerson should be grateful. On the other hand, expect the Liberals to take credit for our more peaceful way of politics, citing decades of strict gun control.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:01 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

When the story came out of a class action suit being filed in response to David Emerson's decision to cross the floor, I wrote what I thought to be a very important post on why this was wrong.

The suit sought to somehow invalidate the election results on the basis that this guy didn't like what Emerson did:

"Based on my understanding of Section 3 of the charter, and the publicly available evidence respecting the context and timing of the 'crossing,'" he says, "it is my opinion that the post-election actions of David Emerson, and perhaps the prime minister, as well, nullified the rights of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway to play a meaningful role in the election of their elected representative and it further denied them the right to "effective representation" by the party of their choice (Liberal) and their party-affiliated representative."

I pointed out that this is fundamentally an unacceptable tactic. Fundamental because it is irrelevant what Emerson did or does when it comes to whether to votes of the constituents were counted. The election happened, the rights of the citizens to cast a vote was upheld, there was no evidence of fraud or a miscount, and David Emerson won. That win cannot be erased by a court order.

Nothing can "nullify" that vote -- nothing Emerson does, nor any order from the court.

My argument was that a fair election result can never be ignored or erased. It is beyond the reach of the courts to pass judgment. At best, going forward, people who don't like what Emerson did can argue that he is somehow not fit for office, forcing another election, but that does not change the fact that the previous election happened.

The difficulty is that Emerson can easily argue that he is still a fit representative for his riding in the House of Commons. The decision of the people for him to be the representative has not been ignored. Any argument based on party platforms and voter intent is going to be very hard to prove, not to mention that the parliamentary system does not recognize these concepts, but only that a specific individual receiving a plurality of the votes becomes MP. I would think no judge would want to touch it.

My point is that any argument that says the election of Emerson should be somehow nullified is a non-starter. No fair election result should ever be subject to judgment by the courts.

Having recapped this, there appears to be another attempt to dump Emerson, this time using the Ethics Commissioner. In response to this news, Warren Kinsella has some thoughts, and they seem to align reasonably well with mine:

Oh, for the two correspondents who have asked, yes: I condemn what David Emerson did - just like I condemn what Belinda Stronach, Keith Martin and Scott Brison did - but this Bernard Shapiro investigation thing isn't just crazy, it's on crack. The ultimate ethical oversight is a general election, or it should be.

Note that we don't agree on the need to condemn Emerson in the same way that Stronach should have been condemned. I see them as very different situations, but Kinsella seems to see all floor crossings in the same way. I can respect that -- it has the strength of being consistent.

But we seem to be on the same wavelength on believing an ethics investigation is wholly inappropriate. Again, Emerson was elected, and he then acted within the boundaries of parliamentary tradition (as did Stronach and Brison and so on). That act should be judged by the voters, and in our system, that opportunity will come in four years or so, or sooner if the government falls. Is that fair to wait so long? Some would say it isn't, but then the strength of our system is that having relatively long times between elections means that a riding election is fought on the quality of the representation provided over several years, aggregating the high and lows of that term to come to what is hoped to be a balanced decision on the quality of that MP.

The voters selected David Emerson. They will have a chance to reconsider that selection in due course. Any attempt by any one individual to alter that in some way is where the intention of the voters is in danger of being nullified, not by anything David Emerson has done or can do.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:03 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 744 words, total size 5 kb.

Stephen Harper has told the Ethics Commissioner that his interest in the case of David Emerson crossing the floor is misplaced, and frankly inappropriate:

There's a possibility Stephen Harper's first act as prime minister may have breached the parliamentary ethical code for MPs, the federal ethics commissioner indicated Friday.

But Bernard Shapiro's decision to launch a "preliminary inquiry" into Harper's controversial appointment of former Liberal David Emerson to the Conservative cabinet met with a furious rebuttal from the Prime Minister's Office.

"The prime minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the House," Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said late Friday.

In a release, the PMO added, "this Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the prime minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."

The Ethics Commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, has repeatedly been ridiculed for his work.

In this case, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating the fact that David Emerson crossed the floor, which is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, but refused to investigate the case of Liberal MP Tony Valeri's extremely profitable land-swap deal, citing the fact that Parliament was not sitting at the time.

Of course, Parliament is not sitting now, but apparently that rule is flexible.

The fact is, Bernard Shapiro is essentially useless. The rules under which he works were written up by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. The Liberals are hardly the poster boys for ethical behaviour. But more than that, I've been shocked at his sloppy work.

With his "investigation" into the Abotech affair, Shapiro only questioned the two people in the story, David Smith and Frank Brazeau, who had reasons to lie in order to save each other. He did not ask questions of David Smith's wife, for example. He allowed the two men to define the nature of their relationship, and they conveniently ignored to mention that they were first cousins. Did Bernard Shapiro challenge them on this? Of course not. Did he know about the familial relationship? Well, I told him via email at least twice.

But Shapiro wanted the Smith investigation to go away, and it did.

On the other hand, sticking it to Stephen Harper seems to be in his game plan, and suddenly the comments of ordinary citizens matter:

But the ethics czar said "numerous requests from the public" helped convince him to investigate Emerson's behaviour as well.

I'm willing to bet, though, that Shapiro will clear Emerson. The fact is, Shapiro seems to have real problems finding unethical behaviour anywhere he looks. In the Abotech case, Smith continued to sign contracts even after leaving Abotech, a clear ethical violation. But Smith told Shapiro that the signatures were "inadvertant", and so he got a pass. As noted, Shapiro never asked Smith's wife, who was supposed to be running the company, why she did not react to signatures appearing inadvertantly on contracts that would have had her name on them.

If Shapiro couldn't spot unethical behaviour that appeared written on a piece of paper, what chance is he going to have of finding something unethical where, frankly, nothing unethical happened?

But then again, who knows what's going on inside his head?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:46 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Short and sweet.

Now how do go from that to this?

A constituent in the Vancouver Kingsway federal riding is organizing a class action lawsuit against incumbent federal MP David Emerson.

[Peter Dimitrov, a human rights and trial lawyer], who ran for the leadership of the BC NDP in 2003, says while the mass rallies and recall petitions are laudable, he worries that they will not be effective in removing Emerson, since there is no federal recall legislation. BC is currently the only electoral jurisdiction that has such legislation, which was introduced by the previous NDP government in 1995.

He says this is why legal action is necessary, since a charter interpretation will likely settle the matter.

"Based on my understanding of Section 3 of the charter, and the publicly available evidence respecting the context and timing of the 'crossing,'" he says, "it is my opinion that the post-election actions of David Emerson, and perhaps the prime minister, as well, nullified the rights of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway to play a meaningful role in the election of their elected representative and it further denied them the right to "effective representation" by the party of their choice (Liberal) and their party-affiliated representative."

