# Liberal Party Minister Defects to Tories



## tomahawk6 (6 Feb 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060206/emerson_defection_060206/20060206?hub=TopStories

David Emmerson to get a cabinet post.

"He will be named the Minister of International Trade and the Minister responsible for the Olympic Games in Vancouver in 2010."


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Feb 2006)

"Another surprise was the appointment of Michael Fortier, a key party organizer in Quebec, as public works minister, because Fortier is not an MP."

You dont need to be an MP to be a minister ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> "Another surprise was the appointment of Michael Fortier, a key party organizer in Quebec, as public works minister, because Fortier is not an MP."
> 
> You dont need to be an MP to be a minister ?



There are precedents: General Andy McNaughton was named Defence Minister in King’s cabinet in 1944, after he resigned as commander of the Canadina Army overseas (forced out, perhaps, by Brooke) – he replaced Ralston who favoured conscription.  McNaughton did not have a seat and did not contest one until the following year, in the general election.  He could not, however, win an election* or convince anyone else to volunteer; conscription came and McNaughton went on to a series of ever more distinguished appointments – probably doing more/better as a scientist And public servant than he had as a soldier.

----------
* As a note: he ran in Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan which was thought to be a safe Liberal seat but he lost to Agnes Strum of the CCF after a campaign dominated by, largely, local and post-war issues.


----------



## Blue Max (6 Feb 2006)

Ujjal Dosanj, tried to emberass Mr Emmerson this morning during an interview, for crossing the floor. I LAUGHED SO HARD on the drive in, who is Ujjal to giving a lecture on changing allegiances?  This is good news for BC, and Canada. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

Look out, Belinda may be coming next  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

That *insert seven letter insult*! He's my MP! We didn't vote Conservative in our riding! We voted Liberal or NDP!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> That *insert seven letter insult*! He's my MP! We didn't vote Conservative in our riding! We voted Liberal or NDP!



But it was all a big joke to the lieberals when it happened last time around eh?


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But it was all a big joke to the lieberals when it happened last time around eh?



He made this switch just mere weeks after being elected. And from friends, they are all shocked and outraged, even though all of them voted NDP. Unlike Belinda, who did it on a matter of values, Emerson did it just for a cabinet post, and nothing else.


----------



## Blue Max (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Unlike Belinda, who did it on a matter of values.



Excuse me, you actually believe her and the Liberals when they open their mouths?


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> I wonder what Belinda has to say on this....
> 
> I didn't hear any outcry from pundits and 'experts' when Tories (read Belinda) left to the Libs during a critical time and coincidentally got a cabinet post.



Belinda was known as a 'Red Tory', meaning she was in general, to the left on the political scale than the rest of the Tories. On top of that, she publically disagreed with Harper, so her switch was not exactly missed by the Conservatives. Emerson on the other hand...  :rage:


----------



## mz589 (6 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But it was all a big joke to the lieberals when it happened last time around eh?



Just a couple of differences.

1) Stronach at least sat as a Tory MP for a few months before deciding she didn't like the direction the party was going and jumping ship
2) Emerson ran as a Liberal just two weeks ago and after winning his riding announced that he was going to be
"Harper's worst nightmare." Apparently he liked the job offer from Harper.

Weren't the Tories crying that an MP should have to sit as an independant first before joining another party? 

This is a very dumb move by the Tories, they've opened themselves up to major criticism the first day on the job.

Dumb.


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> *Unlike Belinda, who did it on a matter of values, Emerson did it just for a cabinet post, and nothing else.  *



*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!**

You know, Armymatters, you're probably the funniest guy around, this time of year. Seriously. How can you say (type) that with a straight face? I know I definately couldn't.

Face it, the Grits screwed the Tories over, and then when the Tories got the chance, they returned the favor. Nothing more, nothing less. Like recceguy and Piper said, it seems like treason was fine when Belinda did it, but not when someone else does. That's gotta be one of those things that make sense to a Liberal, like the sponsorships, the gun registry, and Martin's boats.



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		


			Belinda was known as a 'Red Tory', meaning she was in general, to the left on the political scale than the rest of the Tories.
		
Click to expand...


She's just a traitor who saw power and grabbed it with a death grip in her greedy little hands... I wouldn't be surprised if she tries to switch back to the Tories.



			
				mz589 said:
			
		


			Weren't the Tories crying that an MP should have to sit as an independant first before joining another party?
		
Click to expand...


Weren't the Liberals saying the Tories' idea was stupid and didn't make sense?*


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2006)

I know that MPs from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are akin to being _pearls without price_ but I do wish Mr. Harper had, at the very least, imposed some sort of ‘cooling off’ period, especially in Emerson’;s case where he is leaving one ministry to join another.

I would like to see a _principle_ in which those who want to join the government are required to:

1.	Leave their old (opposition party) and sit as an independent;

2.	During the period, which should be weeks, not hours or days – 

a.	Secure an _invitation_ from the governing caucus – that will, normally, be easy, and

b.	Secure the support of the governing party’s riding association – which will give some indication that the _changeling_ has the support of his constituents.

I do not think by-elections are required to change parties but I do not like the _instant minister_[ routine, it smacks of corruption and politics is already held in disrepute.

Off topic: I really would have preferred that Emerson had not joined the government as Trade Minister; I would have preferred that Trade and Industry (Emerson’s old department) were merged.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Oh oh, we got us a bitter Liberal.
> 
> How's it feel? As good as when Belinda came over on a bribe at a critical time?
> 
> ...



Check again. I am a New Democrat (I hold a party membership for both provincial and federal parties, and make regular donations to both), not a stupid Liberal. I am more of a angry constituent than a bitter Liberal... I say we constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway recall this idiot and replace him in a by-election.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Oh, NDP, even better.
> 
> May I ask how you felt when Belinda left the Tories, allowing the Libs to stay in power (which I'm sure you cheered for and supported as opposed to a big evil Tory gov't)?



She was able to get the NDP budget of 2005 passed. Other than that, I don't care about Belinda.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> She was able to get the NDP budget of 2005 passed. Other than that, I don't care about Belinda.



Lets see, a Conservative crosses the floor to become a Cabinet minister in a Liberal government to support an NDP budget? What sort of values are you imputing to her, or for that matter what sort of values are you letting us infer for yourself? Expediency isn't a value at all, and it would be difficult to imagine what sort of principles that could be erected on such a soft foundation.

For what it is worth, I would like to see the electoral landscape settle on a Conservative/NDP split in parliament, at least then the voters would have a clear idea of what the parties are supposed to represent. Behaviour like Belinda's or our "new" minister make the political landscape obscure; how can you vote on or for a principle when the people who are supposed to represent the principle make it quite obvious that they only represent *themselves*.

Crossing the floor should have some rules like Edward pointed out earlier; sit as an independent, get an invitation from the other caucus and so on. People do change their minds, this process will let the constituents better know the reasons for doing so, rather than sheer greed and self promotion.


----------



## Blue Max (6 Feb 2006)

Though I agree with the consensus that there should be better rules re MP's crossing the floor to sit with another party... I think D.E. felt he could better support his constituents in BC with regard to the upcoming Olympics, from the ruling party side.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Though I agree with the consensus that there should be better rules re MP's crossing the floor to sit with another party... I think D.E. felt he could better support his constituents in BC with regard to the upcoming Olympics, from the ruling party side.



That I have to agree upon. There should be rules regarding MP's that want to switch parties, and this behaviour is totally unacceptable. You can bet there is outrage from his constituents (including me), and we will probally try to force a by-election through a recall petition.

If Stronach was labelled as an opportunist by many, I can only imagine what they will say about Emerson.


----------



## rifleman (6 Feb 2006)

Personally, I would have liked the prime minister, to have said, ' nope, sorry, we don't take applications from across the floor. We can talk at the next election.'

I do not think there should be any rules. Its all a game and unfortunately, the conservatives have just stumbled on the first hurdle in my books.


----------



## Sheerin (6 Feb 2006)

Anderson apparently mentioned in his press conference that he wants to donate the next two years to public service, so does that mean he won't run again in the next federal election?


----------



## The Gues-|- (6 Feb 2006)

The PM asked him to join the Conservatives.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Feb 2006)

Occaisionally in the US we have had politicians that switched parties. The last being Jim Jeffords.
He left the Republican party and joined forces with the democrats while posing as an Independent. He votes with the democrats. His constituents didnt vote him out of office and I doubt Emerson would lose a recall election particularly if he told his voters that he was fed up with the lying cheating Liberals.


----------



## loyalcana (6 Feb 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Occaisionally in the US we have had politicians that switched parties. The last being Jim Jeffords.
> He left the Republican party and joined forces with the democrats while posing as an Independent. He votes with the democrats. His constituents didnt vote him out of office and I doubt Emerson would lose a recall election particularly if he told his voters that he was fed up with the lying cheating Liberals.



Well the conservatives only got 16% in his ridings so unless it's the personal charisma of Emerson that one over voters chances are he not going to do too well if he does steps down and runs in a by-election(chances are the "lying liberals defence" will be neutralized by the "power-hungry minister" strategy. 
BTW anyone call him a power-hungry whore yet


----------



## Wizard of OZ (6 Feb 2006)

I am sorry.

