Public's trust has been bruised already

February 11, 2006

JAMES TRAVERS

Hope is the paper money of politics, trust is its gold standard. Prudently managed, hope and trust can buy power back from those caught abusing it and give governments the freedom needed to operate in the public interest.

So, how well off are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives just weeks after an election and days after forming a cabinet? Not as rich as they were before those two seminal events.

First impressions are important and the one imprinted so far is unsettling: Squint at Harper and his party and see Paul Martin and his.

It's not just the obvious parallels between defectors David Emerson and Belinda Stronach. It's not even that Harper broke two promises by appointing Michael Fortier to the Senate and making him the essentially unaccountable minister of public works and government services, historically a patronage hotbed and, of course, the department that wet-nursed the Quebec sponsorship scandal.

No, what's really worrying is the almost instant return of situational ethics. In explaining themselves this week, Conservatives sounded like they were reading from the Liberal manual.

There's precious little to choose between Harper's justification for reversing course to secure two credible ministers as well as strong cabinet voices for Vancouver and Montreal, and Jean Chrétien's defence that he broke a few contracting rules to save the country. Joined at the philosophical hip, both energetically make the case that the ends justify the means.

It's a familiar argument. Down south, George W. Bush is wearing it thin trying to convince his fellow Americans that Big Brother is only being protective when he spies on them or rides roughshod over the rights that define a great nation.

But, like Chrétien, Harper faces a harder sell than Bush. Americans traumatized by 9/11 are far more willing to consider their president's argument than Canadians, appalled by the culture of entitlement, are likely to be appeased by their prime minister's words.

To stretch the comparison to the breaking point, Bush has Osama bin Laden to help him muscle his country into letting the government do what it says is right — even if it's wrong — while Harper has Justice John Gomery reminding this country that faith in politicians is sorely misplaced. The difference is significant.

Canada's parliamentary system functions on two layers of trust.

Ordinary folks elect representatives in the expectation they will do their jobs, to the best of their ability and largely out of mind, while the rest of us get on with daily life. And those in the House of Commons make the similar assumption that a powerful executive will keep its arm out of the cookie jar whether or not anyone is watching.

What Gomery and academic advisers wisely recognized — while some critics have not — is that both trust layers are badly broken. Voters who can't be sure candidates won't instantly defect to greener opportunities have no guarantee of future conduct or, for that matter, any reason to cast another ballot. And parliamentarians who can't rely on prime ministers and their cliques to let ethics occasionally triumph over political or personal advantage have no reason to give complex government machinery the room and flexibility it needs to work.

Trying to restore those broken layers is a tough job. It requires the rigorous discipline abhorred by politicians trying to tighten their grip on power as well as by parties prospecting for a new leader.

The more cheerful news is that the task holds opportunities for Conservatives and Liberals.

To convince Canadians something more has changed than the noses in the public trough, Harper will have to read the riot act to a cabinet with the potential to be, well, ethically accident-prone.

The national capital's cruellest game is guessing the minister who will be forced first to explain a fishy contract. Will it be Fortier, who is connected by capillary to Quebec Conservatives, or Gordon O'Connor, the former general and lobbyist Harper dangerously named defence minister, or some dark horse?

Liberals have a different challenge and a different opportunity. They need to control their power lust long enough to allow some overdue introspection while peering far enough into the future to find a leader not tainted by the past.

If Conservatives succeed, they can put this week's bad impression behind them. If Liberals succeed, they will find someone untainted by the 13 years of corruptive power.

But both will fail if they again forget that it's much easier to withdraw from the hope and trust account than it is to make a deposit.

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

February 11, 2006

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

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

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

"Right now I do not feel I'm allowed to do what I want and say what I think," Turner said in an interview yesterday, pointing out he'll decide whether to stay in the caucus after talking to party officials this weekend.

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

And Turner insisted he'll either table or back a private member's bill forcing politicians like Emerson who want to change their stripes after an election to run in a byelection.

"I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa," Turner wrote after meeting with Harper. "That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses."

