CanPol: Harper sworn in, new cabinet announced

[Wezil]

I saw Emerson on CanadaAM this morning moaning about how "good people" won't want to stand for office in the future b/c of the abuse they have to endure.

Poor David. If it prevents "good people" like him from running it will be an improvement. Ethically challenged individuals should not be representing us.

KH -

I'm absolutely loving watching Conservative apologists who railed on and on about Belinda trying to explain why this is better.

It is a pretty sad display. Keep in mind, not all Conservatives are trying to justify this position. I've heard many on the right that are pissed and this will cost Harper much political capital. Too bad the Conservative caucus isn't speaking up. The shame belongs to the bunch of them.

And another thing - Isn't the Conservative position opposed to appointing Senators? I guess they are only opposed if they are Liberal appointments...

Congrats Harper. You screwed the pooch on the first day. What will you do for an encore?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm waiting.

What, you actually want me to go back to find the old thread? With a broken search?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
It is a pretty sad display. Keep in mind, not all Conservatives are trying to justify this position. I've heard many on the right that are pissed and this will cost Harper much political capital. Too bad the Conservative caucus isn't speaking up. The shame belongs to the bunch of them.

And another thing - Isn't the Conservative position opposed to appointing Senators? I guess they are only opposed if they are Liberal appointments...

Congrats Harper. You screwed the pooch on the first day. What will you do for an encore?

Why would you expect me to be upset with Harper recruiting an able minister from the Liberals when I wasn't upset about Stronach, or Kilgour, or any of the hundreds of MPs who have crossed the floor(s) of parliaments in the past? It's part of the system.

MPs have a responsibility to conduct themselves in the best interests of the country. PMs have the responsibility to assemble the best government they can. I am hardly upset if Harper and Emerson did something that will result in a better government for all Canadians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

What, you actually want me to go back to find the old thread? With a broken search?

It's not too hard. Just search for 'Stronach' in the OT.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3801819#post3801819

Originally posted by notyoueither

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Most political observers seem to feel that the Liberals are going to squeak this one out. They might not even have to go to the Speaker...

Checking the CBC's "comments" page on this one seems to indicate that many of your fellow Albertans oppose the very idea of an MP switching sides.

People don't vote for ****ing parties; they vote for individual candidates.

Maybe they're just pissed off and will get over it.

I agree people are putting too much on loyalty to party. What really shocks is that she crossed to what is viewed as the source of the corruption. To say some people are irate would be to say a hurricane is a breeze.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3801967#post3801967

Originally posted by notyoueither

... Her electors sent her to Ottawa to represent them. The parties excercise all together too much power over our representatives, and then we gasp in disbelief when an MP excercises the one thing they have sole power over.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3801978#post3801978

Originally posted by notyoueither

I have to scratch my head at something Deb Grey said today. Harper has been approached but has rebuffed Liberals who might want to cross the floor. Apparently, he doesn't believe in it.

What kind of democracy would we have if our MPs were slaves to party and couldn't bolt if the situation called for it?

My MP is my representative in Ottawa, he or she should not be a particular party's representative to me.

[Sava]

compost piles

[KrazyHorse]

nye

Had you mixed up with Ben. Sorry about that.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, Stronach rewon her riding.

What are this guy's chances?

The Conservatives last won the riding in 1958, and the Tory candidate got less than 20 per cent of the vote on Jan. 23, compared with 43.5 per cent for Emerson and 34 per cent for the NDP candidate.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/09/emerson060209.html

Talk about shortsighted opportunism...

[notyoueither]

Maybe. I was thinking about that.

But maybe he feels he can do more good mending fences with our largest trading partner and maybe he feels he has a shot at helping to put an end to the long running softwood dispute. It would be hard to lose an election in BC if he did that.

There is a lot of downside for Harper, and he had to know it was there given his experience with Reform. Wezil is right that the pooch has been screwed. It was screwed by pissing off a lot of core supporters.

If I am partisan, it is that I hope that these decisions are vindicated in the end by tangible results that can be pointed to as 'this is why we did it'.

[KrazyHorse]

Just so the record's clear:

If he knew when he ran that there was a good chance he would take a Conservative cabinet post if they won then he should not have run as a Liberal.

On the other hand, I find nothing wrong with Harper's actions here.

[notyoueither]

I don't see how he could have known that the tide would run against the Tories in BC, but that the Tories would win and that Harper would offer him a cabinet post to continue working on softwood.