I was going to bite my tounge on this but I could not.  I don't really care that Emerson crossed.  Sure fine what ever one for one. Him for Belinda sure.  Harper through up a storm when she got a cabinet post and said that when/if he got into power he would never do that.  He also said that he would never apoint anyone to his cabinet that was not elected. Opps that one happened.  What about only apointing Senators that were elected?  Opps that happened to.  Not only did him make him a senator he made him part of his cabinet.  So much for standing up to Quebec.

I hate to say it but for all the change that we were supposed to get I am not very happy right now with our new PM.  When on your first day you break three of the rules you said you were going into power to change.  I voted for this man so I can bitch.  I am not happy one bit.  All this to make the provinces of Quebec and Ont happy oh yea and to give Vancover a voice.

I got a feeling the only change we are going to get is the colour of red to blue but things in office will stay the same.  So much for less Ottawa and more Alberta.  Can't wait to see how this plays out.  But I know a lot of people who voted for change that are having to swallow a bitter pill on HIS FIRST DAY.  Hopefully it is only a small one he will get back on track.  But I guess that is what happens when you bring in Mulroney and his former cabinet to help you make yours.  

MOO


----------



## Armymedic (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> That *insert seven letter insult*! He's my MP! We didn't vote Conservative in our riding! We voted Liberal or NDP!


David Emerson -- Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics.
Prominant and successful business man who has already done much for his city, now Cabinet Minister...
Looks like you will actually have an effective MP who will ensure that Vancouver gets what it needs for the next 4 or so yrs.

What are you complaining about?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (6 Feb 2006)

Only if you think the government will last for four yrs.  I don't think it will be that long and I don't see him winning the seat again as a conservative in 58% minority riding.  I could be wrong it has happened before.  I see an election in 20-24 months.  Especially if Harper keeps this up.  The Liberals may be down now but History tells never to discount them.  If they get some new faces and a strong leader and Harper still has his blood or Mulroneys blood in the water.  Harper had better be careful.  Ont seems to remember the pain of Mulroney more then the Scandal of Cretien.


----------



## kcdist (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> That *insert seven letter insult*! He's my MP! We didn't vote Conservative in our riding! We voted Liberal or NDP!



Mr Matters, take a deep breath and consider the following:

1. The Conservatives now have 125 seats. The NDP have 29. There is one small-C independent. Therefore, the NDP now matter in this parliament. Previously, the NDP plus Conservatives could not have forced a Bill through the Commons. Now they can. This move give the millions that voted NDP substantially more leverage in this House. I don't think Mr. Layton will be complaining too much.

2. One of the major knocks following this election was that the three largest cities did not have representation in Parliament. In fact, both the Liberals and the NDP complained about this very point. Now, both Vancouver and Montreal both have direct representation in Cabinet.

3. One of the shortcomings of the Conservatives was the lack of experience, particularly at the Federal cabinet level. This move has brought one very accomplished, experienced and capable individual to the table. Methinks this would be a generally good thing for the governance of the country.

4. One of the perceived issues with the Conservatives was that they were "scary". By introducing a small-L Liberal or 'red tory' to the cabinet table, Harper has broadened the Conservative tent, as well as introduced a 'calming' influence into the decision making mix.

5. Unlike Belinda's move, this move was made not out of desperation. There was no burning desire to add one more vote to prop up a tired, corrupt government.  Harper has likely thought this through quite well, and is using the defection to strengthen the effectiveness of his government.

I would think, partisanship aside, members of both the NDP and the Liberal party should agree that this move is actually a benefit for both. The NDP, due to their new relevance, and the Liberals, as they have got one of 'their' members inside cabinet. If the Liberals thought Emerson should be elected due to what he brought to parliament, one would think they should be delighted that he will again be able to use his skills and experience in the governance of the country.

Again, if you look at this move with partisanship removed from the equation, everybody wins.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Mr Matters, take a deep breath and consider the following:
> 
> 1. The Conservatives now have 125 seats. The NDP have 29. There is one small-C independent. Therefore, the NDP now matter in this parliament. Previously, the NDP plus Conservatives could not have forced a Bill through the Commons. Now they can. This move give the millions that voted NDP substantially more leverage in this House. I don't think Mr. Layton will be complaining too much.
> 
> ...


Not the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway. The seat has historically belonged to the Liberals or the NDP. My reasoning that he should resign and run again in a by-election:
1. Mr. Emerson did not win his seat because of his persona or his character. He won it because he was a Liberal. Vancouver-Kingsway is a Liberal stronghold (with a strong NDP support base as well), and he was parachuted in by the Liberals because he could get the seat, no problem. He "commutes" from Shaughnessy, on the rich, west-side, in his BMW and Emerson definitely lacks a grasp of the social and economic issues at play in the riding, as the riding is primarily a lower income/working class neighbourhood. He got elected not on his own merits but on Liberal party support/anti-Tory sentiments that are very strong in this riding (I know, as I live in the riding). It's a complete travesty that Emerson has showed us just how much character he lacks, by doing this. Apparently he does not want to represent the views of the people in his riding. Also, due to the strong Chinese representation in this riding (40%), he got the seat because the Chinese community in Canada are fairly strong Liberal supporters.

2. The conservative support is pathetic in this riding, historically and presently. The Tories didn't even run a shadow of a viable candidate in Kanman Wong (with his 1970 Winebago campaign machine) during this past election or Jesse Johl in the previous. The Conservatives have traditionally ran political nobodies with zero experience at any level, limited points of view and no backing from the national campaign.

3. Any by-election in this riding that results from Emerson's resignation, or any future elections, will probally result in a VERY strong anti-Conservative backlash in this riding. Already, the Conservatives are taking flak for reneging on some of their promises. Mr. Emerson won this riding because he was a Liberal, but only barely. This riding will most likely go NDP in any future elections, over this, and the fact that the NDP field a extremely strong candidate in Ian Wadell. Ian Waddell has fairly strong support in the election and finished a respectable second. A Vancouver lawyer and film producer, he actually lives in the riding, unlike Mr. Emerson. Well educated with degrees in history, teaching and a Masters in International Economic Law. Waddell has experience at the provincial level as Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Environment Minister, and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and previous national experience as a 4 time MP and the NDP's energy, justice and environment critic. He is involved in community initiatives - taking on slum landlords in Vancouver’s Eastside, elected national director of the Sierra Club of Canada, counsel to the Berger Commission on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline and Chair of the Fraser Basin Council. He has more than just his political office in this riding, as he lives, works, and participates in this riding's activities and daily on-goings. He's an expert at energy, aboriginal and environment law and a published author, “A Thirst To Die For”, about protecting against water exports to the US.


----------



## kcdist (6 Feb 2006)

You may very well be right that Mr Emerson will lose in the next election (if he runs).

However, in the interim, be satisfied that your riding has direct representation at the cabinet table, and Vancouver, as a whole, has a voice in the inner circle. My point remains that nothing will change as far as the sustainability of the minority government, with the exception of the newfound NDP power. I don't think Mr Emerson's skills, abilities and attributes have signifigantly change from yesterday to today.

Additionally, with Mr. Emerson's background in the forestry industry, coupled with his role as International Trade minister and the hopefull thawing of U.S./Canada relations , there just might be cause for optimism on the Softwood Lumber dispute. This, I believe, will greatly benefit all British Columbians.

Bottom line, Harper had a hole in his government (lack of city representation), and he went out and fixed it. That said, if you still want to mope about party affiliation, mope on.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

1. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway will have something to say about that. I was just talking with a few neighbours who live in the riding with me, and they are outright furious. There is even the start of a rumor that a petition will be created to force Emerson resign his seat. If the Conservatives wanted to have some representation in our city, they should field better candidates and run a stronger platform that focus on the cities.

2. Emerson, although with his forestry background, hasn't done anything while he was a Liberal cabinet minister to resolve the softwood lumber issue. Also, the riding does not have anyone working the forestry industry; it is primarily an area dominated by service sector workers and low income families. Wrong riding to talk about softwood lumber.

3. A MP's job is to represent the people of his/her riding, not represent the province of which the riding is in. Mr. Emerson got his seat because he ran as a Liberal, and the riding is a strong Liberal supporter. If he had ran as a Conservative, he would not have won his seat at all.


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Feb 2006)

I got a question for you, Armymatters.

Do you believe Belinda Stronach should have resigned and run in a by-election? After all, the people in her riding didn't vote for the criminals Liberals.

For now, I consider you to be a hypocrite. Why else would you whine and bitch about Emerson running in a by-election, but say nothing of Stronach's greedy grab for power?


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I got a question for you, Armymatters.
> 
> Do you believe Belinda Stronach should have resigned and run in a by-election? After all, the people in her riding didn't vote for the criminals Liberals.
> 
> For now, I consider you to be a hypocrite. Why else would you whine and ***** about Emerson running in a by-election, but say nothing of Stronach's greedy grab for power?


She should have. But she did win her seat in this election as a Liberal, so that point is somewhat moot. But at the time? She should have resigned, or became a independant.


----------



## kcdist (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> 2. Emerson, although with his forestry background, hasn't done anything while he was a Liberal cabinet minister to resolve the softwood lumber issue. Also, the riding does not have anyone working the forestry industry; it is primarily an area dominated by service sector workers and low income families. Wrong riding to talk about softwood lumber.



I just don't believe you see the big picture here.

Emerson likely understands the issues behind the softwood lumber dispute better that any elected member of parliament. Relations between the U.S. and Canada under the Liberals were poisonous. With a more positive relationship between the two governments, there is a strong likelihood the matter may be resolved. Emerson, by all accounts, is a perfect fit for the role.