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

Yesterday, New Democrat MP Peter Julian asked the ethics commissioner to investigate the circumstances surrounding Emerson's decision to join the government. Emerson has said he was approached by the Tories.

Julian said that could place Harper in violation of Parliament's conflict-of-interest code, which prohibits members from acting to further their own or other MPs' private interests.

February 7, 2006

The Harper honeymoon cannot be over. It never started.

Honeymoonis interruptis for the true blue believers. These folks felt like mouldy oldie spinsters, of little interest to any suitors for nearly 13 years. Imagine what it's like to be the bride in the bathroom of the honeymoon suite primping for the new stallion, only to step into the boudoir and find him in bed with a Lady in Red.

Only hours earlier you were the belle of the ball. Now you're the bride of Frankenstein.

Dear Prime Minister Frankenstein,

Remember the good old days when Belinda Stronach saw you as the horse with no game?

Every Conservative agreed when you said her gambit wasn't about principle. Just ambition. You probably wanted to say blond ambition. But you knew that Mrs. Harper would remove the kibble from your bowl.

Because you think of yourself as principled, nobody doubts that you can dress up this pig of a political play as principled. The government needs to have a member from one of Canada's three big cities. The government needs David Emerson's experience in international trade. After all, look at all he has accomplished so far on softwood lumber.

What exactly has he accomplished, Frankenstein?

Oh and one more "principle." The government needs to have a Vancouver MP in cabinet during preparations for the Vancouver Olympics. Now is it just me or are these eggs a bit runny?

The first rule of politics is that if you have to explain it, you're losing. The second rule of politics is that if you are trying to tell the faithful that you are a chess player and they are just checker players, you're losing.

Frankenstein, your messaging monkeys will tell you that you're a strategic thinker and your frustrated troops cannot spell "think." Grant those monkeys the real estate inside your brain and you will surely become the second coming of Joe Clark. Many of your staffers cannot remember those 15 minutes of lame when Joe was sworn in as prime minister and swore to God the Grits were gone for good. He thought Trudeau had hung up the holster just because the former PM said he would. But good ol' Pierre, rogue that he was, still had one more Derringer in his boot.

Fast forward to last fall. Remember how much sympathy you elicited from the true believers when Belinda decided to share the same treehouse with Ol' Man Martin. I mean, you didn't have them sobbing in their hankies the way Potato Patch Peter did. But that was understandable, Frankenstein. You only lost your shot at a coup. Peter lost his coo coo kachoo.

And all this brings us around to your very first act in office. You brought Liberal David Emerson into government. Apparently you didn't even ask him to turn in his Liberal membership card before putting his hand on the Bible.

You took a guy who told everyone in his riding that they should not vote for your guy because you were on the far right. After being sworn in, he told people that his entry into cabinet meant you were tacking left.

By the way, Frankenstein. Did you at least wait until you were elected before you bagged this four-point buck? Hope you had the boys pat him down. Hope he wasn't Grewalled up. Wired for sound? You would never feel cumfy wumfy with the public listening to the tape of you whispering sweet nothings into Liberal ears.

Speaking of nothing, didn't you once believe that Liberals stood for nothing?

Is that what makes David Emerson so comfortable in standing with you?

>> Recall David Emerson
>> Recall Emerson Petition
>> Elect Emerson
>> Joan Tintor's Blog
>> Garth Turner's Blog (The Turner Report)

by Romeo St. Martin

February 9, 2006

OTTAWA — Two Conservative MPs are now publicly urging Trade Minister David Emerson to resign his seat and run as a Conservative in a Vancouver byelection.

Tory MPs Garth Turner and Myron Thompson both made the comments to reporters outside a Tory caucus orientation on Parliament Hill.

"I think being a Member of Parliament is a very important thing and I think being elected is a very important part of that," Turner said.

"So I said during the campaign that I think anyone who crosses the floor ultimately should go back to the people for ratification and I stick by it.

"And hopefully in this case that will happen. Sooner? Later? I don't know when. But the prime minister took a calculated gamble in what he did."