Nope, sorry, don't see it. The Charter does not recognize political parties or recalls -- just elections. We have the right to vote. Period.

I'm not sure why "effective representation" is in quotes. The phrase does not appear in the Charter in any context, either as a right or otherwise.

But besides being a bit of a stretch, this lawsuit is dangerous, and should not even be allowed to proceed. Once the count has been certified, and the people have spoken, there should be no intervention by the courts to overturn the result where there is no evidence or even allegation of a flaw in the voting process.

To even acknowledge that the courts have such a power to overturn a valid and well-executed election is to complete our transition from a democracy to a judicial oligarchy. Any judge presented with this lawsuit should toss it out with a stern warning that this is entirely outside of the powers of the judiciary to adjudicate.

You don't like Emerson? Fine. Help to pass legislation that forces him to stand for re-election. Good luck making it retroactive, by the way. And good luck also at crafting it in such a way that it could survive a constitutional challenge.

But don't think a simple lawsuit is the way to go. The election was fair. People voted as is their right under the Charter. No laws were broken. The ballots were counted and David Emerson received the most votes.

The result of a well-executed election is sacrosanct. It must be for our democracy to have any legitimacy. If you are successful at getting legislation forcing a recall or a by-election, all you've done is increase the number of elections. I think you are being silly, but at least you aren't dismissing the legitimacy of the previous election as such. You aren't arguing the David Emerson is not the legitimate MP. You are requiring him to submit to a separate election outside of the normal requirement of an election within five years based on a specific decision (an idea which I think suffers from a serious constitutional problem) but at least you are using an election as the mechanism for your solution. Moreover, you are implementing that solution via the legislature, the body that represents the combined voting wisdom of all Canadians.

What you are not doing is subordinating the choice of thousands of citizens expressed at the ballot box to the whim of a single judge. However, this is exactly what Dimitrov wants to do.

The judiciary should fulfill its role in determining if such a law meets the standards of constitutionality. In others words, the judiciary can be asked to make a decision on whether it is a good law. The judiciary should never be asked whether an MP is a good MP. That is for the electorate to decide and no one else. Ever.

Even if you don't like what Emerson did, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Whatever short term heartburn you are suffering because of Emerson crossing the floor pales in comparison to making free and fair elections subject to successful lawsuits by those who don't like the result.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:19 PM | Comments (68) | Add Comment
Post contains 780 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Steve: The electors in Vancouver-Kingsway had the right to vote for a Liberal, and they thought they had. Their rights were frustrated. Surely havint "the right to vote" subsumes the notion that, when that right of choice is exercised, that choice is what actually transpires. Anything else is fraudulent conversion.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 23, 2006 04:37 PM (fJ19O)

2 Steve: The electors in Vancouver-Kingsway had the right to vote for a Liberal, and they thought they had. Their rights were frustrated. Surely having "the right to vote" subsumes the notion that, when that right of choice is exercised, that choice is what actually transpires. Anything else is fraudulent conversion.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 23, 2006 04:37 PM (fJ19O)

3 The Charter states that every CITIZEN has the right to vote--then why is it not incumbent upon EC to demand proof of citizenship of each voter? Has anyone gone over the list of voters to determine how many of the "Liberal voters' were actually citizens? Or are we again being selective here? This situation smells--no0, I did not like Emerson's floor crossing, but this is much ado about nothing. It is mostly the NDP causing this ruckus--and yet I don't hear the same claim re democracy being raised when Gordon Wilson crossed the floor to the provincial NDP in BC. Selective virtue?

Posted by: George at February 23, 2006 04:42 PM (9Pstk)

4 You have to remember that when you cross to the liberals or an NDP's you are doing it for ethical reasons but if you cross to the conservatives you are joining that evil right wing conspiracy. As for judicial oligarchy, that's what we have in this country at the moment to a certain degree. Especially when we had PM that couldn't make a decision. Where was this Dimitrov clown when all these other floor crossings were going on? I guess if Conservative voters "human rights" are violated then that's OK. With activist judges at every level this case could go all the way to the Extreme Court where their decision will take place long after the next election.

Posted by: primvs pilvs at February 23, 2006 05:08 PM (jm+/s)

5 Just another champagne socialist wannbe trying to leverage 15 minutes of fame & press time outta thi non story for thier own political gain. The whole "uprising" in the riding is being organized by the local NDP wingnut moonbat organization . . its a as phoney as an honest Liberal. A failed NDP leader trying for a 2nd chance

Posted by: Fred at February 23, 2006 05:19 PM (tzGmh)

6 The electoral system and the electoral laws need to change. Picking thru the entrails of this past flawed system and taking sides justifying the next injustice by a past injustice or quoting unjust laws that mock representative democracy does nothing to solve anything when the very electoral system is only quasi-democratic. In rough numbers: 60% of those on list bother to vote.10% are off list. Of possible electorate, 40% pick most 'majority' governments, representing 20% of the possible electorate. After a century of this, you can't blame people for not bothering to vote, where politicians regularly totally reverse their election promises with impunity...GST etc, and floor crossing is just one other example of this. The PM elected to 'majority' status by 20% of the electorate, has the arbitrary power to appoint a whole upper chamber, the judicial powerful branch, the heads of lucrative crown corporations, commissioners of enquiry into government wrongdoing, all kinds of Boards running all kinds of things... etc etc In democratic terms, Canada, a virtual one party state for most of its history because of these quasi-democratic reasons, is the 'sick man' of the democratic West, and the colossal levels of mostly legal corruption and the vast levels of waste in governance are a steady stream of proof of this sickness. So let's give Emerson a break, and move on to reforming this sick electoral and governance system. If tweedle dee acts like dweedle dum there is no change until the actual democratic system is brought up to modern standards in Canada. Any party that fails to address the shame of the 'democratic deficit' in Canada is just another scam.

Posted by: brock at February 23, 2006 05:42 PM (e/acA)

7 They voted for David Emerson and they got David Emerson and as a bonus even though the Liberals did not get in He did! When you vote do you vote for the party or the person?Chicken or the egg methinks

Posted by: ian at February 23, 2006 06:26 PM (KqGpk)

8 Just another smart aleck lawyer looking to get famous, and maybe rich, by twisting the charter to fit thier ambitions. It shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: Curtis at February 23, 2006 06:45 PM (heo8b)

9 Emerson is the symptom of the sicknes, not the cause. let's focus on the cause, which is that he did what others did before him because it is legal under a corrupt flawed partial democracy that is the shame of the otherwise democratic Western world. Why this malaise only in Canada? Why is only Canada incapable of reforming its colonial-era democracy to join the modern West? Emerson is the canary in the mine telling canadians who long for democracy that the conservatives, unless they bring in electoral reform, will be just another Mulroney government.