Low income families are generally users of government services. Government services are paid for by tax dollars. A large percentage of tax dollars in B.C. are derived from the forestry industry. Therefore, by extension, resolving the softwood lumber dispute will strengthen the forestry industry, thereby providing more available tax dollars to low income families.

A component of leadership is the ability to utilize the strengths and skills of those around you. Harper obviously seized on this to the benefit of his government and by extension, the population of Vancouver and B.C.

It is only those practicing petty politics that are truly upset by this decision.   

I think the appointment is a stroke of genius. Besides, in the chess game of politics, I think Harper is likely thinking six moves ahead of the rest of us.


----------



## TCBF (6 Feb 2006)

"Apparently he does not want to represent the views of the people in his riding."

- Not that he would have learned how as a Liberal, would he?

Tom


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> She should have. But she did win her seat in this election as a Liberal, so that point is somewhat moot. But at the time? She should have resigned, or became a independant.



Yes, the point is moot _now_ just as Emerson's change might be a moot point if he gets elected as a Tory. (I have no clue about the politics of your riding other than what you have said, so I'll refrain from speculation.)

Thanks for clearing that up though, your stock went up a couple of points above the random whiny people.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

On the one hand, we have a person who *seems* to have opportunistically defected from a sinking ship to a plum position in the new government.

On the other hand we are being told that Mr Emerson was *courted and selected* to fill a hole in the Conservative line-up; and has certain skills and experience which should assist us in the Softwood lumber dispute.

Truthfully, while the explanation makes a certain amount of sense, the optics are just terrible. Prime Minister Harper will need to use a lot of his political skill and perhaps some political capital on damage control, which makes getting the real job done more difficult.

The only way to salvage this and really turn it into a posative is for Prime Minister Harper to actively recruit Bloc and NDP members as well, but do it openly and above board and for the same reasons given for Mr Emerson. *This will prevent the Prime Minister from recruiting a dunce simply because that person happens to occupy an important riding*. I would refrain from recruiting any more Liberals, at least until the inquiries, criminal investigations and trials are all finished and sentances handed out. No need to court real trouble by accepting damaged goods.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Feb 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> I just don't believe you see the big picture here.
> 
> Emerson likely understands the issues behind the softwood lumber dispute better that any elected member of parliament. Relations between the U.S. and Canada under the Liberals were poisonous. With a more positive relationship between the two governments, there is a strong likelihood the matter may be resolved. Emerson, by all accounts, is a perfect fit for the role.
> 
> ...



I think I agree with this analysis. Harper's government is more likely to make headway on the softwoods issue than martin. In fact the US government may give in to help Harper out. If that happened all would be forgiven with Emerson and the voters I expect.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2006)

>We didn't vote Conservative in our riding! We voted Liberal or NDP!

You use "we" rather broadly.  There's another point of view for the constituents: they voted for a cabinet minister, and now they have a cabinet minister.  Some may even have voted for "David Emerson".  Imagine that!

>Unlike Belinda, who did it on a matter of values,

Another celebrity joins army.ca.  Everyone say "Welcome" to Rick Mercer.

If Harper just wanted a pro-business talking head in Cabinet for Vancouver, I suppose he could have found another Fortier among the local CEOs.  It seems to have escaped the attention of our pro-NDP contributor that while Harper had no particular need at this time to entice a Liberal (or any other non-CPC MP) to cross to simply prop up the government, the movement of exactly one Liberal or Bloc MP to the Conservative benches changed the NDP from a party noisemaker to a deal maker in Parliament.  Harper just moved Jack! from the "spectator" column to the "player" column.  How do you feel about that?  Notwithstanding the fact it serves Harper's interests to have one more party with which to pass legislation, I wonder whether anyone in the NDP ranks will be able to choke out a simple "Thank you".

If I can figure out that:
1) Harper's government is in no immediate danger unless the opposition parties collectively have an attack of Big Stupid,
2) Harper already has two centre-left and left-leaning opposition parties with which to broker deals to pass legislation,
3) Harper could have pulled in another non-MP, and
4) The manoeuvre might result in party and supporter dissatisfaction and a public relations shitstorm,

then I am pretty sure Harper could figure all this out for himself beforehand.  So why, after running what was by all accounts a disciplined and well-planned campaign, would he do this?  A couple of possibilities:

1) The campaign we just witnessed was an elaborate practical joke, or
2) Harper genuinely intends to push ahead with his five priorities and govern for "all Canadians".

I remember a lot of noise being made about how the last Parliament should govern for "all Canadians", and how important it was to "make Parliament work".  It'll be high comedy if that rudderless disaster is replaced by one that actually fills the bill and receives no credit for it.


----------



## Armymedic (7 Feb 2006)

+1 to all of Brads comments.

I feel that doing it so quickly after the election was to make all Liberals make fishy faces  :-X in retaliation for Belinda Stronach, AND Scott Brisson crossing the floor during the last parliment.  Its their way of saying, how do you like the game now?

A political coup de grace, so to speak. Bill Graham's ineffectual reaction is case and point.

With those issues out of the way, the Tories can now attempt to bring in their accountably and election reforms


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2006)

For the sake of argument, but not _*just*_ for that: if most of what David Emerson said yesterday regarding his reasons for crossing the floor are true then maybe more and more MPs, of all parties, should follow suit.

Here is what I think I heard Emerson say:

•	“I was a pretty apolitical fellow, not a card carrying Liberal, when Paul Martin called on me to run for office and serve in his cabinet in a senior economic (industry) portfolio.  I agreed because I think it is high time I did some public service and because I think I am well qualified to be a national _leader_;

•	“I was ready and even willing to ride the back benches – I ran for office, my party lost, that’s life;

•	“When Stephen Harper offered me a chance to join _his_ government I analyzed my motives for entering politics.  I’m still a pretty apolitical fellow; I am still, in my opinion, well equipped (intellect and experience) to play a lead role in parliament and government.  I have no insurmountable philosophical differences with Harper and the Conservatives – I was a _”small c Liberal”_, on the right wing of that party – I think Harper has moved the Conservatives to that part of the ‘centre’ where I am fairly comfortable; and

•	“It is best to use one’s talents to maximize their contributions to the country, province, region etc – I can better serve my country, province and region in cabinet.  The Electors of Vancouver Kingsway elected David Emerson, I offered myself under the Liberal Party’s banner but it was, at the end of day, David Emerson on offer, not just another one of _Paul Martin’s Liberals_.”

He is harking back to 17th century politics – when the Whigs and Tories emerged but when most parliamentarians (lords and commoners) were only loosely tied to anything like a party or _movement_.  Individuals – Shaftsbury, author of our modern understanding of _habeas corpus_, for example – were notoriously changeable or, maybe, fickle in their political allegiances.  Many were, honestly, trying their best to serve their country by making and breaking parliamentary alliances to support or oppose this, that or the other policy.

I remember when David MacDonald jumped the traces from the Tories to the NDP (and into NDP leader Alexa McDonough’s bed, too, as it happened, although the affair did not last).  I was not stunned, many of the so-called _Red Tories_ were closer to the NDP than to the Liberals. They were – like Bob Rae – _silk stocking socialists_ and even though MacDonald was wealthy and a _natural_ fit for the upper class Toronto Rosedale riding (which he lost, as a NDP candidate, to opposition leader Bill Graham) he and his _Red Tory_ cronies were uncomfortable with the Liberals who are – have been almost forever – the party of big money, big business and even big labour.  (The _natural_ Tories have small town, small business values.)  MacDonald was a cabinet minister, too.  He had quite firm _social_ values, I guess, which he reckoned were better ‘expressed’ in the NDP – maybe for the same reasons Keith Martin and Scott Brison bolted the Day and Harper led Reform/Alliance and Conservative parties.

In any event, back to my point: maybe Emerson crossed the floor for the right reasons – to best serve his constituents and his country.  It brings to mind Edmund Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol:

” Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. *Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”*

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


----------



## rifleman (7 Feb 2006)

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


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

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



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



			
				rifleman said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Pencil Tech (7 Feb 2006)

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


----------



## 54/102 CEF (7 Feb 2006)

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

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


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2006)

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

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Feb 2006)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Bart Nikodem (7 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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

Bart


----------



## Pencil Tech (7 Feb 2006)

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

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


----------



## Gunnar (8 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Bart Nikodem (8 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2006)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

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


----------



## RCD (9 Feb 2006)

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


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2006)

RECON-MAN said:
			
		

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



Only if democratic equates to party/machine politics.

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

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

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


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2006)

Again Edward.  

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

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

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

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


----------



## Armymatters (9 Feb 2006)

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


> But former health minister Ujjal Dosanjh, in an angry rejoinder to his former colleague, strongly supported demands that Mr. Emerson repay the money.
> 
> "Obviously it was Liberal money and Liberal support that got him elected," said Mr. Dosanjh, noting a poll last fall found only 20 per cent of riding residents surveyed knew who Mr. Emerson was.
> 
> If not Mr. Emerson, then the local Conservative riding association should return the Liberal campaign funds, because "they got an MP without having to spend any money," Mr. Dosanjh said.