Turner, however, said he wanted to be careful not to contradict Prime Minister Stephen Harper with his decision to name Emerson to cabinet two weeks after he was elected in Vancouver as a Liberal.

"The guy's obviously got a plan, but I'm not privy to it."

Turner said he was going to work within his caucus to get legislation put forward to discourage floor crossing.

He also expressed dismay about the Emerson appointment on his blog.

Other Tories were more tight lipped and walked briskly past reporters or offered up "no comments."

But Alberta MP Myron Thompson, one of the original members of the Reform caucus, said the Emerson decision is not sitting well with him or his constituents.

Thompson said also wants to see legislation in place to prevent people from crossing the floor.

When asked if Emerson should resign his seat and run in a byelection, Thompson said.

"Without the legislation in place to force it, I wouldn't suggest that has to be the case. I would say if he did it it would be the honourable thing to do."

While backbench Tory MPs are now starting to publicly question Emerson's appointment, no cabinet minister has cross that line yet.

"I don't think he's required to run in a byelection," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay. "It's certainly not legally necessary."

Harper, Emerson and controversial Senate appointee Michael Fortier did not speak with reporters on Thursday.

Emerson was scheduled to hold a teleconference with reporters late in the afternoon. Reporters waited on hold for half an hour before the operator informed them Emerson was "caught in traffic" and would have to reschedule the call at a later date.

February 10 2006

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Given the experienced brain trust on Stephen Harper's Conservative transition team, no one was predicting such a controversial first week for the new prime minister and his rookie cabinet.

The brouhaha began 25 minutes before Harper was even sworn into office Monday morning, when former Liberal industry minister David Emerson arrived at Rideau Hall in front of a gob-smacked national media to be sworn in as Tory trade minister.

By Friday, the array of troubles ranged from the Conservative front bench to its parliamentary secretaries, from federal-provincial relations through the Tory back bench, and even into its beleaguered communications group and the harried departmental staffing team.

"It's sort of like, 'The best laid plans go awry,"' said Jonathan Rose, an expert in political communications at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

"It reminds us that politics is the stuff of individual personalities and people who often are at odds with the leadership of the party."

Just how bad were Harper's first five days in office? Let us count the ways:

* Emerson's stunning defection to Harper's cabinet two weeks after he was elected as a Liberal outraged even many Tory stalwarts, who had supported legislation banning such party-switching. "I expected some of the superficial criticism I've seen," Harper responded to the Vancouver Sun, the rhetorical equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull. Since then, Emerson's work on the softwood lumber file has been questioned, he's contemplated quitting politics and his cabinet reward has formally been referred to Parliament's ethics commissioner by the NDP.
* Michael Fortier, the unelected Conservative campaign co-chairman who was elevated to cabinet and given a Senate appointment, told reporters he hadn't run for office because he didn't feel like it.
* Gordon O'Connor, the new defence minister, is being challenged because of his past work as a military procurement lobbyist. His new job will put him in charge of massive spending on military procurement.
* Ted Menzies, the affable Alberta MP, was made parliamentary secretary for the francophonie and official languages, although he speaks no French.
* Ontario MP Garth Turner, a former cabinet minister in the Brian Mulroney government, spoke openly about his disdain for Emerson's floor-crossing and was called on the carpet by Harper -- only to write about the dressing down on his web site. Turner now plans to introduce a private member's bill calling for floor-crossers to face voters in byelections.

There was also the matter of MPs slipping en masse out back doors to avoid reporters after their first national caucus meeting; a cabinet session at Meech Lake that left the national media huddled on a wind-swept highway seeking comment from ministers in limousines that didn't stop; and at least two significant phone calls -- one between Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and another between Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and the U.S. secretary of state -- about which the government provided no information.

Not coincidentally, the party is reportedly having trouble finding experienced people to staff key positions.

"It's staggering that their honeymoon is over before it's begun," said David Docherty, dean of Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont.