Posted by: brock at February 23, 2006 08:24 PM (e/acA)

10 The flaw here is not in the voting process but in the end result (or should I say the after fact). This is not a “floor crossing” as we have seen in the past. Although I’m no fan of floor crossings I can understand that sometimes this may be necessary when no other alternatives are available (i.e. MP’s being kicked out of parties or faced with strong disagreements over issues within their party). This time, this is different, the ink wasn’t even dried on the ballots; ballots were still being counted. This is the kind of flaws we see in third world countries; do we want the same for ours? In some countries this would be called fraud however here we call it “floor crossing”. Here is an hypothetical scenario: Let’s say that a party knows that they can’t get elected in a riding and by some coincidence they manage to have someone from their party to run and get elected under the other party’s banner and right after the election this candidate switches over back to his party, this is not only done in one riding but in several across Canada and this party ends up forming the Government. What would this be called? Precedence here has been set and something better be done quickly to fix it. We must restore confidence in people’s votes and our election process otherwise we’ll end up similar to third world countries. Democracy is too important to let political GAMERS tamper with it and if it needs the Courts to fix it so be it, too much is a state here and I urge all electorates regardless of party affiliation to speak up and get something done. You’re Angry in the Great White North so please speak out in support of democracy because I’ve seen what voters’ apathy and vote fixing can do to a country and you don't want it here.

Posted by: marcel at February 23, 2006 09:57 PM (FsHyW)

11 Marcel is right. It's not just what was done, but how it was done. There may very well have been a breach of the Charter. There may also have been a breach of the Ethics for MP's. The actions of Emerson and Harper must be scrutinized in detail against both the Charter, and the Ethics policy. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway were robbed of their votes. They voted for the Liberal candidate, Emerson. Morally and ethically, at a gut-level, the electorate know the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and opportunism. Now, we just have to keep up the pressure on our government to stand up for our rights. This firestorm is not going to go away. Basic democratic principles are at stake.

Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 23, 2006 11:18 PM (nnihx)

12 Maybe if Emerson had waited `til the ink on the ballots was dry there wouldn`t be somuch disdain for his move. Harper was going to run an ethical government, we found out what a lying sack of shit he really is right away. Just another no good politician. Maybe we could send him to Houston, BC and get him to drink a beer outside a hockey game.

Posted by: Rick at February 23, 2006 11:47 PM (gWl7q)

13 Where were these people when Scott and Belinda jumped ship? Particularly Belinda as her jumping ship was responsible for keeping an arguably illegitimate government afloat. The MSM passed over her defection in a day but won't give up on this one. Hyprocrites!

Posted by: confused at February 23, 2006 11:57 PM (O3lBl)

14 Confused: I'm no liberal; I'm just raising a point. What was done here is border line corruption and we can't afford for this to happen again. I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it if Emerson had waited and "crossed the floor" after the House was in Session. It is too easy to destroy democracy and we just can’t afford to let the political gamers have their way. I ask you to please look beyond partisanship and look at the big picture and “what if”. P.S. I was just as appalled with it when Stronach and Brison did it; I can’t stand opportunists.

Posted by: marcel at February 24, 2006 12:23 AM (FsHyW)

15 I find it fascinating how so many people are able to extrapolate the entire character of Harper and any government he leads from this single act... Yet these same insightful folks voted Chretien into majority government three times and never managed to figure out what a truly evil man he is... These same rocket scientists then gave Martin a minority government and damn near gave him a second minority... and we all saw what a magnificent leader Martin wasn't. NOW all these geniuses want to point fingers and call Harper a hypocrite. I guess they're looking in the mirror when they say that?

Posted by: Mac at February 24, 2006 01:36 AM (TaDbz)

16 I believe there is a word for legal actions like these. Its called vexatious (sp?) and its the words heard by many litigants just before the judge tells them to take a hike. Ge real. This guy is a card carrying NDP, they want that seat. This legal action has diddly to do with "read in" charter rights, and everything to do with partisan opportunism. Two wrongs don't make a right. Dare I say this legal action if its allowed, will only "politicize the court".

Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 05:28 AM (uDj9I)

17 Angry: We differ on whether Emerson belongs in Cabinet but not on the fundamental question of whether MPs should be able to cross the floor. Good post on that, to which I can add nothing. One observation on this court challenge, though -- why is a Dipper piloting it? If the Endipistas in V-Kingsway wanted a Liberal to represent them in this Parliament, why did they run their own candidate in the election? Canadian history is littered with candidates running under the banner of more than one party before the Conservative-Liberal-CCF/NDP-Socred structure crystallized in the 1950s.

Posted by: Jim Whyte at February 24, 2006 09:24 AM (/WgcG)

18 Question for you Jim Whyte. Wasn't Emerson already in cabinet when Harper asked him if he wanted to be in his?

Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 09:45 AM (zElnE)

19 SOrry for multiple posting but just thought of another question for all those constitutional experts out there. Does political affilliation establish any reasonable limits on the written* charter freedom of conscience? *(thats to clarify that this freedom isn't "read in" to the charter).

Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 09:51 AM (zElnE)

20 Ian waddel the NDP candidate was a BC MLA. He got the leader of a small party to cross over and become an NDP cabinet minister. How anything he says regarding this can be taken with a shred of credibility is incredible. Typical is the statement that the people of his riding voted Liberal. Some did, some did not, some voted for Emerson, some voted strategically. These sweeping statements are as usual full of crap. enough

Posted by: enough at February 24, 2006 09:53 AM (ucHAZ)

21 Pleased as I am that the Liberals got a little sauce for their gander, and recognizing as I do that the right to vote does not entail the right to utterly dictate your candidate's behaviour once in office, I nonetheless can't help but feel that the lawsuit perhaps has more merit than you allow, Steve -- ethically, if not legally. The problem comes from the fact that many people do not vote on the local merits of the candidate, but on the political principles that candidate nominally represents through his party affiliation. Ian, above, asked, "Do you vote for the party or the person?" -- well, the plain fact is, most people vote for the party, because it's the balance of power among the *parties* that makes the most difference to many voters both practically and in principle. To say "You voted for Emerson, you got Emerson, what's the problem?" is to disingenuously avoid this real point. What those angry with this floor crossing are saying -- just as the Tories in Belinda Stronach's riding were saying -- is, "We wanted an additional vote for the planks we like on the federal level -- and our MP's defection has wasted our votes, because they will no longer support the principles in Parliament that we wanted them to support." After all, Steve, if we shouldn't give one judicial official the right to nullify an election at his own discretion, why does one elected MP have the right to do effectively the same thing at *his* own discretion? The value of a free vote relies on the assumption that the votes' effects are clear, consistent, and reliable: for an MP to devalue that vote for his own ends by deceiving the electorate is just as bad as for a judge to nullify that vote for *his* reasons. If Emerson had secured his position by financial fraud of some kind and it came out, he would be turfed and justly so. Why is it that if you lie about money it invalidates your campaign, but if you lie about your platform -- the very thing that gains you most of your votes in the first place -- you aren't? To try to use a lawsuit to invalidate an election simply because you don't like the result is one thing. To try to invalidate it because you were promised one result, voted on the basis of that promise, and then given another after the fact by unilateral decision on the part of the man you elected, may have more merit. If we want greater accountability in our politicians and representatives, it might be worth starting to think about holding them accountable at the most fundamental level of all: Their own honesty.