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


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Feb 2006)

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

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


----------



## Armymatters (10 Feb 2006)

There is a public meeting of members of the community to express their views on Emerson's defection on Saturday, February 11th (tommorrow) at Sir Charles Tupper High School between 1pm - 3pm. I expect this to be a big event.


----------



## Blue Max (10 Feb 2006)

Just as a side thought, but has the Liberal party admitted to the amount and returned any of the money from the Quebec sponsorship scandal? 

I have not even heard that they have admitted to any exact dollar amount, never mind returned a single cent. UD is the height of hypocrisy!


----------



## Armymatters (10 Feb 2006)

Some of the individual people who benefited from Ad-scam were forced by court to pay back the money to the government, and the Liberal party has (had) a $750,000 trust fund to pay back the government if Gomery said the Liberal party recieved money due to the scandal, according to a CBC timeline.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/timeline.html


----------



## Slim (10 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Some of the individual people who benefited from Ad-scam were forced by court to pay back the money to Ya...how much of it though?the government,





> and the Liberal party has (had) a $750,000 trust fund to pay back the government if Gomery said the Liberal party recieved money due to the scandal, according to a CBC timeline.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/timeline.html



As opposed to the MILLIONS that went missing...

God it must be fun to be a student and get all uptight over the Conservatives (evil ooohhh...) winning the election.  ...After all even the existance of the Conservative party is morally wrong...Isn't that right Mr Armymatters?

Wait...where's the armed soldiers on every street corner?! Seems that they're not here just yet... :


----------



## geo (10 Feb 2006)

Hmmm....
The Liberals got Belinda under similar conditions (the other party funding the vote)... consider em "even"

WRT Mr Dosanjh.... he's gone thru enough shaky transactions without having to flap his gums too loudly.

The electorate of Mr Emerson's riding voted in someone who would have been a backbencher now that the PC are in power. They have a Cabinet minister instead!

They'll get the PMs ear a lot better than if he was still sitting in the nosebleed section.


----------



## Armymatters (10 Feb 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060209.html
See the video link of "Terry Milewski and Alan Waterman report for CBC TV's CanadaNow on the reaction to Emerson's move"
You see, people voted for a Liberal, not a Conservative.

And frankly, put it, the riding has been represented in the past by a back bencher, and from the opposition as well. The riding wants a Liberal, not a Conservative. If they had wanted a Conservative, they would have voted mostly Conservative.


----------



## Slim (10 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060209.html
> See the video link of "Terry Milewski and Alan Waterman report for CBC TV's CanadaNow on the reaction to Emerson's move"
> You see, people voted for a Liberal, not a Conservative.
> 
> And frankly, put it, the riding has been represented in the past by a back bencher, and from the opposition as well. The riding wants a Liberal, not a Conservative. If they had wanted a Conservative, they would have voted mostly Conservative.



What's good for the goose...

Its about time that the Libs got a taste of their own cheating, crooked, cronyist medecine.

Too bad so sad. 

Next


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2006)

Aren't you supposed to vote for whomever will represent your interests best regardless of party platform.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (10 Feb 2006)

> Its about time that the Libs got a taste of their own cheating, crooked, cronyist medecine.


The unfortunate thing is that it is the voters who got the royal screw job, not the Liberals getting a taste of their own "medecine". The constituents of Vancouver- Kingsway got the Joan Collins Special.



> Aren't you supposed to vote for whomever will represent your interests best regardless of party platform.


Riiiiiight. So what is the point of a party having a platform? 
Bart


----------



## Armymatters (10 Feb 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> The unfortunate thing is that it is the voters who got the royal screw job, not the Liberals getting a taste of their own "medecine". The constituents of Vancouver- Kingsway got the Joan Collins Special.
> Riiiiiight. So what is the point of a party having a platform?
> Bart



I can drink to that!  :cheers:
We, the voters got screwed over in the end. Like with any other mistakes or blunders our politicians make, in the end, the electorate gets screwed over, one way or another.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2006)

> Like with any other mistakes or blunders our politicians make, in the end, the electorate gets screwed over, one way or another.



There's a solution to that.  Do the job yourself and take responsibility for your own failures.  Or better yet become a politician and take responsibility for not just your own failures but for the failures of others.

Alternatively you can continue with the system we have whereby we hand over responsibility for much of our lives to others that are willing to do the job while we sink back in our comfy chairs, beer in hand, and tell them what a godawful job they are doing.

That line ascribed to Teddy Roosevelt about critics and the man in the arena is as applicable to politicians as it is to soldiers.

And Cheers to you.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060209.html
> See the video link of "Terry Milewski and Alan Waterman report for CBC TV's CanadaNow on the reaction to Emerson's move"
> You see, people voted for a Liberal, not a Conservative.



It is rather sad in a way that everyone has forgotten that:

a. Parties have no official or constitutional standing in government, and :

b. You vote for a PERSON to represent your riding in Parliament.

It is hard to imagine a world without political parties, but in their simplest form, people with like interests would join together for common causes to put more "horsepower" on their side. The current political idiom of "Left" and Right" is an accident of history (Nobles and clergy tended to sit on the right side of the French Assembly), even here you see a clear grouping of common interests in the time of Louis XV. I suspect if you could somehow observe the ancient Athenian assembly or Roman Senate during the Res Publica, you would also see party like groupings. Political parties are not mentioned or given any constitutional standing in the Anglosphere, and usually the only place a party is given constitutional standing is in a one party state (Read the constitution of the USSR for example).

The scary part of your comment is that it essentially does not matter to people in your riding (or evidently you) who is dropped in to represent you, only their obedience to the Liberal Machine seems to be important given the nature of your posts and the reaction of the riding association and an unknown number of voters. If that is the case, suppose that I run in your riding as a candidate for the Liberal Party? Knowing my opinion of various political matters from my posts it is quite evident that I do not actually believe in anything they stand for, but nevertheless, do you still vote for me because of the Party I represent? (notice to new posters/readers, I am a small l libertarian, this would never happen in real life).

The optics of the defection are unfortunate, but there is an important difference between the Stronich case and this one; Stronich was inticed to come over as a desperate move to hang on to power for the sake of hanging on (this was the same government which also ignored a vote of no confidence), while Prime Minister Harper already has power, and is exercising it to advance his five point platform. If you want a prediction, several more Liberals will probably cross the aisle in the spring since they don't like being in opposition. If you want my opinion, Prime Minister Harper should be openly courting some of the smarter NDP and Bloc MPs to increase the size of the talent pool and provide more regional representation on the government side of the aisle. Since Cabinet ministers can be selected from outside the sitting Caucus, if and when there is a cabinet shuffle, maybe some outside viewpoints can be sought out and included. I am available  , but there are plenty of smart. willing people who might agree to work for the nation for a short period of time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2006)

Just like Belinda, it happened, get over it, and in 4 years or less you will have your chance to either agree or disagree.
Much as I'm still a little uncomfortable with it, the bottom line is David Emerson was elected, .....see above.


----------



## clasper (11 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since Cabinet ministers can be selected from outside the sitting Caucus, if and when there is a cabinet shuffle, maybe some outside viewpoints can be sought out and included.



This is why I think the optics would have been better if Emerson sat as an independent.  Part of his reasoning was that he was "apolitical".  If that's the case, he can represent the best interests of his constituents and the country at large by not getting in bed with either political party, and just go about his job as a cabinet minister (which he is well suited for).  This would have the added benefit of appeasing those that argue against crossing the floor too easily (which were mostly Tories, not too long ago).  Harper would be seen as creating a "big tent" government of the center, instead of trading "Not fair!" and "Is too fair!" arguments with the Liberals, now that the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## geo (11 Feb 2006)

From my perspective, Mr Emerson was elected by his Constituents as being the best person to represent them in Ottawa. It would have to be assumed that they believed in his jugement - wherever that would take him.

If he believes he can best represent his constituents - seated as a member of the Cabinet, I don't see a problem..... lord knows there isn't that much of a difference between the Conservative & Liberal platforms.


----------



## Scott (11 Feb 2006)

Armymatters, I think we all get your point.



> He made this switch just mere weeks after being elected. And from friends, they are all shocked and outraged, even though all of them voted NDP. Unlike Belinda, who did it on a matter of values, Emerson did it just for a cabinet post, and nothing else.


Belinda did what Belinda felt was best for Belinda


> I am more of a angry constituent than a bitter Liberal... I say we constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway recall this idiot and replace him in a by-election.





> There should be rules regarding MP's that want to switch parties, and this behaviour is totally unacceptable. You can bet there is outrage from his constituents (including me), and we will probally try to force a by-election through a recall petition.





> . The people of Vancouver-Kingsway will have something to say about that. I was just talking with a few neighbours who live in the riding with me, and they are outright furious. There is even the start of a rumor that a petition will be created to force Emerson resign his seat.





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





> I passed his riding office last day, and there were protests by constituents outside his riding office. And about the rumor I have regarding a petition: there is one started online, and there is word that there is another petition circulating by paper around the riding.





> You see, people voted for a Liberal, not a Conservative.
> 
> And frankly, put it, the riding has been represented in the past by a back bencher, and from the opposition as well. The riding wants a Liberal, not a Conservative. If they had wanted a Conservative, they would have voted mostly Conservative.


You don't say!!


> We, the voters got screwed over in the end. Like with any other mistakes or blunders our politicians make, in the end, the electorate gets screwed over, one way or another.




So, I take it that you're slightly miffed about the whole situation? : Sorry for the jab, really, it was a fine opportunity, though.