With steady hands including Senator Hugh Segal, a career Tory backroomer, and former Mulroney chief of staff Derek Burney on the transition team, no one foresaw such early chaos.

"It means one of two things," said Montreal Liberal Denis Coderre. "Either the guy (Harper) is a loner, or I missed something."

The Tory communications troubles are nothing new for those familiar with Harper's leadership and his open disdain for the inexact science of media messaging.

But supporters, and even some critics, say Harper has all too often been underestimated.

Party strategist Goldy Hyder dismissed the first week of controversies as a natural consequence of political coverage.

"I don't remember you guys reporting safe landings," he said.

And he hinted there's some kind of method to the madness.

Harper opened the federal election campaign in November by promising to revisit Canada's same-sex marriage law, a statement many commentators considered a profound misstep. It wound up helping inoculate Harper from later criticism.

Hyder hopes the troubled opening week serves the same purpose.

"I can't help but compare it to the launch of the campaign where everybody said, 'Geez, you guys just ended it before it started with the same-sex (marriage) comment.' These things all pass."

By STEPHEN THORNE

February 10, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - A rebellious Conservative wants to introduce legislation that would deter future David Emersons and Belinda Stronachs from switching political parties.

Ontario MP Garth Turner hopes to push ahead with a private member's bill even after being reprimanded by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his outspoken stand.

"It's on the public agenda and I think it needs to be addressed. People feel a bit cynical about the system," Turner said in an interview Friday.

"Let's talk about it, let's try and fix it."

He says he doesn't regret his decision to speak out against Emerson's jump to the Tories. But he expects there will be a price to pay.

In his online blog, Turner writes that he expects to be assigned an office in "a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement."

He said he had a series of unhappy meetings with caucus officials Thursday over his comments, including one with Harper.

"I think it is now safe to say my career options within the Conservative caucus are seriously limited," writes Turner, a former columnist and Progressive Conservative MP, now representing the Ontario riding of Halton.

"If you would like a course on how not to be popular in Ottawa, then take a seat."

Turner told The Canadian Press that he was asked to "curtail my activities" - but refused.

"I am a member of Parliament," he said. "That's my job. When my constituents are upset about something, it's my job to relay that."

Turner said earlier this week that Emerson, a Vancouver-area Liberal who crossed the floor Monday to take the post of trade minister in Harper's cabinet, should step down.

His proposed legislation would require MPs to face voters in a byelection when they want to switch parties. It's extremely rare for a private member's bill to succeed in the House of Commons.

Even if it were successful, the bill would only apply in the future, not in Emerson's case.

"You couldn't do something like this retroactively. But I think, going forward, we need to improve the system from what it is today," he said in an interview.

On Friday, New Democrat MP Peter Julian asked the ethics commissioner to investigate the circumstances surrounding Emerson's decision to join the government. Emerson has said he was approached by the Tories and offered the cabinet job.

Julian said that could place Harper in violation of Parliament's conflict-of-interest code, which prohibits members from acting to further their own or other MPs' private interests.

"It is our opinion that the considerable increase in salary, augmented potential pension, staff and assorted perks enjoyed by members of the cabinet such as a personal car and driver amount to furthering Mr. Emerson's private interests over what he would have received as an opposition MP," wrote Julian, who represents the B.C. riding of Burnaby-New Westminster.

"Therefore, in our opinion, Mr. Harper may be in breach of Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Code and I would ask that you investigate this matter."

In what he called a principled position, Turner said all government members - not just cabinet ministers - should be elected as members of the party that forms the government.

"Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it's the other way around."

Turner said his comments were deemed "not helpful."

Harper has been under fire all week for appointing Emerson and unelected Montrealer Michael Fortier to cabinet.

Fortier, a Tory organizer who was handed Public Works, will be appointed to the Senate until the next federal election, when he plans to seek a seat in the Commons.

The appointments, which Harper says were designed to give two of the country's biggest cities representation in cabinet, rankled many Conservative MPs.

The party had previously contended that floor-crossers like former Conservative Belinda Stronach should have to face the electorate before taking their new seats. And Harper has been a strong advocate of an elected Senate.