Posted by: Stephen J. at February 24, 2006 10:41 AM (+7vgB)

22 It's not about suing because you don't like the results. It's about politicians lying their asses off, screwing their constituents, and not having to be held to account for it. For some strange reason, I was under the impression that this kind of thing mattered to conservatives. What's that you say? OOOHHHHHH...that was when they were in opposition....gotcha. meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 10:53 AM (9OXmC)

23 Winston Churchill is widely regarded as one of the best political leaders of the 20th century. Yet he crossed the floor twice in his elected life. (Not to say, Belinda, Bryson, or Emerson are in the same league as Churchill) Crossing the floor is a long held, but rarely used right of an elected MP. If we restrict the rights of MPs we damage democracy by strengthening the party whips, and parties. Look at how the House of Reps works in the United States. (where the party whip is fairly weak) Collecting votes for a bill has often been described as herding cats. The seats that MPs are elected to, belong to the MP, not the party.

Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 11:54 AM (heo8b)

24 "Basic democratic principles are at stake" Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 23, 2006 11:18 PM You're absolutely right when we allow moronic lawyers to bring in reckless lawsuits regarding our Charter of Rights. You know as a Conservative, I am damn mad that Canada elected any Liberals to parliament. I think we should have a lawsuit against every Liberal that won an election and have them tossed out. The Liberal party is a useless party that has shown itself to be corrupt. Perhaps there should be a legal challenge to remove the Liberal party and not allow it to run again in future elections. You're absolutely right our "basic democratic principles are at stake" if we allow stupid lawsuits to take place.

Posted by: mikeh at February 24, 2006 12:04 PM (SMdjy)

25 Me thinks that some lair, err lawyers have too much time on their hands. Quick 15 minutes of fame, grab a headline - Sue the government, sue the floor crosser - this is sacrilege! Right. Dial me back to reality please...

Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:15 PM (CUIIz)

26 I'm not sure who I am more sick of these days. Lawyers or NDP'ers My apologies to all lawyers who don't use illogical thinking to advance their own partisan policies

Posted by: ScottInCgy at February 24, 2006 12:18 PM (pK9ff)

27 Mikeh, yeah agreed, who knows what goes through a Libeal voters head these days, can't be a vaccum because at least we know where the sucking sound is coming from. ...Did I just say that? Dang keyboard. I still wonder how Belimbo and Baddale got back in - either must have a lot of really forgiving people there or birds of a feather? Emmerson cross dres...err floor crossing. Ok, so the reason is "representation". So why didsn't any Toroanna airheads get in? Has anyone noticed all the big perky jobs went to Quebec MP's?

Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:23 PM (CUIIz)

28 Scott: "My apologies to all lawyers..." Shouldn't that be phrased in a singluar pronoun? "My apology to the lawyer..." but gotta be nice, you too someday will need one of these.

Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:25 PM (CUIIz)

29 Does anyone remember Emerson's "victory" speech? He said, "... This is the first step in the long road back to a Conserv ahhh errr Liberal majority!" The Ethics Commissioner will look at that newscast and wonder what many Vancouver-Kingsway voters wondered at the time, and since: Was the fix in before the election? Another thing to look at is, Emerson had not been sworn in when he made an MP decision to cross the floor. He may have jumped prematurely. Another thing along these same lines is, Harper was not Prime Minister when he offered Emerson a Cabinet position among other inducements. The Ethics Commissioner will have to weigh the actions of these two men against what he ruled in the Martin-Grewal affair. Things will just get more interesting. Why worry about a lawsuit if your hands are clean? Rest assured, the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway would not classify such a lawsuit as vexatious or spurious. Democracy is at stake here.

Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 12:31 PM (nnihx)

30 Imagine the following scenario (purely hypothetical, never gonna happen) The Liberals start to secretly appeal to Conservative MPs who were expecting cabinet posts but didn't get them. The Liberals convince a bunch of these MPs to cross over, enough, in fact, to give the Liberals the majority of MPs. Under this scenario, the Liberals would then rise to power and form a government again, without even needing an election (I'm oversimplifying. I'm not sure about the constitutionality of such a scenario). Now from what I'm reading here, all of you who are poo-pooing all over this lawsuit idea would have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with this scenario, right? This would all be OK with you? After all we vote for the candidate, not the party, right? Or would you all scream from the rooftops about corruption, lack of integrity, democracy being destroyed, the will of the voters being ignored, etc, much like you did when Stronach crossed the floor? Yeah, that's what I thought. Hypocrites. This whole election has taught me one very important thing: Conservatives are all about integrity and principle, unless integrity and principle get in the way of their power grab. I had great hopes for this government. Not for any legislative reason, but because I thought that for once we'd get a government that governs based on principles. Instead we got a new coat of paint on the same old shitheap jalopy. Oh well... Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 12:45 PM (9OXmC)

31 The problem I had with Belinda, was the timing of her crossing. I pretty much thought "good riddance" when she left. I however felt that the liberal government had already been defeated and was illegitimate, thus her propping up the government again aggravated me further. The floor crossing issue is by now a dead horse, any further beating is unlikely to produce any progress. What great hopes did you have for the Conservative government?

Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 01:03 PM (heo8b)

32 Curtis: I hoped that the government would act like it promised it would. Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 01:10 PM (9OXmC)

33 Gimbol: Yes, he certainly was in Cabinet. I didn't think any of the Liberal ministers belonged in Cabinet, which is why I voted to get them out ;o) My objection to having Emerson in the Conservative cabinet is twofold: first, his support for Martin and the Libranos over the last year or two, which means he can countenance a whole lot more wickedness in government than a minister should; second, that -- on the showing of a party insider quoted in the press -- he was offered a Cabinet post in exchange for crossing the floor (John Reynolds spoke of how "the deal was done" a short time after Emerson was sworn in) and that's something the Conservatives were supposed to be running against.

Posted by: Jim Whyte at February 24, 2006 01:25 PM (/WgcG)

34 They havent acted on very much yet. I think, a lot of people really over-reacted to this episode. Its a tempest in a teacup.

Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 01:25 PM (heo8b)

35 Belinda.....OK Emmerson....OK suit....not OK PMSH....not OK 2 wrongs + 2 rights = 0 right/wrongs Conclusion...This is a meaningless big zero of a dead issue.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 24, 2006 01:45 PM (p9aJL)

36 Re: tempest in a tea cup Tea Party for the De-Elect Emerson campaign Saturday Feb 25 at Main and King Edward, 10:30 am and 1:30 pm He can hole up in Shaughnessy with his aides sent out from Ottawa at taxpayers' expense so he can avoid the heat, but this tempest is showing no signs of letting up. He's like the groundhog who goes back in his hole for 6 more weeks till Spring. Spring will soon be sprung, and the Government shall reconvene, and he will have to stand in Parliament and answer questions like any bona fide MP. We can wait.

Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 01:50 PM (nnihx)

37 Word up ursankid. Emerson's got his coming to him. harper would be wise to admit a mistake, kick him out of cabinet and try and move forward. Despite what tories wanna believe, this isn't going away anytime soon, and Emerson's and Harper's being afraid to face the media isn't helping matters.... the Emerson situation's gonna get a lot worse in the weeks to come. Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 01:57 PM (9OXmC)

38 as an(sic) curious observer from the south; i find it sad, regrettable, and laffable; that betrayal is rewarded by such unthinking and unknowing rhetoric spewed by some that think "sweeping dog doo-doo under the carpet" is OK, becuz they can get away with it. sounds like a lot of the "rules" in Canada are as antiquated and onerous as the crap we put up with in the States. i.e., how does the runner-up become the "most powerful man in the world"? seems lying, spin, and covert agendas are not limited to borders..... ty

Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 02:18 PM (5PfjS)

39 Dave, stew for as long as you like. But haven't you noticed that its been over two weeks and neither Harper nor Emerson are giving an inch on this subject? What the malcontents really need to come up with is where in the charter it specifies a limit to freedom of conscience that includes political affilliation (damn that freedom of belief thing again). They might want to see if this has any effect on that parliamentary privilage thing too. If this is a civil litigation action, they better be able to spell out damages in financial terms that can connect to folks other than bona fide ones that donated to his campaign, supporters of other parties cannot be included in that class action can they....like the NDP supporters that want a byelection. The defence would only have to have an affidavid from non-liberal voters in the riding to contest the case successfully. But it would please me to no end if a precident was established on the basis of an elected rep embarrassing its citizens. I got a doozy lined up for Parrish ("I hate those bastards"), Chretien ("proof of da proof"), and Hedy Fry ("crosses burning"). As I'm sure a guy like "ly'n Brian" would over that bit of hi-jinx with the Airbus thing. Meet the new boss.

Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 02:55 PM (zElnE)

40 gimbol: There's a difference between not giving an inch and hiding under the blankets hoping to god the media will go away. Not giving an inch means explaining your decision and standing by it. Emerson and Harper are scared to even face the media. Emerson is so scared of the Ottawa media, they had to send his staff to BC to brief him. I wonder if they'll use a cardboard cutout once parliament is in session... And this has nothing to do with MPs embarrassing anyone. It has to do with electoral fraud. Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 03:01 PM (9OXmC)

41 seems the phrase "false pretenses", is not in the Conservative/Tory guidebook... have a nice fight; it would be lovely to expose anybody's wrongdoing, in any government, to actually lead to the "truth"; let alone accountability for one's actions and/or spurious behavior. good luck to you all

Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 03:14 PM (5PfjS)

42 Its not hiding from the media Dave, its ignoring them. Harper knows he doesn't need them. Mostly because its obvious that they wouldn't present a friendly ear even if he did. So they're a bit upset over being left in the cold having to work for a paycheque. They must really miss that run up they used to get from Bucky Dither's eh? But its not like the old days (pre-blogger) when they had a monopoly on info either. Now anyone with an internet connection can get the press releases the moment the Ottawa press gallery does. Oh and btw, I won't for a moment try to defend Harper's actions, what he did went against the grain for sure. Matter of fact I enjoy rubbing it in the face of liberals posing as outraged voters. They make it so easy to press the emotional hot button now after the electoral loss. Meet the new boss.

Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 04:01 PM (zElnE)

43 how much does $honesty$ & $integrity$ sell for, these days? how come i get the feeling there are factions up north that would be willing to give Abramoff clemency, just cuz he's such a nice guy?

Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 04:19 PM (5PfjS)

44 Gimbol: "Its not hiding from the media Dave, its ignoring them." --No, it's hiding. Everyone knows it. You can deny all you want, but Harper's afraid of the media. He talks tough during his speeches, but god forbid he should have to answer a question or 2. He's a chicken. Harper knows he doesn't need them. --No, Harper thinks he doesn't need them. Truth is, every day he hides from them, more and more people question why he's such a coward. What's he afraid of? Don't tell me he's scared of Don Newman and Mike Duffy. If he had any kind of media savvy, he'd be talking to them every day, building a good relationship with them. If you don't think that in 2006, a PM needs a good relationship with the media, well that would explain why you're a blogger and not this week's communication director. Mostly because its obvious that they wouldn't present a friendly ear even if he did. --Holy smokes!!! Where were you through December and January when the media were piling on Paul Martin and the Liberals on a daily basis? This election saw the friendliest media attention the tories have had since, since, well perhaps ever... So they're a bit upset over being left in the cold having to work for a paycheque. --The media work for their paycheque by reporting stories and covering the news. What do you think the media does for a living? Now anyone with an internet connection can get the press releases the moment the Ottawa press gallery does. --press release? So politicians should be allowed to report about themselves instead of having to face an independent media? Lovely. You've heard of accountability, right? Oh yes, of course you have...you just forgot about it the day after the election. Just like the rest of the conservatives. Oh and btw, I won't for a moment try to defend Harper's actions, what he did went against the grain for sure. Matter of fact I enjoy rubbing it in the face of liberals posing as outraged voters. --Do you enjoy rubbing it in the face of Conservatives who are disgusted with their party's behaviour? They make it so easy to press the emotional hot button now after the electoral loss. --Just a question: Why do conservatives treat the last election as a wedding instead of the first date that it was? A lot of people gave the conservatives their vote as a protest against the Liberals. Even then, the tories STILL only got a minority. Think about that: the conservatives couldn't win a majority against the MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT of the past 50 years at least, if not ever. How do you think that engaging in the same behaviour as the Liberals is going to keep those first time voters? I know what they're thinking: "I only voted for the tories to get rid of a corrupt government, not because I agree with their policies, Now they're behaving exactly like the Liberals did." You better start thinking about how you're gonna keep those votes...the clock is ticking... "Meet the new boss" Yes indeed, same as the old boss. Nice to see we can agree on some things.