Lemmesee...Armymatters, you have posted about 10 times in this thread and I have gathered two things from those ten posts:
1) There is a meeting tonight to discuss this fella's fate.
2) You're choked.

Did you really need to repeat yourself all those times? Like has been said, Deal with it. 

You want him out? Then get your petition signed and start the process.

Want to change things? Hang out your shingle and hope to get the vote.

Do not repeat yourself over and over on the internet, ranting and raving like a child. Do not go around pretending that the Liberals or the NDP are pure white, that is not the case. Don't give me any double talk about Belinda or any of the others who've crossed no matter from what side. They're all just as guilty.

Rant off, back on topic.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Feb 2006)

What people outside of BC fail to realize is what Emerson brings to the table.  He is widely respected in business circles here, especially in the lumber industry.


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Feb 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> What people outside of BC fail to realize is what Emerson brings to the table.  He is widely respected in business circles here, especially in the lumber industry.



Oh I see. So those of us "outside of BC" have to just settle for the guy we voted for in our ridings. Maybe we should just not bother having elections, since there's no guarantee that the guy we stupid voters choose will be "widely respected in business circles".


----------



## RangerRay (12 Feb 2006)

I'm just saying that's why Harper asked him to join Cabinet.  He's a heavy weight who is the most qualified to move these issues forward.  A conservative principle used to be giving jobs to qualified people, not political allies.

David Gray of the Free Trade Lumber Council has said that Emerson is the right person deal with softwood lumber.


----------



## geo (12 Feb 2006)

PT....
If you voted for your MP, you must've thought him "the better man" the best qualified to represent you in Parliament.... compared to the others that were also running in your riding.

On that basis, Mr Emerson obtained the best "deal" he could get for his constituents...


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Feb 2006)

Well a Conservative principle, or rather a Reform Party principle, used to be accountability to the voters, and the right to recall MPs (which as you know you can do provincially). 

Oh I'm sure he'll get a "deal" on softwood lumber, he'll have to take any deal, even the worst deal imaginable, since the Americans will be fully aware of the political pickle Emerson and Harper are in with all this.


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> PT....
> If you voted for your MP, you must've thought him "the better man" the best qualified to represent you in Parliament.... compared to the others that were also running in your riding.



Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, so I didn't vote for my MP.

"On that basis, Mr Emerson obtained the best "deal" he could get for his constituents..."  ???


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Feb 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> Armymatters, I think we all get your point.
> Belinda did what Belinda felt was best for BelindaYou don't say!!
> 
> So, I take it that you're slightly miffed about the whole situation? : Sorry for the jab, really, it was a fine opportunity, though.
> ...



Being a whiny big baby is the cornerstone and birthright of every lefty socialist.  They thrive on the concept of being a victim, and never offer actual solutions to problems, just criticisms of other peoples ideas.  
If there was a massive brain dump across the nation, and all of a sudden politicians started dumping their parties and joining the NDP, then the left coast would hail it as a "triumph of the human spirit over corporate greed".  They have "little party syndrome" and know they are a few years away from extinction.  What the real issue is here, is a conservative has been artificially planted in their midst, and GOD FORBID he do a good job and take away from the "ooooo...scary righties" mystique.  Watch the soft wood lumber issue disappear like mist in the morning sun, when a business man is dealing with the problem, not a tree hugger.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Feb 2006)

> Well a Conservative principle, or rather a Reform Party principle, used to be accountability to the voters, and the right to recall MPs (which as you know you can do provincially).



As a former proponent of recall, I have to say that in practice, it's a complete joke.  Here in BC, the threshold for signatures is impossibly high, and recall campaigns end up being run by thinly veiled political partisans who are trying to re-fight the last election in close ridings, rather than legitimate grassroots movements to throw out self-serving politicians.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2006)

Most of the sound and fury in Kingsway seems to be being generated by the NDP.  I heard on the news that the rally was actually organised by neighbouring NDP ridings.

They're probably looking to secure the riding in the next election, or in their dreams, force a highly unusual by-election, move Ian Waddel into the number one spot and thus strengthen their hand in the current minority parliament.  Meanwhile its all good as far as they are concerned.

I expect Emerson and Harper to stick to their guns.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2006)

NDP voters in the riding by definition didn't vote Liberal, so their objections to losing the Liberal MP are empty.

However, since the LPC prize pig has left the sty and the CPC is not exactly competitive in that riding, the NDP would be stupid not to want a by-election.  Their motives are not exactly pure.

Aside from losing his minister, the Parliamentary head count means it should make no difference to Harper whether the seat is held for the CPC or NDP as long as it isn't held for the LPC.

The objectors are exactly as righteous as the voters of every other riding in Canadian history whose MP crossed the floor - no more, no less.  As with Stronach's crossing, "principle" is being cited as an excuse to pitch a fit.


----------



## TCBF (13 Feb 2006)

"Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, ... "

- So?

Tom


----------



## Scott (14 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Being a whiny big baby is the cornerstone and birthright of every lefty socialist.  They thrive on the concept of being a victim, and never offer actual solutions to problems, just criticisms of other peoples ideas.
> If there was a massive brain dump across the nation, and all of a sudden politicians started dumping their parties and joining the NDP, then the left coast would hail it as a "triumph of the human spirit over corporate greed".  They have "little party syndrome" and know they are a few years away from extinction.  What the real issue is here, is a conservative has been artificially planted in their midst, and GOD FORBID he do a good job and take away from the "ooooo...scary righties" mystique.  Watch the soft wood lumber issue disappear like mist in the morning sun, when a business man is dealing with the problem, not a tree hugger.



Ahhhh, clarity. I have never seen it put so beautifully!!


----------



## Pencil Tech (14 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, ... "
> 
> - So?
> 
> Tom



I don't like separatists. Separatists are goddam traitors.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2006)

Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and  Paul Martin all harped (excuse the pun) on the _democratic deficit_ and so on for much of the last couple of years.

I see David Emerson’s move as, *potentially*, a valuable step in solving that problem.  In my opinion the stranglehold which political party machines have on the entire political process is one of our major problems.  We saw this, finally, cemented during the Chrétien era – when the _imperial_ prime minister was there for all to see.

Were I the PM I would do the following:

•	In the throne speech, I would have Mme. Jean say something like: ”My Government has set out five priorities: _blah, blah, blah, blah_ and _blah_.  During this parliament they will bring down a budget and introduce several bills to give effect to these promises.  All bills related to these five issues will be maters of confidence.  Most others debates and bills will not be regarded as matters of confidence.  My government will bring forward its own proposals and it will give full attention to the proposals of others but the government will not, necessarily, fall on issues not related, directly, to the five priorities.  Most members of the ministry, like all government back benchers will be allowed to vote freely on all bills and in all debates which do not involve _confidence_.”

•	I would begin, at once to make the Senate elected and effective by –

1.	Advising each provincial premier that I will appoint to the Senate of Canada only individuals who – 

a.	Meet the mandatory minimum qualifications; and

b.	Are elected by some mutually agreeable proportional representation system at the next provincial general election; and

c.	Sign a letter of resignation, before being appointed which will be effective at the next provincial general election,

2.	Sending a letter to each Senator asking for his or her resignation at the next applicable provincial general election so that the path towards an elected Senate can be opened*; and

3.	Making a statement in parliament declaring this to be the government’s policy and intention – no future PM would ever dare backtrack; and

•	Advising the House of Commons that parliamentary committees will have increased staff, budgets and powers with a view to helping the government and the bureaucracy to strengthen proposed legislation and to increase the legislative power of individual Members of all parties.

If the rigid party discipline can be broken – as it is in almost all other advanced Westminster type of parliamentary democracies then we will have gone far towards reducing the _democratic deficit_.

----------
* Clearly not all, maybe not even most senators would agree – but some, maybe even many will.  In any event they all have to retire by age 75 so there is a _drop dead_ date after which an elected Senate becomes _de facto_ a reality.  It took the Americans more than 20 years to pass the 17th Amendment to their Constitution (elected senators) even though Oregon elected its own senators in 1907.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2006)

A whiff of revolution in the air, Edward.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2006)

Hmmm....
Small sidebar in the paper today.... PM (not the PM) says he was dissapointed that Mr Emerson did not consult with him before crossing the floor....Awwww

(Wonder if he recommended to Belinda that she talk to Mr Harper before doing the dirty deed?)


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

Now David Emerson is avoiding the national media by hiding in Vancouver:
http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428218912&rem=31408&red=80121823aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm
At least it's only cost 22K so far to bring bureaucrats to see him.

On a side note, I haven't had anyone take me up on my offer to bet that a Conservative will not be elected in Vancouver Kingsway next election. I know this thread has been flying under with _only_ 96 replies and 1475 views but I'm still surprised  the lack of respose to my challenge.
Any interest in betting? Anybody........hello...(tumbleweed rolls by)......anyone...(coyote howls at moon)....?

That's what I thought.

All the best
Bart


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

I'll have to admit, this hasn't been a major concern for me, but I have some thoughts.

Yes, he may have been elected under false pretenses, and the voters deserve an explanation.

His ultimate goal, as far as I can tell, is to give his riding maximum representation. Nothing wrong there.

The people that elected him feel betrayed and want their pound of flesh. Understandable.

If he is going to work as hard as a Conservative, as he was a Liberal, but now has the ear and favour of the elected party, that's just good business.