Turner said he had "swallowed with gusto" promises of more free votes, more powerful committees of "free-thinking" MPs, a more responsive government, and an elected and responsible Senate.

He said Harper's decision to appoint a floor-crossing Liberal and an unelected party official to cabinet "seemed to fly in the face of everything I had told voters about accountability and democracy."

"It also made me question the whole process."

Turner, who moved into his constituency office Thursday night, said he knew in advance the potential consequences of taking his stand.

"Speaking of offices, after today I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa," he said. "That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses."

by Romeo St. Martin

February 10, 2006

OTTAWA — "I would like to be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare … I'm going to be in his face."

Trade Minister David Emerson on election night.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to hand a cabinet job to Liberal turncoat David Emerson and a Senate seat and cabinet job to party official Michael Fortier has become not only a public relations disaster but is creating quite a strain on his caucus.

As many as eight MPs have either expressed reservations or openly criticized the new appointees publicly.

And on Thursday, few MPs or cabinet ministers were willing to discuss the new cabinet ministers with reporters, as they rushed past them on their way into a caucus orientation and then snuck out the back at the end of the day.

It is the first time divisions within the normally disciplined Tory caucus have been evident since the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party united in a merger in 2003 that many expected would not be easy.

The reasoning was that the "progressives" in the Tory caucus could not get along with the "populists" and "social conservatives" in the Alliance, previously known as Reform.

But after a leadership convention, a policy convention, a disappointing 2004 election and two years in opposition reporters in Ottawa were disappointed to find that those divisions were not creating the problems from the two factions in the party that had been anticipated.

Harper's leadership style was the subject of some grumbling, but there never was a tipping point and the Tory caucus remained largely united.

While the Liberal caucus was leaking damaging quotes from their caucus meetings, the Tories remained disciplined. Not everyone was happy with Harper, but no one was ever in disagreement enough to the point where they saw the need to make a strategic leak.

That changed this week after Harper made his controversial appointments.

For the first time in recent memory details about the behind-the-scenes happenings in the Conservative caucus meeting since the election were leaked out to the Globe and Mail in a story that was published Wednesday morning.

"The caucus meeting was described as unusually quiet, with Mr. Harper doing most of the talking," the Globe reported.

"Everybody was in shock," a western MP told the Globe.

In two well-kept cabinet moves (that supporters are calling brilliant), Harper has done more to create division in his caucus and - based on the opinions coming out this week from Blogging Tories - the conservative movement as a whole than any differences on abortion, gay marriage, national unity -- you name it -- since the two parties merged in 2003.

The prime minister said his thinking on this issue is to provide representation to people in Vancouver and Montreal, two of the three major metropolises where the Conservatives did not elect MPs in the election.

But critics were quick to point out that Harper did not name anyone to represent Toronto.

Harper says his new finance minister Jim Flaherty, who represents a riding in Oshawa, would be Toronto's voice at the cabinet table.

But then that would seem to kill the argument for the need for Vancouver to have David Emerson in cabinet, as Tory MP James Moore represents a Vancouver area riding that is much closer to Stanley Park than Flaherty's riding office is to the CN Tower.

As for Fortier, there are two Montreal-area Conservatives already in the Senate who Harper could have put in cabinet without breaking a promise to name elected senators to the upper chamber. And Fortier's Senate riding doesn't even include any part of Montreal in its boundaries.

Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert observed this week that Emerson and Fortier were likely not selected to represent constituents in those two major cities, but to represent business elites.

Emerson is a former forestry executive with lumber giant Canfor and Fortier is a Mulroney Tory who was an executive in Montreal's financial community.

By making these two controversial appointments, Harper has now placed a large chunk of his caucus in an untenable situation for what some see as no good reason.

Former Reformers, who have campaigned for over two decades for an elected Senate and criticized virtually every Mulroney, Chretien and Martin Senate appointment, now have to face reporters' questions about Harper's decision.