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 04:30 PM (9OXmC)

45 oopsie! wouldn't want to push any emotional and/or seemingly all too typical conservative hot button/morally self-righteous outrage... i'll keep my "right"-eous "left"-ist Yank freedom of opinion to myself; thankyouverymuchforyourtime

Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 04:31 PM (5PfjS)

46 bullshipper: You're alright by me! Keep pushing buttons! Meet the new boss...

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 04:40 PM (9OXmC)

47 thank you, kind sir it's just that i get tired of ppl lying right to our faces in the media; e.g.: Bush, Cheney (The Shootist, heehee) Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, et cetera, and esp. our new Attorney General/ lap dog Gonzales; who some don't think even needs to be "sworn" in, to testify in front of Congress. again, good luck getting to the bottom of what sounds like a pretty stinky mess up there. (btw, did you get a load outta the guy that got blasted by Shotgun Dick, actually apologizing to HIM??? good gawd, man.....get ya nose outta dick's butt...)

Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 05:08 PM (5PfjS)

48 Update: A motley crew of constituents (voters with addresses in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding) have taken over David Emerson's office on Kingsway, staging a peaceful sit-in protest until Mr. Emerson speaks to them. Reportedly, some are Conservative constituents. It is expected to go on all weekend. Film at 11.

Posted by: X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 06:39 PM (nnihx)

49 Did you see the film at 11? The police were sent to issue tickets to the sit-ins for disrupting a business. Just when will Emerson figure out that running an MP office is NOT the same as running a business?

Posted by: X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 25, 2006 02:10 AM (nnihx)

50 Here we go again, another impotent attempt to defend Emerson's action. You just don't get it. Further, even if recall legislation does not exist, wouldn't it be very good idea? Consider e.g. that California Guv who they through out thanks to recall legislation. Power to the people. Some accountability. Is there anything wrong with that?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 25, 2006 08:00 AM (drtA3)

51 Here we go again, another impotent attempt to defend Emerson's action. You just don't get it. I do get it. But you don't. This is not about Emerson anymore. This is about that fact that an election result is inviolable as long as the election itself was free and fair. You might like the result. You might not like what the guy does. He might not keep his promises. But the only recourse is another election. Anything else subordinates the electoral process to whatever side can muster the best lawyers. A "do-over" suggests that the previous election was invalid. That's the danger. The validity of the votes cast are not affected by the subsequent actions of the winning candidate. He might subsequently commit an act that makes him unsuitable for office, but even then the bar is set high. A serious criminal offense, usually. Not political machinations. Consider the America's Cup races. How many of those races were settled in the court? They raced boats, one side didn't like the result, and started coming up with reasons why the other side's craft that floated in water and had sails wasn't really a boat (or yacht or whatever). The race became the first act to the inevitable court challenge, making the race essentially irrelevant. We can't let anyone overturn an election result on any basis other than that the election itself was compromised. An undesirable result is simply not justification enough. Not even close. Otherwise, the logical (if extreme) conclusion is to do away with elections altogether, and just submit all the candidates to a court for evaluation and selection.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 25, 2006 02:43 PM (/E9lN)

52 The courts have held consistently that the Charter doesn't "say" anything at all. It has no content. It simply allows the courts to make any disposition they see fit of any matter they choose to address. So, don't waste your time looking at the words in Charter. The Charter doesn't exist.

Posted by: ebt at February 25, 2006 05:34 PM (wleqN)

53 X box said: Emerson, Liberal, isn't it interested how your chosen "user name" has Emerson's name first and political affiliation at the time of the election second? Doe that mean the candidate's name (Emerson) came before his party affiliation? Does that suggest something to you? In Canada, the law of the land says you vote for a candidate, not a party. If you have a problem with that, it's YOUR problem. This manufactured crisis is typical of the left. They love screaming histrionics. The left credo says "If you can't win based on merit and logic, try to win based on volume and emotion!" I don't blame Harper or Emerson for avoiding the mainstream media who've shown again and again how biased they are. Journalistic integrity is tied for the ultimate oxymoron with liberal logic.

Posted by: Mac at February 25, 2006 06:25 PM (TaDbz)

54 Gee sure is easy to get you liberals going isn't it? Here I'll do it again. It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star leadership hopefuls. Or are you going to say Brison or Belinda are better leadership material? Iggy perhaps? Last I heard undecided was the top pick for the liberals. How about that, a complete unknown is the front runner in the yet to be official liberal leadership race. All Bucky has to do is submit his resignation....unless he thinks he can pull a Trudeau. Get used to the new boss, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by: gimbol at February 25, 2006 08:03 PM (uDj9I)

55 Steve, 1) So I suppose that you never critized Belinda for jumping to the Libs? Did you argue then that "an election result is inviolable"? 2) Some sort of recall procedure would certainly strengthen the democracy, in that it would provide a means to get rid of incompetent, lying and/or corrupt MPs. What's wrong with that?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 04:56 AM (nyzHH)

56 Just got back from the Sunday protest at Emerson's Constituency office. (Noticed that he hasn't changed his Liberal sign from red to blue yet.) The protest at 15th&Main Saturday went well, with about 100+ people there from 10 till 4, and entire blocks putting up De-Elect Emerson lawnsigns. It's not widely reported, only a few stations carry anything on the news (could it be they have orders from headquarters to hush the constituents?) Mac, that argument of yours won't work for long. What would you think if Steven Harper switched his Party? If Emerson and Harper get away with this, then look for other MP's to switch sides if offered a more lucrative/powerful position. Gee, isn't this like business, not democracy?

Posted by: the X box said: Harper, Liberal at February 26, 2006 07:56 PM (nnihx)

57 I don't think my words have an expiry date. As far as I know, no-one is proposing to change the nature of elections in Canada as part of democratic reform. We will continue to vote for the individual, not the party. As for Harper changing parties, in a way, he already did so. Harper started off in the Reform Party but he left as a result of ideological differences. He ended up being one of the those involved in creating the new Conservative Party. I can find no examples of a sitting Prime Minister changing parties but there are many examples of an MP crossing the floor. Hard to draw comparisons with a comically hypothetical situation and an actual one. Since the "protest" isn't getting much coverage, I guess that means the media finally got tired of flogging a dead horse. How about you, X box?

Posted by: Mac at February 26, 2006 08:29 PM (3LUpT)

58 Looking back I realized that I made an error in a previous post. I wrote: "It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star leadership hopefuls." That should read: It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star small-c leadership hopefuls. Now your stuck with prominent left wingers and iggy the egghead.

Posted by: gimbol at February 27, 2006 12:13 PM (zElnE)

59 A chink in the armour of David Emerson: he said on the news today that he figures he could take the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway as a Conservative, though he leaves it up to the Prime Minister whether he will do it in a bye-election, or when Harper comes up to the voters again. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway would take Emerson at his word and invite him to run in a bye-election any time SOON.

