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.