On Emerson, 40 Tory MPs voted in November in favour of a private members motion to examine forcing floor crossing MPs to sit as independents and run in a byelection.

While Harper is not in favour of such legislation, there is no doubt that he is not a fan of turncoats.

In May of last year on the day Belinda Stronach left the Tory caucus for a cabinet job, an overtly bitter Harper held a press conference on Parliament Hill where he freely took cheap shots at every opening offered.

Maclean's columnist Paul Wells asked Harper how come the Liberals seemed to be the main beneficiaries of turncoats while the Tories always seem to be the one to be on the losing end.

Harper said his party wouldn't go out of its way to "romance" MPs to cross the floor.

"We are trying to create a principled party where people act in a principled way," Harper said.

"We're fairly cautious about encouraging party jumping because I think that's the kind of thing that generates cynicism and frankly when somebody jumps once you're not sure to trust them that they won't jump the next time."

But somehow on Monday, people acting in a principled way and concerns about public cynicism no longer seemed to be a priority once Harper's party got power.

Emerson did not leave the Liberal party because of any fundamental policy difference that he could explain to reporters.

What he made clear is he left the Liberals because they were no longer in power - plain and simple. Emerson sees himself not as a politician, but as a career cabinet minister.

He even said if former prime minister Paul Martin won the election two weeks earlier he would have remained on with the Liberals.

Harper has not taken questions since Monday and Conservative MPs who attended two caucus meetings this week are having a difficult job spinning to reporters a story that would even be hard for the partisan of Liberals to swallow.

On Tuesday, several MPs and cabinet ministers repeated similar talking points in defence of Emerson.

Conservative MP James Moore, who did not make the cabinet cut for B.C. and was one of Stronach's harshest critics post defection, was smirking as he repeated talking points about Emerson.

"All I know is that David Emerson is a very talented guy who will do good things for British Columbia," he said on more than one occasion.

But at least Moore was able to get the talking points out.

MPs gave Emerson and Fortier polite applause when Harper introduced them to caucus, but there was not a whistle, cheer or a "woo hoo" to be heard.

Pressed by reporters after the meeting, MP Ken Epp refused to praise the new cabinet picks.

"I'm not willing to get into the middle of this thing, you guys," he said to reporters. "You're not going to get anything out of me. I'm supportive of my leader and my team."

Tory MP Maurice Vellacott momentarily broke way from the talking points and told reporters "if you want me to be honest, I've got a bit of an uncomfortable feel about it."

Later that same day, the Canadian Press reported MP Bill Casey said he was annoyed with Emerson being in charge of the softwood lumber file because of how he has handled it while industry minister with the Liberals.

"I'm not very happy about that, no," he told a Nova Scotia radio station.

The following day, two anonymous Tory MPs spoke out to the Globe and Mail. One described the moves this way, "This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. Who was Stephen talking to? We campaigned against this kind of stuff."

By the time the Tory caucus met again on Parliament Hill on Thursday for an orientation session, a siege mentality had taken over a number of MPs, who when in opposition always seemed to have time for scrums to take a swipe at the Liberals.

Cabinet ministers like Jay Hill and Rona Ambrose did not break stride as they walked into the meeting room, seemingly unable or unwilling to defend their embattled new colleagues.

Ambrose is one of four Tory cabinet ministers who voted in favour of Bill C-251, a private members motion that would examine prohibiting MPs from crossing the floor.

The others are Bev Oda, Diane Finley and Carol Skelton.

Skelton even introduced her own motion similar to C-251 last year to limit party swapping.

But speaking with reporters Thursday, it seems such a bill was sooo 2005.

"That was last year," Skelton said. "We talked about it and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable."

However, not all MPs are appear willing to reverse positions, stretch their credibility or hide from reporters to defend Harper's decision to embrace Emerson.

And this includes Senate appointee Fortier, who told CanWest that MPs who cross the floor should face voters in a byelection.

MP Myron Thompson suggested he would prefer it if Emerson resigned and ran in a byelection as a Conservative. He called it the honourable thing to do.