If people oppose him, where they once supported him, simply because of his party, and not the job he can do, they're simply party zealots.

If they are party zealots, the issues and politics are foreign to them, because they can't get past their tiny and petty prejudices and grasp the real world.

These are the same type of people that voted for Trudeau. Not because he was politically able and cared about the common man and his issues, but because he had long hair, drove a sports car, smoked dope and used his office to make himself and his family millions. He did nothing for the country, except ruin it, but they voted for him anyway, cause he was a Lieberal.

David Emerson has positioned himself where he can maximize the concerns of his riding and gain the most for his constituents. But the zealots cannot, or will not realize that. They'd rather punish him and replace him with some ineffectual, back bench zombie. Someone who no one knows, and will be lucky to be heard in the first year of Parliament, except when introduced for the first time.

Of course then they'll blame the Conservatives for not funneling all that money, or jobs, or industry, or grants or whatever to their riding, when in fact it turns out to be their own petty politics and whining that ultimately sinks them and take them off the political map. Not the decision of David Emerson. But that's just my $00.02 CAD.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

Recceuy,
Just a few points on my interpretation:



> His ultimate goal, as far as I can tell, is to give his riding maximum representation


Fair enough, that's one interpretation, most of the spin I've read says it's to further Vancouver and BC business interests representation in the government. Now I'm somewhat politically naive but I couldn't find the riding of "Vancouver and BC business interests" on elections.ca but maybe I didn't look hard enough.



> If people oppose him, where they once supported him, simply because of his party, and not the job he can do, they're simply party zealots.


While I agree to a point, supporting a party doesn't automatically make them zealots. If my Marijuana party candidate suddenly switched to the Bloc Québécois, if I stopped supporting her it wouldn't make me a zealot, just a party supporter.



> David Emerson has positioned himself where he can maximize the concerns of his riding and gain the most for his constituent


Since he was a cabinet minister and had to support _all_ Liberal party policies and was re-elected as such, and now is again a cabinet minister and _has_ to support _all_ Conservative policies, even the ones that are diametrically opposed to Liberal party policies, (granted that's only a few) it's hard to understand how he can maximize the concerns of his constituents.



> Of course then they'll blame the Conservatives for not funneling all that money, or jobs, or industry, or grants or whatever to their riding,


Have you been to Vancouver-Kingsway lately? I drive through it to get to parade and it doesn't look like anyone has been funneling any money into it in a loooooong time. It still didn't stop them from re-electing liberals and NDP.



> These are the same type of people that voted for Trudeau. Not because he was politically able and cared about the common man and his issues, but because he had long hair, drove a sports car, smoked dope and used his office to make himself and his family millions. He did nothing for the country, except ruin it, but they voted for him anyway, cause he was a Lieberal.


For the record, Vancouver-Kingsway voted NDP during Trudeau's era, except for the 74-79 period. As for all the other stuff about Trudeau I'll take your word it, it's a _bit_ before my time (for a bit read a long time) 
All the best
Bart


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2006)

I have to agree with recceguy, all the complaints I have seen and heard concern his party affiliation (or lack thereof), and it would seem the complainers will only be satisfied if anyone at all representing the PARTY sits in the riding, regardless of effect. While the optics are terrible (Emerson should probably represent himself as an independent), no one complaining in the riding seems to consider they have a Cabinet Minister to represent them, not an opposition backbencher.

I hereby nominate a *figure 11 target * to represent the (insert party) for Mr Emerson's riding.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2006)

Can a sitting independant be a cabinet minister?   I mean, an unelected official can so why not?

I wonder how the riding would whine then?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Feb 2006)

I'm probably mistaken but can't you make a member of the oppostion a member of the cabinet if you want to?


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

> I hereby nominate a figure 11 target to represent the (insert party) for Mr Emerson's riding


I would second that nomination, if that was the wish of the constituents. The issue for me isn't the political acumen of the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway, which may very well be lacking, my issue is if they want a figure 11 from a certain party, that represents certain policies, then that is what they deserve. 
Also, 
As stated in my earlier post, how do your reconcile the fact that as a cabinet minister Mr Emerson _must_ go along party lines on all policies, whereas if he was a backbencher he could vote his constituents wishes?
All the best
Bart


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2006)

> As stated in my earlier post, how do your reconcile the fact that as a cabinet minister Mr Emerson must go along party lines on all policies, whereas if he was a backbencher he could vote his constituents wishes?



That is a matter of government policy.  For example on the SSM debate Paul Martin was quite at liberty to release his Cabinet from the party line and allow a completely free vote.  Likewise Stephen Harper has great latitude in deciding what is a critical, or confidence issue, requiring solidarity and what is an issue that while important is not critical to the core program and ultimate success of his party.

Beyond budgets and estimates which are by definition matters of confidence, money being the primary interest of parliament, everything else is a matter of policy and political judgement.

Short form:  If Stephen Harper wishes to allow his Cabinet Ministers to vote their conscience he can.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

Can't you just accept that there is a conservative on the left coast?  Gawd, get over it!  Let the guy do some work fer chrise sakes and then bitch.  If anything, the Tories (can we still call them that?) will give him everything he asks for, to make them all look good to the socialist left coast hippie types.  Nothing stings like success.  If you have a problem with that, I'm with Recceguy.  You are a political zealot and have no ability to adapt your views.  
Continuing to wail about "the will of the constituents" is moot.  It is pathetic crybabyism at it's worst.  The "will" didn't mean dick to the Lieberals when they took traitor Belinda so if whats good for the goose...
Maybe what is concerning is the fact that the whole of North America is finally waking up and realizing that socialism doesn't work and everyone needs to get their arses to the right.  Maybe there are lots more left coast Lieberals that see the writing on the wall and want to jump off the sinking ship.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill, 
I draw your attention to an excerpt from the "Cabinet of Canada" article on Wikipedia (reproduced under the fair use provisions of the copyright act):


> Decisions made in cabinet must be unanimous, though this often occurs at the Prime Minister's direction. Once a decision is made _all _ Cabinet members must _publicly support it_. If any of these rules are violated, the offending the minister is usually removed by the Prime Minister.


Italics added for emphasis
So you're right, when Stephen Harper authorizes his cabinet to have a free vote they can vote their constituents wishes. _However_ cabinet ministers must toe the party line on all matters emanating from cabinet, unlike backbenchers (of the same party) who are free to criticize cabinet decisions
All the best
Bart


----------



## Blue Max (24 Feb 2006)

If you read the papers as to who is making the most noise and organizing these rallies, it would appear that the second up, Ian Waddell - NDP feels he is deserved the seat. Never mind that he will accomplish nothing tangible from across the floor of the legislature or from the Orange party positions. :'(

Of course I am still amazed that the majority of urban Vancouver voted Lieberal, after all what did the fed-Lieberals do for BC through all those years.  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> If you read the papers as to who is making the most noise and organizing these rallies, it would appear that the second up, Ian Waddell - NDP feels he is deserved the seat. Never mind that he will accomplish nothing tangible from across the floor of the legislature or from the Orange party positions. :'(
> 
> Of course I am still amazed that the majority of urban Vancouver voted Lieberal, after all what did the fed-Lieberals do for BC through all those years.  :



Once the heavy pink cloak of socialist myopia descends on one, it is a hard veil to remove.  For to don it, one had to purge all common sense and logic from ones mind, and learn to think from the fluffy heart, and speak from the dingy ass.  Verily, a bitter pill to swallow.


----------



## Blue Max (24 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Once the heavy pink cloak of socialist myopia descends on one, it is a hard veil to remove.  For to don it, one had to purge all common sense and logic from ones mind, and learn to think from the fluffy heart, and speak from the dingy ***.  Verily, a bitter pill to swallow.



Your funny statement I believe goes a long way to explaining why today the papers are reporting a majority of Canadians do not want us to support freedoms war in Afghanistan. :threat:


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

Zipperhead_cop,
I don't know if I'd call myself a party zealot, having never belonged to a political party in my life, I would call myself more of a "Champagne Socialist". That is, I enjoy espousing socially progressive views at cocktail parties and on web forums but when the rubber meets the road I don't actually want the left wing types to take power since I have mutual funds and property values to think of. I hope that doesn't make me hypocritical.
For the record my voting pattern starting with the Fed election in 88 (I wasn't old enough to vote but my father asked me to be his consultant since my interest in politics had surpassed his own by that point)has been:
PC,PC(Manitoba),Natural Law party(93),No on Charlottetown,Reform(97), Marijuana party(00),Marijuana party(04),Green(06, No MJ candidate in my riding)
I would call it all over the map.
I have no doubt David Emerson will do a great job for BC and Canada, he is eminently qualified, what disappoints me is the route he took.
Speaking of stinging like success, you don't feel like being $100 richer when David Emerson gets re-elected on a tide of undying devotion from his won over constituents in a few years? You probably make good money being a cop, so I'm assuming your reluctance to wager stems from a lack of conviction in the fact left coast Liebrals will be jumping ship. 
All the best
Bart
Full disclosure:
I did try to join a political party once. Back in '01 I sent a check for $5 to the Marijuana Party of Canada, and never heard from them. Neither was my check cashed. I assume it was not put on the "To cash" pile but instead made it to the "use to roll" pile and went up in smoke. :blotto:


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2006)

Bart:

Unlike backbenchers of any party Cabinet Ministers have the ability to influence "all matters emanating from Cabinet".


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

> Unlike backbenchers of any party Cabinet Ministers have the ability to influence "all matters emanating from Cabinet.


That's true. That is an upside I hadn't considered. I may be all turned around on the whole being in cabinet thing, as I viewed it as a one way street, from the PM on down, but I guess some of my hierarchical thinking got in the way. That's quite a salient point.
All the best
Bart


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

What would we be betting on?  That he proves to be an effective leader, or is re-elected?  My faith in the left coast to not relax it's sphyncter long enough to get it's collective head out of its collective ass is pretty strong, so where I would love to see more PC on the west, I doubt it will happen.  Just like it didn't in Toronto


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

I have no doubt Emerson will be an effective leader, the question is wether he will be re-elected. I say he, nor any member of the Conservative party have a hope in H-E-C-K of getting elected in Vancouver-Kingsway in the future. If people disagree I am willing to put money on the line. Granted it's money I will be receiving from the feds ($100/month childcare subsidy)for staying home with my daughter but it's real money none the less.
All the best
Bart


----------



## RangerRay (24 Feb 2006)

If he were to run again, I doubt Mr. Emerson would be able to win Vancouver-Kingsway, even if he settled softwood lumber, secured billions of federal dollars for the Pacific Gateway, and helped bring in the Olympics under budget (which is already over budget).

If he were to run again, he would be advised to seek the nomination in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast or North Vancouver.  He could do well there.  And if the Liberals won, I'm sure he would go back to them if asked.  He feels he's there to do a job, not play politics.

I find it laughable that the NDP are jumping up and down calling for recall.  Up untill now, they have constantly railed against it.  When they were forced to implement recall provincially by the referendum called by the outgoing Socreds, they made it so that it was next to impossible to function.

As well, in BC in 2000, ex-BC Liberal leader and ex-PDA leader Gordon Wilsonn crossed the floor to the NDP for a Cabinet seat.

The NDP are being just as hypocritical as the Liberals.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

I'll take the bet, but $50 in Army.ca merchandise that he gets re-elected in the next major fed election, not some knee jerk by election


----------



## WCST (24 Feb 2006)

Don't mix up Federal and Provincial politics. They have nothing to do with each other in BC.

If Emerson ran for the Liberals and was voted in as a Liberal, then he should have STAYED a Liberal or resigned. Crossing the floor to get a cabinet post is underhanded. He won't get re-elected in his riding. Guaranteed.

M :brickwall:


----------



## RangerRay (24 Feb 2006)

WCST said:
			
		

> Don't mix up Federal and Provincial politics. They have nothing to do with each other in BC.



That can be said of the Liberals, where they have severed any formal ties they have, but not so the NDP.

According to their constitution, the provincial and federal NDP parties are linked.  If you're a member of the provincial party, you are a member of the federal party and are not allowed to support other parties.


----------



## Armymatters (24 Feb 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> That can be said of the Liberals, where they have severed any formal ties they have, but not so the NDP.
> 
> According to their constitution, the provincial and federal NDP parties are linked.  If you're a member of the provincial party, you are a member of the federal party and are not allowed to support other parties.



There is a exception: In Quebec, federal members of the NDP are allowed to campaign for any other provincial parties, due to the fact that the NDP has no real provincial Quebec affiliate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2006)

Wiki isn't a source of law or custom, and in any event "usually" is inconsistent with "must".  It is conceivable for cabinet to include members from several parties, and permissible for them to dissent outside cabinet regardless whether that means the appointment will shortly thereafter be terminated.

>On a side note, I haven't had anyone take me up on my offer to bet that a Conservative will not be elected in Vancouver Kingsway next election.

Probably no-one will.  Emerson wouldn't have been dropped into the riding by Martin if Martin thought a Conservative stood a chance of winning.  Martin wanted Emerson to be a cabinet minister, and Martin provided the (approximately) safe seat.  In that, you can see the high regard in which Martin and Emerson and the LPC in general held the electorate of V-K.  For their part, a plurality of V-K accepted the deal - high standards for honourable democratic conduct all around.  Emerson dutifully said nasty things about the CPC in the next election.  Then, what do you know, on election night Martin decided the game wasn't worth playing any more.  Assuming Emerson truly does not believe that time in Opposition serves either his or the nation's interests, there would be only one obvious option: quit also.  But wait: at the twelfth-and-a-half hour, an offer was presented to do what he was recruited to do in the first place.  He's still the same guy, probably still holds the same beliefs and goals, and he still has a cabinet appointment.  Difference to the honourable electorate of V-K: colour of suit.  Yeah, it seems what they really wanted to do was say "Fuck you" to the Conservatives.  Good for them.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (24 Feb 2006)

I agree wikipedia is not the_ ideal_ source for parliamentary rules and etiquette but I was lazy and knew I would find something there. The fact he is a cabinet minister has less sting since Kirkhill pointed out that he would be able to possibly influence cabinet from the inside.( So still be able to represent constituents views that may run counter to the party)

I don't particularly hold the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway in high regard vis a vis their political acumen or integrity. According to the numbers trumpeted by Ujjal Dosanjh (Defence critic,WTF?)  only 20% of the electorate knew who David Emerson was. The political dork in me is outraged and questions wether people should be allowed to vote if they don't have a basic level of political knowledge. But then the "Jacuzzi Marxist" in me takes over and reasons such views would be unpopular with some people so I bite my tongue.

If people just look for the Party on the ballot and disregard who is actually running as the candidate it's unfortunate but since the election reform act of 1970 when party names were placed on ballots, people have been able to do that. So be it. I don't like, but it's the best system we have. For now.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Emerson wouldn't have been dropped into the riding by Martin if Martin thought a Conservative stood a chance of winning.  Martin wanted Emerson to be a cabinet minister, and Martin provided the (approximately) safe seat.  In that, you can see the high regard in which Martin and Emerson and the LPC in general held the electorate of V-K.  For their part, a plurality of V-K accepted the deal - high standards for honourable democratic conduct all around.  Emerson dutifully said nasty things about the CPC in the next election.  Then, what do you know, on election night Martin decided the game wasn't worth playing any more.  Assuming Emerson truly does not believe that time in Opposition serves either his or the nation's interests, there would be only one obvious option: quit also.  But wait: at the twelfth-and-a-half hour, an offer was presented to do what he was recruited to do in the first place.  He's still the same guy, probably still holds the same beliefs and goals, and he still has a cabinet appointment.  Difference to the honourable electorate of V-K: colour of suit.  Yeah, it seems what they really wanted to do was say "Fuck you" to the Conservatives.  Good for them.



Kay, is it me or did I miss something?  Dude, WTF are you talking about?!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/03/emerson_060303.html
Harper 'loath' to co-operate with ethics commissioner
Last Updated Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:11:45 EST 
CBC News
The Prime Minister's Office attacked the credibility of the ethics commissioner Friday night after he announced an investigation into conflict of interest allegations against Stephen Harper. 
Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro said he will look into what influence Harper wielded to convince former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson to cross the House of Commons floor. 

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

Emerson ran as a Liberal in the campaign leading up to the Jan. 23 general election, but was a surprise appointment to Harper's Conservative cabinet on Feb. 6. 
In a letter to three MPs who complained about the switch, Shapiro said he will issue one report on the conduct of both Harper and Emerson, who is now international trade minister. 

"Although the subject of this inquiry is the prime minister, given that the actions of...Harper and Emerson in this incident were intertwined, questions will no doubt be raised during the course of the preliminary inquiry on the conduct of Mr. Emerson as well," Shapiro said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Canadian Press. 

But the PMO accused Shapiro of having a double standard when it comes to investigating Conservative MPs. It noted that he refused to investigate Liberal Tony Valeri's landholdings during the election campaign on the grounds the commissioner couldn't act between sittings of Parliament. 
Based on that decision, the PMO is arguing that Shapiro has no business investigating something that happened in between the dissolution of the last Parliament and the commencement of the next one.  

Shapiro has been criticized in the past. Former NDP MP Ed Broadbent accused him of having "extraordinarily serious credibility problems" after a series of questionable reports last year. 
Shapiro was found in contempt of the House by a parliamentary committee regarding his investigation of a Tory MP. The committee concluded he violated MP code of conduct rules and also made inappropriate comments in a media interview, but it recommended no sanctions. 
  
Emerson's switch to the Tories has upset many residents of his Vancouver-Kingsway riding. 
Emerson has since formally apologized to his constituents, and has promised to run as a Conservative in the next general election. 
The Vancouver-Kingsway riding has only voted Conservative once, in 1958. 

In the Jan. 23 election, Emerson won just over 43 per cent of the vote for the Liberals, compared to 33.6 per cent for the second-place NDP candidate, Ian Waddell, and 18 per cent for Conservative Kanman Wong. 
Emerson was the head of B.C. forestry giant Canfor when the Liberals recruited him as one of their "star" candidates for the 2004 election. Following his victory in Vancouver Kingsway, the 60-year-old was appointed as former prime minister Paul Martin's industry minister. 

