As a Liberal deserts, Harper fails to lead

BY JOSEPH PLANTA

Tuesday, 07 February 2006

VANCOUVER - Stephen Harper certainly surprised the chattering classes yesterday when he unveiled his cabinet. Canada's 22nd Prime Minister had choices that were curious, and some that fed much cynicism in these early days of the new Conservative era.

There were the appointments that fulfilled previous expectation. There were those appointed to the ministries they were able critics of when on the other side (Vic Toews, Bev Oda, Greg Thompson, Loyola Hearn, Gordon O'Connor, and Jim Prentice). There were those Reformers and Canadian Alliance stalwarts who got their just reward (Chuck Strahl, Monte Solberg, Carol Skelton, Gary Lunn); while there were those high profile and gifted frontbenchers who were tapped for cabinet (such as Rona Ambrose and Michael Chong). The three former Harris era cabinet ministers from Ontario got to the federal table (Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, and John Baird), and there were the Quebec faces that were expected to take their place (Lawrence Cannon and Josée Vernier).

The appointment of David Emerson as International Trade minister was the blockbuster surprise of the day. Re-elected two weeks ago as a Liberal, and holding the senior cabinet post of Industry minister (not to mention senior political minister for BC) under the Paul Martin regime, Emerson became Vancouver's only cabinet minister as he switched parties. It's like a trade fulfilled a year later: Belinda Stronach goes Liberal for David Emerson going Conservative. Both were high profile, and both seemingly did so for a cabinet post.

The Emerson caper shouldn't surprise because he embodied a sort of business-friendly exterior, thanks to his experience as head of Canfor. He had bureaucratic experience as a deputy minister under the Social Credit regime here in B.C., and his small-c conservative bent made him attractive to the Martin machine as a star candidate in 2004.

Emerson's performance in the House of Commons since 2004, as a minister has been largely unpolitical. He was high profile, but he wasn't considered partisan in the sense that he engaged in the rock 'em sock 'em hardball stuff. By all objective accounts he seems a good administrator. Perhaps that low-key, industrious approach to cabinet participation appealed to Harper, thus the offer was made. It'll be interesting to see how the approach was made, and the reasons why Emerson crossed over. It'll be more interesting to see how Conservatives themselves react to the interloper, especially those MPs who ran and won under the Conservative banner and who found themselves shut out of the cabinet sweepstakes today.

The Conservatives shutouts include: Diane Ablonczy, James Rajotte, Steven Fletcher, Jay Hill, Rob Anders, Jason Kenney, James Moore, Rahim Jaffer, Garth Turner, John Williams and Peter Van Loan. (Brian Pallister was left-off at his request, pending a decision on whether he'll seek the leadership of the Manitoba Conservatives.)

Emerson's defection perhaps suggests disarray in the Liberal Party. Leaderless, in the sense it doesn't have a standard bearer for the future, let alone the next election, the party's self-examination perhaps doesn't include people of Emerson's ilk. When perhaps the old exiled Liberals are set to return, the Sheila Copps, Warren Kinsella and Lloyd Axworthy's of the Liberal tradition, it would have been untenable for someone like David Emerson.

Points go to Harper for affecting what was a delicious piece of political news. As a constituent of Vancouver Kingsway, one who didn't vote for Emerson twice, but for his Conservative opponent, I think it's admirable that Emerson has finally seen the light. That the Conservative Party is a good fit for Emerson is not denied. However the optics are terrible, and the smell of political opportunism stinks. Emerson's defection does nothing but fuel discontent and cynicism against politics and politicians.

I won't suggest that Emerson stand aside and trigger a by-election. To do so would fuel more cynicism amongst the body politic. Rather, Emerson ought to be contrite about his move, explain it, and hope that constituents will buy it. It also would help if he distinguished himself as a cabinet minister further.

The list of those who've switched parties in the past is long: Churchill, Gladstone, Arlen Specter, Strom Thurmond, Paul Hellyer, Jack Horner, Gordon Wilson, David Kilgour, Keith Martin, and Belinda Stronach, among others. Emerson ought to endeavour not only to add his name to the list, but by showing just why he did it, and why it was right to do. So far, so many, even within the Conservative Party, are unconvinced.

Suppose an election were held today and David Emerson was running as the Conservative, what would I do? Today, I really don't know. I hope he'll accept a standing invitation to appear on this website's interview segment, where I'll give him the chance to convince me that I should vote for him.

***

The most cynical appointment of the day was that of Michael Fortier, the Conservative Party's campaign co-chair, as a Senator so he could take up the duties of Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The ministry from which the fount of Adscam flowed is now under the stewardship of an unelected Conservative, who didn't even seek a seat in the election. Harper has hedged on a previous statement where he stated he wouldn't use Senate appointments for unelected cabinet appointments. Stephen Harper doesn't distinguish himself by the optics of this appointment, and abdicates any leadership in the arena of accountability, or moral superiority over the Liberals. Perhaps it's all same old, same old as usual. Not a good start to say the least.

-30-

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca

An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE.