Great Move
I'm going to have to dissent from all of the (negative) commentary surrounding David Emerson's defection to Stephen Harper's cabinet.
Firstly, there's very little comparison between Emerson's defection and the defection of Belinda Stronach in May of 2005.
Too many conservatives committed themselves to the idea that all defections were wrong when in actuality the only legitimate criticism against Stronach's defection were her perceived motives. It was deemed to be opportunistic, disingenuous, untruthful (having attended a Conservative strategy/candidate session the weekend in which she was negotiating her cabinet post) and many other things.
Emerson's defection has none of that. Harper's primary purpose for calling Emerson was not for political gain, or even for leverage inside the House during crucial votes. Harper called Emerson to ask him to be in his cabinet because Harper thought Emerson was the best person for the job. It's as simple as that. Emerson is a former CEO (a real CEO, not a puppet, merrit-less CEO like Stronach) whose abilities will undoubtedly result in the administration of better government (as compared to a situation where Harper had not recruited Emerson).
It is also clear judging from Emerson's comments on election night that he had no intention to sit as a Conservative, let alone a Conservative cabinet minister. This entire process seemed to have been initiated by Harper who was trying to court (who he saw and indeed was) the most competent and effective minister of the outgoing government.
In America, it is not rare for cabinet ministers to come from the opposing party. Bill Clinton's second Defence Secretary was the Republican Senator from Maine. George Bush's current transportation secretary is a former Democratic Congressman. It's true that each party ran with a specific team, but sometimes merit and even a spirit of non-partisanship (Emerson will not become a Conservative attack dog, deriding the Liberals as extreme for Canada) is undoubtedly a good thing. Prime Ministers should not always have to limit themselves to a single party when finding competent and deserving members for their ministry.
Also, Emerson's appointment will immeasurably help intergovernmental relations with the BC provincial government. There was no other way to signal strong support for economic development (Pacific Gateway, Olympics, etc.) in British Columbia without courting David Emerson.
As for Michael Fortier's entry in cabinet (through the Senate)... this issue is somewhat trickier. Basically, Harper made a calculation that regional (i.e. Montreal) representation was more important than having a purely elected cabinet. The debate surrounding Fortier should be about what is more important for a Prime Minister: having his entire cabinet accountable to the House, elected by an actual constituency of voters... Or to have adequate regional representation since his government was shut out of Montreal. I'm actually undecided on this matter - but Fortier's pledge to resign his Senate seat prior to the next general election should silence anyone who is trying to claim that Harper is planning to turn the Senate into a patronage dumping ground (correction: maintain the Senate's role as such). Assuming Harper moves quickly on Senate elections, that should put an end to those accusations.
Firstly, there's very little comparison between Emerson's defection and the defection of Belinda Stronach in May of 2005.
Too many conservatives committed themselves to the idea that all defections were wrong when in actuality the only legitimate criticism against Stronach's defection were her perceived motives. It was deemed to be opportunistic, disingenuous, untruthful (having attended a Conservative strategy/candidate session the weekend in which she was negotiating her cabinet post) and many other things.
Emerson's defection has none of that. Harper's primary purpose for calling Emerson was not for political gain, or even for leverage inside the House during crucial votes. Harper called Emerson to ask him to be in his cabinet because Harper thought Emerson was the best person for the job. It's as simple as that. Emerson is a former CEO (a real CEO, not a puppet, merrit-less CEO like Stronach) whose abilities will undoubtedly result in the administration of better government (as compared to a situation where Harper had not recruited Emerson).
It is also clear judging from Emerson's comments on election night that he had no intention to sit as a Conservative, let alone a Conservative cabinet minister. This entire process seemed to have been initiated by Harper who was trying to court (who he saw and indeed was) the most competent and effective minister of the outgoing government.
In America, it is not rare for cabinet ministers to come from the opposing party. Bill Clinton's second Defence Secretary was the Republican Senator from Maine. George Bush's current transportation secretary is a former Democratic Congressman. It's true that each party ran with a specific team, but sometimes merit and even a spirit of non-partisanship (Emerson will not become a Conservative attack dog, deriding the Liberals as extreme for Canada) is undoubtedly a good thing. Prime Ministers should not always have to limit themselves to a single party when finding competent and deserving members for their ministry.
Also, Emerson's appointment will immeasurably help intergovernmental relations with the BC provincial government. There was no other way to signal strong support for economic development (Pacific Gateway, Olympics, etc.) in British Columbia without courting David Emerson.
As for Michael Fortier's entry in cabinet (through the Senate)... this issue is somewhat trickier. Basically, Harper made a calculation that regional (i.e. Montreal) representation was more important than having a purely elected cabinet. The debate surrounding Fortier should be about what is more important for a Prime Minister: having his entire cabinet accountable to the House, elected by an actual constituency of voters... Or to have adequate regional representation since his government was shut out of Montreal. I'm actually undecided on this matter - but Fortier's pledge to resign his Senate seat prior to the next general election should silence anyone who is trying to claim that Harper is planning to turn the Senate into a patronage dumping ground (correction: maintain the Senate's role as such). Assuming Harper moves quickly on Senate elections, that should put an end to those accusations.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
4:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home