Emerson's previous jobs include deputy minister of finance for B.C., president of Western and Pacific Bank of Canada (now Canadian Western Bank) and head of the B.C. Trade Development Corp.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Mar 2006)

There was a *rumour* floating around the frozen little capital of all the Canadians back at election time to the effect that Harper was going to offer *Ed Broadbent* some sort of part-time, semi-honorary appointment which would allow Broadbent to design a politically workable package of measures to deal with ethics, etc in parliament and in government.  Harper, the rumour went would guarantee Broadbent that whatever was proposed would be implemented – not just another study designed to deflect public attention and then gather dust.

I though it was a good idea, especially the _ politically workable_ bit; we have progressed from Chrétien’s lap dog, a _counsellor_, to some sort of _commissioner_ who seems a bit ethically and intellectually challenged himself.

We need _sensible_ rules for public office holders – elected, appointed and salaried professionals, too and we need somebody or some body to hear complaints, conduct investigations, *if warranted* and report, publicly, after the investigation is concluded as in:

_"I received a complaint from Ms. X, of the Liberal Party of Canada, complaining that a Minister had violated the established ethical standards by crossing the floor.  I investigated, thoroughly.  I concluded that this was a purely political issue: a partisan complaint about a political act.  No ethical standards were breached.  No action is warranted.”

or​
“I received a complaint about BGen Y using a DND staff car to take his family on week-end trips to a cottage.  I investigated, thoroughly.  I concluded that the complaint has merit. I have passed the file to the Judge Advocate General with a recommendation that the Code of Service Disciple be invoked to deal with this matter and, additionally, that BGen Y be required to repay the Crown $_,___.__ .”

_


----------



## TCBF (4 Mar 2006)

We have to have an effective way of dealing with this.  The problem will not go away as long as we put humans in politics.

We could call this the "Duke Cunningham Syndrome."

Duke - the Republican Representative for San Diego -  just got eight years and four months of prison time for accepting $2,400,000 in bribes, of which he has to repay $1,800,000.  All that and prostate cancer , too.

Duke flew an F4 Phantom during the Vietnam war, and once shot down three enemy planes in one day.

So, someone who is a role model for bravery and self-sacrifice becomes the most corrupt (by dollar value) in the House of Representatives.

If it can happen to him...

Just because we have a few 'noble' (more or less) people in politics, we should not assume they are  immune to greed.  

Yes, we need a true ethics commissioner.  Not to mention an increased RCMP efort in Ottawa.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (27 Apr 2006)

Well don't I have egg on my face. David Emerson went and solved the Softwood dispute after all my criticism. Let's look at a few key points taken from the PMs website: (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1136)
$4 BILLION IN DUTIES TO BE RE-PAID TO CANADA (The US only keeping 1 billion, 500 million of which is to be give out to U.S. lumber producers, whose initial complaints triggered the duties in 2002.)
NO QUOTAS AND TARIFFS AT CURRENT PRICES (If prices go down, tariffs go up, making it even harder to sell wood during tough economic times. And no quotas, unless you count that Canada is limited to a 34% share of the US market.)
PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY ( Flexibility is good.)
7-YEAR ARRANGEMENT (Sounds good.)
BZ David!
All the best,
Bart


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> Well don't I have egg on my face. David Emerson went and solved the Softwood dispute after all my criticism. Let's look at a few key points taken from the PMs website: (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1136)
> $4 BILLION IN DUTIES TO BE RE-PAID TO CANADA (The US only keeping 1 billion, 500 million of which is to be give out to U.S. lumber producers, whose initial complaints triggered the duties in 2002.)
> NO QUOTAS AND TARIFFS AT CURRENT PRICES (If prices go down, tariffs go up, making it even harder to sell wood during tough economic times. And no quotas, unless you count that Canada is limited to a 34% share of the US market.)
> PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY ( Flexibility is good.)
> ...



Uhhhh.... Bart,

isn't there a Canadian export duty to be levied against the Softwood exports?
which just adds $$$ to the federal coffers but it'll have to be added into the price of the lumber that, with the increased value of the Loonie = Cdn lumber that's less competitive in the USA.

Way to go David Emerson.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (27 Apr 2006)

Geo,
That's true, it's still early days so I didn't know who would be collecting the tariff. It is a positive that at least the Canadian gov't will be collecting the money and not the US gov't.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2006)

this looks to me like what the Last Gov't rejected last year.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (28 Apr 2006)

> this looks to me like what the Last Gov't rejected last year.


I have heard that as well, but I will reserve further speculation for a few days, when more details and analysis comes out.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Apr 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> I have heard that as well, but I will reserve further speculation for a few days, when more details and analysis comes out.
> All the best,
> Bart



Maybe it just never made the press here in Ontario, but it seems like the Conservatives have come up with a plan in pretty short order for a problem the Lieberals dicked around with endlessly.  Someone once said that a good compromise is one where both sides aren't totally happy with the outcome.  Perhaps this will be the case.  However, I do not purport to have any knowledge or experience with the lumber industry or it's economics.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2006)

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2005/12/20/1361522-cp.html

Harper rescued lumber deal
By STEVE MERTL
2006-04-27 22:59:00
   
(CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper notched his first cross-border triumph Thursday, announcing a tentative agreement to end the long-standing lumber trade war with the United States. 

[more]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2006)

So for all the derision heaped on Harper for appointing him, it looks like he was just being savvy and picked the best man for the job, politics aside.


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2006)

Claiming victory by settling on what had been on the table (and rejected l/year) is an interesting perspective.

The point is rather moot anyway.

US Builders have indicated that due to the high exchange rate of the loonie and the export tarifs that Ottawa has agreed to collect (and keep) they intend to look at Finland Ukraine & Russia as new lumber source..


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Claiming victory by settling on what had been on the table (and rejected l/year) is an interesting perspective.



Then why didn't the Libs bring it home and have a big feather in their caps going into an election? 



			
				geo said:
			
		

> US Builders have indicated that due to the high exchange rate of the loonie and the export tarifs that Ottawa has agreed to collect (and keep) they intend to look at Finland Ukraine & Russia as new lumber source..



And I call bullshit on the US builders.  There is no way that trying to get a bunch of wood in on a boat is better than direct on rails and tires direct from our forests and mills.  That just suggests to me that we got a decent deal, if the US is shanked about it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2006)

Half the Canadian voting public (maybe more) seems to be so caught up in searching out lines of operation to undermine Bush that they have forgotten it's the US Congress that is mostly responsible for this ongoing festival.  The housing lobby down there clearly isn't as strong as the softwood producers' lobby.  Add to that the fact that any "agreement" is just words on paper if it conflicts sufficiently with US interests (something that can be said for any nation), and the recipe for ongoing protectionist policy is complete.  The only questions are:

1) Who pays?
2) Who collects?

The first answer is simple: US consumers pay.  I'm certain that Canadian lumber producers haven't been dipping into their profits from other sales to pay the US-imposed penalties.  All that's happened is that Canadian producers have had to give up some profit margin on sales to the US.

The second answer has variations.  Right now, the US is collecting and has always intended to use the money to prop up US producers.  It seems to me that as long as the US government is willing to punish its consumers, we should try and tap some of that by imposing export penalties and letting Canadian producers pass those along to US consumers.  We should have started doing so long ago.

Throwing NAFTA down the toilet or escalating trade wars are not productive courses of action.


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Then why didn't the Libs bring it home and have a big feather in their caps going into an election?
> 
> And I call bullshit on the US builders.  There is no way that trying to get a bunch of wood in on a boat is better than direct on rails and tires direct from our forests and mills.  That just suggests to me that we got a decent deal, if the US is shanked about it.


Ans 1.... because some people consider it a bad deal

Ans 2.... the US builders would be happy to get our lumber - the cheaper the better and they are as upset as we/you should be. It's the US Lumber companies who are the winners here - they get to share some of that 20% of tarifs we just signed away AND, with the additional export tax AND the higher value of the Cdn $ - THEY have a competitive edge on us.... and they think they have the US builders over a barrel.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Apr 2006)

I guess that will have to be the price Canadians will have to pay for voting in the Liberals for so many years in a row.  I'm no economist, so I really can't keep up.  Bottom line for me is I trust Harper and the gang, and there is a workable solution now.  People are all caught up with the 1 Billion that they didn't get back.  Won't the other 4 billion to the Canadian companies be a perk of some sort?  And don't say that it was theirs in the first place, because I'm sure it was budgeted for while it was happening.  Have any lumber companies gone bankrupt?  If not, then it is a bunch of rich guys in a pissing match with a bunch of rich guys.  This doesn't strike me as being a big national interest.  
We have stuff they want.  If we don't sell it to them, we are in trouble.  We are the little brother.  That may piss many off, but it is reality.  Pick your battles.  The US needs friendly faces these days, and getting on their good side can't be a bad thing.  Being Island Canada and other such tripe as groups like the Counsel of Canadians trot out is just pipe dream foolishness.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2006)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/han025_2220-E.htm#Div-9

vonGarvin posted the voting record of the MPs on the "Extension" debate.  The list is from Hansard, otherwise known as the official record of parliament. 

What I wanted to highlight here is that Hansard, again - the official record, records votes alphabetically.  Not by party.  Not even by Government and Opposition.  Just an alphabetical list of all members equally.

It reinforces that Parliament is a body of equals, all equally empowered to vote and to speak and thus all equally available to the Governor-Gerneral as cabinet material.  This of course sets aside the fact that appointed elected members to cabinet is only tradition and not law.  The only requirement, AFAIK, for a cabinet position is that the minister be a Privy Counsellor.  That title is also in the gift of the Governor General.


----------