Ontario MP Garth Turner was more frank and said while he didn't want to second guess Harper it was his view before Monday that those who cross the floor should resign and run in byelections and that Harper's embracing of Emerson wasn't going to change his view now.

Late Thursday evening, Turner reported on his blog that his frankness with reporters did not sit well in a meeting he had later in the evening with Harper and other conversations with party officials.

"This one MP came face-to-face with the party machine in a series of unhappy meetings including one tonight with the prime minister," he wrote. "I think it is now safe to say my career options within the Conservative caucus are seriously limited."

If Harper is making an example out of Turner, as Turner alleges, then it seems he is willing to butt heads with someone who has been a well-known Conservative for two decades in defence of someone who was making up Tory hidden agenda allegations last month.

Also shocking in this whole episode this week is the incredible arrogance being exuded by Harper and his controversial cabinet ministers.

To paraphrase John Lennon, Emerson appears to believe he is "Bigger than the Liberals."

When asked about his former Liberal riding association wanting back more than $90,000 it spent on his election campaign, Emerson said, "I think these people ought to give their head a shake and ask themselves how much of that money would have even come to the Liberal party if I hadn't been there."

Fortier was asked by reporters if he wanted to serve in cabinet why didn't he run in the federal election. His response sounded like something that could be used in a future Liberal attack ad: "I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election."

As for Harper, he seems to believe he is smarter than his critics on this matter and has no problem expressing this view publicly even if those critics could include some of his long-time, loyal caucus supporters.

In an interview with the Vancouver Sun this week, Harper called the criticism "superficial."

"But I think once people sit back and reflect, they'll understand that this is in the best interests of not just British Columbia but frankly of good government," Harper added.

For the time being, the good of the government will have to wait.

Right now we have government on the run, with MPs being muzzled, cabinet ministers sneaking out the back door, the entire press gallery sensing fear and cabinet ministers, presumably without cellphones, canceling teleconferences because of traffic tie ups.

Harper and his crew will have to ride this out because as it stands now the only man who can put an immediate end to this situation is David Emerson - and that is certainly Stephen Harper's worst nightmare.

by Greg Felton

February 09 2006

Before the first Throne Speech is delivered, Canada’s new prime minister has managed to destroy his own credibility, infuriate his own MPs, and negate his party’s moral authority to govern.

Near the end of my Jan. 5 column I said that if the Harper Party managed to form the next government, it would spend so much time in damage control mode that it would have no time to govern. At the time, I thought the government benches would at least be warm before the first disaster struck, but I misjudged Stephen Harper’s propensity for self-immolation.

Before the first Throne Speech is delivered, Canada’s new prime minister has managed to destroy his own credibility, infuriate his own MPs, and negate his party’s moral authority to govern. This startling three-fold flame-out is not the result of a simple misjudgment; it represents a fundamental failure of character, and for a man who sanctimoniously prated on about the Liberals’ lack of ethics and how his party was going to revitalize Canadian democracy, this disaster is irreparable.

As recently as Dec. 14, 2005, Harper declared: “We need sweeping reforms to show Canadians that their national government will not tolerate corruption in the future. Cleaning up corruption and restoring accountability is the first step. We also need to vigorously pursue other measures to put Canada back in the forefront of democratic practice.”

Two elements of this plan for democratic reform include establishing a federal process for electing Senators, and requiring that a party’s local candidate has the approval of the constituency association.

Harper is a vigorous detractor of Canada's Senate because it is an appointed body, and he has condemned the Liberal practice of bringing in outside big-name candidates to carry the party banner in ridings where they have no history with the electorate or support among the constituency association. By appointing Michel Fortier and David Emerson to cabinet, Harper deliberately betrayed both principles.

Fortier was Harper's campaign chairman, and Harper appointed him to the Senate just so he could make him Minister of Public Works and Government Services. (Oooh, can you spell “cronyism?” Knew you could.) Emerson is/was an elected Liberal from Vancouver–Kingsway whom Harper invited to cross the floor to become Minister of International Trade inter alia.