Posted by: Xbox said: Emerson, Liberal at February 28, 2006 01:18 AM (nnihx)

60 Oh yeah! I almost let you slide on the "Harper stole a leadership hopeful". A leadership hopeful? Stole? Are you serious? Maybe you are... and Harper left him twisting in the wind while he worked out with his party eggheads whether what he did was not only unethcial, but perhaps illegal? Ahh but goods are so much more valuable to the thief, or what is a fence for? Good luck on that, and hail the new Conservative Candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, David Emerson!

Posted by: X-Box at February 28, 2006 01:31 AM (nnihx)

61 Oh, it was priceless! His Nibs Stephen Harper and entourage rapt by the croonings of The Trailer Park Boys leading a rousing rendition of "Don't Let Us Down" at the annual East Coast Music Awards. Forever I will treasure the look in our Beloved Leader's eye. Hope he listens to the music.

Posted by: X-Box at February 28, 2006 01:48 AM (nnihx)

62 The people of Vancouver-Kingsway would take Emerson at his word and invite him to run in a bye-election any time SOON. The people can invite their MP to many events, but a surprise election, unfortunately isnt one of them. Canada already has one of the strongest party systems in the world. This is the system that gave us the GST, if MPs are restricted from leaving their party, the parties will be even stronger, and even more bad or unpopular ideas will forced on the people.

Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 10:39 AM (heo8b)

63 Yep it riles the hell out of you. Here I'll do it again. There will be no by-election in VK. Meet the new boss......exceedingly more decisive than the old boss.

Posted by: gimbol at February 28, 2006 01:06 PM (uDj9I)

64 Yep it riles the hell out of you. Actually doesn't bother me at all. I think MPs should be allowed to freely cross the floor.

Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 07:16 PM (Uagor)

65 X-Box, from your most recent posts, it is obvious your "issue" has nothing to do with MPs crossing the floor or David Emerson personally. It's that someone who was elected as a Liberal (the natural ruling party) moved to the evil Conservative Party who had the bad taste to actually win an election. You probably cried tears of joy when Belinda crossed and helped prop up Mr. Dithers while laughing at Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay.

Posted by: Mac at February 28, 2006 10:24 PM (TaDbz)

66 Saturday March 4 2006. The constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway are holding their own by-election. Polling stations are set up in 4 locations in the riding and the results will be sent to Ottawa. Also, at 10 am and 1:30 pm today, a funeral will be held for democracy at Conservative MP David Emerson's office at 2148 Kingsway. Even though both Harper and Emerson are being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, the people of Vancouver-Kingsway and outlying areas show no sign of letting up until Emerson resigns and runs in a by-election, as he said he would do. The people will not have their votes negated by nefarious acts of self-indulgence and self-service as displayed by Emerson and Harper. If the Vancouver-Kingsway riding want a Conservative MP, let them vote one in. Or not.

Posted by: X-Box at March 04, 2006 02:28 PM (nnihx)

67 We can't let anyone overturn an election result on any basis other than that the election itself was compromised. An undesirable result is simply not justification enough. Not even close. Otherwise, the logical (if extreme) conclusion is to do away with elections altogether, and just submit all the candidates to a court for evaluation and selection. The second paragraph is more than a stretch--it's just silly hyperbole. What we have in the Emerson case is a frustration of the rights of the electorate. Most people vote for the party, not for the candidate. By misrepresenting himself as a Liberal, Emerson deliberately deceived the electorate. I believe that this court case has legs. I think some here, not excluding Steve, would be screaming if one or two of the Harper folks had crossed the floor to the NDP before Parliament even resumed. The blogosphere would explode. Calls for reform would be shouted form the rooftops of every conservative blogger in the country. Come on, admit it.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 05, 2006 10:06 AM (q4y+R)

68 just checkin to see if i'm still blocked. i'm still shaking my head; as to the reference to "look @ the america's cup races"; for some kind of obscure precedent for matters y'all dealing with....

Posted by: bullshipper at March 14, 2006 06:48 PM (5PfjS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I hate to pile it on, but I think Pierre Bourque has finally jumped the shark.

The headline reads "Harper coveted Emerson".

I clicked, hoping to read an investigative piece in which a confidante of Stephen Harper's revealed that the plan to get Liberal MP David Emerson to cross the floor was long in planning.

Not that I hoped that this was the case, but if it was true, best that we know.

Instead, I get a letter to the editor, for the The Record, the community newspaper for the city of Kitchener.

The letter was from Sue King, as far as I can tell, a regular citizen like you or me, and though I can't speak for you, I know that I have no special insight into Stephen Harper's mind. I doubt Ms King has any such insight either:

So Stephen Harper took the oath on his own personal Bible at the swearing- in ceremony earlier this month. His Bible must be different from mine, because in mine God set the laws in the Old Testament and one of the commandments says: "Thou shalt not covet."

Harper coveted David Emerson and he got him into his Conservative caucus by overruling the oath he took on his very own Bible. Jesus set standards in the Beatitudes in the New Testament that Harper misinterpreted with his arrogance. The gospel according to Stephen Harper shows his rule will be like that of a dictator, not a believer in humility.

OK, she's upset. We get it. But did Stephen Harper covet David Emerson? Maybe. Maybe for months and months. But then maybe not. Nothing in Ms King's letter acts as evidence to support that assertion. It is pure opinion, and frankly an untenable one at that.

As far as I can tell from the letter, Ms King's opinion is based entirely on what she's read in the news and seen on TV. I don't think Ms King has ever met Stephen Harper, or David Emerson for that matter. I am certain she never had a long conversation with Stephen Harper, or anyone close to him, such that she could make any judgment on what he does and does not covet.

Heck, I've had long conversations, each on the order of 30 minutes and more, with three individuals each of whom work with Stephen Harper on a daily basis, one of whom is likely to have as good an insight into the true Stephen Harper as anyone can short of Harper's wife and his parents.

For all that, I don't pretend to have the any better understanding into Stephen Harper's deep motivations than any of you.

A bitter letter (one in which Belinda Stronach is compared favourably with Joan of Arc -- just so you get the sense of where this person is coming from) is hardly newsworthy. And one which makes accusations without any supporting evidence is less so.

Pierre, take a break from this. Your judgment as a legitimate "Newswatch" is in question, and unless you remember what constitutes "news", you will find your audience quickly heading elsewhere. My issue is not that you are targeting the Conservatives over the Emerson controversy. You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that -- an opinion. If you can't find the hard news to back it up, don't lower your standards.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:22 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

You can report the news.

You can even spin the news.

But sometimes we get caught trying a bit too hard.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:14 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 5 kb.

If you read blogs and other online news sources, you'd think that the Tories were crumbling over the cabinet controversy.

However, it would appear that most people aren't reading blogs. Maybe it's a good thing. Take this poll from Ipsos:

Majority Approval For Harper Government

Harper Conservative Government Approval (54%) Well Above Party's Support in Recent Election (36%)
Canadians Split on Recent Cabinet Appointments

February 13, 2006

Toronto, ON - As Stephen Harper and the Conservatives move through their first week in office, a new Ipsos Reid/CanWest Global poll shows a majority of Canadians approve of the new government’s performance so far. Canadians are somewhat less supportive of the new government’s cabinet appointments.

Interesting. Not the government has actually done much yet, but it does suggest that people either aren't paying much attention to the cabinet controversy, or that they've dismissed the criticism as over the top.

I'm not a subsriber, so I couldn't get the poll details. But since the poll was done for CanWest Global, I figured I could find the news story that went with it.

Except there doesn't seem to be one.

Interesting. The Tories are enjoying over 50% support, in spite of the cabinet appointments, or maybe because of them, and it isn't newsworthy.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:05 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

He doesn't steal any money. He doesn't offer cabinet posts as candy to entice weak-willed MPs to his side for the sake of a vote. He doesn't ignore non-confidence votes for a week while looking for that extra vote. He runs on ideas and on policy instead of lies and fears and smears. He reaches out and gains support from every region of the country.

He pulls together a cabinet out of the best offered to him by all the voters in this country and not just those who voted for him. This includes someone from another party, universally seen as qualified for the post, even perhaps the best man for the post.

He has broken no rules. Indeed, he has used all the rules to explore all the possibilities, instead of being constrained by narrow thinking and the regularly beaten path.

He has made brave decisions and creative ones, instead of safe and conventional ones.

For that his supporters, especially those online, have excoriated him, called for the resignation of his cabinet minister, called his ethics into question, called his ability to lead into doubt.

And why? Because he has led where few have gone, those who had preceded him content to be conventional and parochial, beholden to traditions that had led us to the state of affairs that dominated the last dozen years and more.

So now we face this:

Liberals are dreaming about a speedy return to power after watching the disastrous opening week of Stephen Harper's new Conservative administration.

[Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham] said the opening week has stiffened Liberals' resolve to oppose the Conservative agenda, even if it means toppling the government.

"We're going to oppose those measures that we find are not in the interests of Canada and Canadians and we'll oppose them all the way," Graham said.

"And if that leads to the government falling, it's going to lead to the government falling. And the way they're making their decisions it's clear that could happen earlier rather than later just given the nature of what they're doing."

All last week, disappointed Tory MPs voiced muted disapproval while disgusted Conservative bloggers across the country railed against the cabinet choices, particularly the perceived hypocrisy and opportunism of Emerson's defection only days after winning re-election as a Liberal.

Hey, I think the Liberals are overestimating the Emerson effect. But if the Liberals are being a bit over the top, it's in large part because they've been cheered on by largely conservative bloggers and columnists who, in my opinion, have the political sophistication of barnyard chickens. They have an understanding of the rules of Parliament and the roles of the people who make up that body that makes me wonder how they they justify calling themselves observers of the political process.

The problem with being over the top is that it can be self-fulfilling. An unjustified confidence leads to gutsy moves that in the random and chaotic world of politics might actually pay off. The tenuous grip on power currently enjoyed by the Conservatives might slip in the face of an overly aggressive Liberal Party. If it gives way, we can thank the cheap shots taken by the friends and supporters of the Conservatives, shocked that politics is not as pure as the driven snow, that it is made up of compromises and of hard choices, and that people who play it well play for the long haul focused on the results that will be enjoyed months from the present, if not years.

Instead people are still in election-mode, looking ahead weeks, days, maybe only hours. The election campaign finished on January 23. Since November, we've been looking ahead weeks, then days, then hours. Starting on January 24, we should have reset our focus on the years ahead. But most of us haven't, it seems.

And for that mistake, we might be handing the Liberals, the masters of short-term poll-driven politicking, the opportunity to deny the Conservatives the one thing they need to succeed, and that is time. Stephen Harper will be the sort of prime minister that shows his strength over time, in the same way his leadership of the Tories was seen as a mistake early on by many, and now recognized to have been the best thing to have happened to the party by most.

Imagine what this country could be like if Stephen Harper is given years to fulfill his program. Then wonder about the opportunity squandered because you panicked at the first sign of risk-taking leadership.

Too scary for you? Then go home to the Liberals. They'll make you feel safe, for a price of course. That's what they do best. Keep up with the sheepish bleating, and you might very well get the chance to do exactly that.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:45 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

From the Ottawa Sun (via Bourque):

Conservative MP Garth Turner is contemplating leaving his caucus over the backlash from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's officials, angry at his public criticism of Liberal turncoat David Emerson's appointment to cabinet.

In his online blog, Turner says he had a series of "unhappy meetings" with caucus officials Thursday over his comments, including one with Harper, who demanded he publicly support the appointment.

The Halton MP said party officials have made him feel unwelcome, and have caused him to reconsider sitting in the Commons under the Tory banner.

I suppose he's being true to his principles...sort of:

Turner said he would continue to sit as an MP and represent Halton if he does decide to bolt to the Tory caucus.

Now how many people in Halton voted Conservative because they wanted a Conservative MP to represent them? How many voted for Turner only because they figured the Conservatives were going to win nationally, and wanted to be certain that whatever MP they had in the riding, he was on the government benches and in the governing party caucus?

We don't know, do we? Maybe we should find out. Now how do we find out. I've got it! We'll have a by-election!

By Turner's reasoning, his change in status should trigger a by-election, with Turner running as an independent, to gauge whether the constituents in Halton really want an independent MP representing them.

Funny that he doesn't mention that.

On election night in Halton, less than 15% of the vote went to neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives. So it seems that the people in Halton aren't enamoured by third parties, or logically, by independents. Moreover, it was a tight race, with less than 3% of the popular vote separating Turner from Liberal Gary Carr. So it doesn't look like a big love-in for Garth Turner either.

I can see why Garth Turner would not be eager to have a potential decision to change his status as a parliamentarian put to the test in a by-election. And yet he wants to force all other parliamentarians to undergo exactly the same test in this situation.

You would think that if Garth Turner were so much more honourable than David Emerson, he would willingly submit himself to the judgment of his constituents, to set an example. Indeed, he should run his by-election campaign on this very issue. It's only fair, since he clearly believes it's in the interests of his constituents to remove himself from caucus. He could use this as an opportunity to show all of Canada that at least in his riding, people are consumed by the Emerson affair, and are demanding an MP willing to make the changes Turner is proposing.

I eagerly wait for the announcement of Turner's voluntary resignation from caucus, his resignation as an MP, his announcement to run as an independent, his landslide win on the issue of by-elections, and his triumphant return to the House of Commons.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:25 AM | Comments (81) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.