All things being equal, the Fortier appointment should not be considered an outrage. In 1962, Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker appointed Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon to the Senate so he could become Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to tradition, political outsiders must be appointed to the Senate to sit in Cabinet or run in a byelection as soon as possible.

But things aren't equal. McCutcheon was an outsider who had had no political experience. Fortier is a long-time party apparatchik who should have had the courage to stand for election. Second, Diefenbaker didn’t run on a holier-than-thou platform of “democratic reform.” Many people supported Harper because of his contempt for the appointed Senate his pledge to turn it into an elected assembly. Now they see that Harper would rather betray this principle so that he could appoint Fortier rather than select one of his 123 elected MPs.

Harper defended both the Fortier and Emerson appointments claiming that he needed to have government representation in Canada's biggest cities, but that’s a rationalization not an explanation. The lack of big-city MPs is entirely due to the fact that educated, urban voters overwhelmingly rejected Harper’s parochial brand of government.

Second, what does it -say about Harper’s faith in his caucus. Long-serving Harper Party MPs like Diane Ablonczy and Jay Hill were passed over in favour of, um… “parachute” ministers. They and other MPs are justifiably furious that Harper would embrace the very practices the party condemned.

Of the two above-mentioned appointments, Emerson’s is clearly the most hypocritical. Last May, when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberal government, Harper Party MP Tony Abbott said she “whored herself out for power.” Emerson didn’t?! Here is a man who didn’t even wait until Parliament began sitting before accepting Harper’s offer, yet had the gall to say he “absolutely” would have stayed a Liberal if the party held on to power. Seems this political mercenary thinks himself too good to sit on the Opposition benches. Thus, it came to pass that the man who declared in January that he wanted to be Harper’s “worst nightmare” overnight chose to become Harper’s wet dream.

Even if the Emerson/Fortier scandals hadn’t happened, Harper's Cabinet is hardly a model of ethical transparency.

Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)—Day is a delusional Christian zealot and Israel ass-kisser who spent much of his time as foreign affairs critic denouncing the Martin government for not being an echo chamber for Israeli aggression. For Day, Palestinian resistance fighters against Israel’s illegal Occupation are “terrorists,” but not so the Israeli military, which enforces the Occupation and commits daily acts of genocide as defined by Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Count on Day to continue being a gormless cheerleader for the anti-Arab “war on terrorism.”

Also of note: when Day was an Alberta MLA, he was also was found guilty of libel for gratuitously impugning the character of a Red Deer lawyer. He billed the Alberta taxpayers for $750,000 in legal fees to fight a $60,000 judgment.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice)—Last year, this former Manitoba attorney-general, pleaded guilty to breaking the Manitoba election law by overspending in the 1999 provincial election campaign. Like Harper, he opposes same-sex marriage and wants a free vote in the House to determine if MPs want to revisit the issue, even though overturning this law would be grossly unconstitutional.

Gordon O’Connor (Minister of Defence)—A retired Brigadier-General, O’Connor was a defence industry lobbyist before entering politics. Harper said he is opposed to cabinet ministers becoming lobbyists, but not lobbyists becoming cabinet ministers. A=B, but not B=A.

Canadian voters are a generally forgiving lot, but when they feel their trust has been betrayed they take their anger out on the ballot box; hence, Harper’s Party of the Damned can only mark time until the inevitable non-confidence motion forces the Governor–General to call another election or invites the Liberals to form a government. Given recent events and the fact that the sum of Liberal and NDP seats is greater than the Harper Party’s, this would be the more likely scenario.

I wonder, then, what would happen to Emerson. He can’t run again in Vancouver–Kingsway, which means he’d have to be parachuted—there’s that word again—into a safe Harper Party riding, perhaps over the democratic wishes of the local consituency association. Even if he should win, he’d end up in Opposition because the odds of the Liberal Party taking him back are nil. Ah, the price of hubris!

When all this is over, the Liberals will be back in power and the reign of Stephen Harper will be remembered as nothing more than a fart in Canada’s political winds of change.