[KrazyHorse]

The tide didn't have to turn against the Tories in BC for him to think he was keeping his seat. It looks like a safe Liberal seat to me...

[KrazyHorse]

And the tide also didn't have to turn in BC to make Harper think about stealing some Liberals.

This move kills two birds with one stone, but it might well have been taken if it only killed one...

[notyoueither]

I don't see this happening if the Tories had won seats in Vancouver and had at least one competent MP from there. Emerson could not have calculated that.

[notyoueither]

However, the conspiracy theories are in high gear.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439013294&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Did Emerson block deal?
Feb. 9, 2006. 10:37 AM
JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST


OTTAWA—Here's the plot of a real-life political thriller: David Emerson defected to the Conservatives this week carrying a multi-billion dollar softwood lumber deal that Liberals, for political reasons, didn't finalize before the federal election.

Former colleagues as well as officials and diplomats privy to the secret, backchannel talks insist Emerson was instrumental in delaying a breakthrough in the decades-old dispute that cost thousands of Canadian jobs. They say the former Liberal industry minister worried that a pre-election announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings.

In a telephone interview last night, Emerson confirmed he raised concerns about the proposal after discussions with the B.C. government and softwood industry. But he said it's a "false story" to suggest his resistance was politically motivated and insisted the deal on the table before the election wasn't good enough for Canada then and isn't now.

Liberals and non-partisan sources tell a different story. They say the B.C. government and its powerful forestry industry only lost interest in the plan after meetings with Emerson. His objections, along with concerns in Paul Martin's office that a pre-election deal would stop the then-prime minister from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag, convinced Liberals to delay formal negotiations at least until after the January election.

Informally discussed on parallel tracks here and in the U.S., the plan calls for Washington to reimburse about 75 per of the disputed $5 billion in tariffs imposed on Canadian lumber in return for Ontario and Quebec export quotas. In B.C., there would be higher stumpage fees to keep mills in the province's interior from flooding the U.S. market with cheap wood culled from forests hard-hit by mountain pine beetle infestations.

Those behind-the-scenes talks, led in Washington by Ambassador Frank McKenna and nursed in Ottawa by then-international trade minister Jim Peterson, were rapidly moving the two countries toward brief formal negotiations and a quick deal until they tripped over political realties. At the time, Martin's government was publicly resisting Bush administration pressure to return to the negotiating table, arguing that Canada had won serial tribunal decisions and would settle for nothing less than complete victory and full compensation.

Emerson was among the most outspoken Liberal ministers. In August, he called on Canadians to unite around fair trade. "Are we going to be stronger than the sum of our parts, or are we going to be endlessly bickering amongst ourselves and allow the bully to basically mop the floor with us."

But while making noisy demands that the U.S. abide by the letter and spirit of cross-border treaties and by threatening a trade war if it did not, Martin's government was quietly building a Canadian consensus. First, the three biggest softwood provinces tentatively agreed to the hybrid formula, and then key parts of the industry were brought into the talks on condition of strict confidentiality.

In Washington, McKenna discreetly tested how the U.S. would respond to the hybrid Canadian proposal and Washington's willingness to reimburse tariffs. Conscious of the powerful lumber lobby, U.S. officials were encouraging as well as equally discreet.

By early November, the critical components were in place. "A deal was there to be had," a well-informed source says. "It was easily within reach."

Other sources, including diplomats, confirm the template was complete before Martin's minority government fell. But for reasons Liberals now blame on Emerson, it stepped back from a deal that now falls into Stephen Harper's lap.

That would be a dramatic early success for a new government and for a new trade minister. And that has some of Emerson's former colleagues steaming.

They and others who spoke on condition of anonymity say they accept that Tories will claim a softwood victory as the spoils of war. But they can't stomach that Emerson is now positioned to take credit for an agreement Liberals say he blocked.

They say Emerson didn't want a less-than-perfect agreement to become a Conservative and NDP target. According to the sources, Emerson, a former top lumber executive, also warned that some companies could object to the higher stumpage fees.

Rather than take an unnecessary political risk, Liberals parked the deal, assuming it could be restarted when they were, as they wrongly expected, returned to office.

It's not clear if or when Conservatives learned about the advanced softwood talks. What is known is that the small circle of those aware of the backroom discussions expanded during the final campaign weeks.

In any case, Conservatives had many reasons to encourage Emerson's defection. Highly respected at home as well as by mandarins here, Emerson, who jokingly calls himself a small-c Liberal, gives the party downtown Vancouver representation and an experienced minister to handle the financially troubled Olympics and Pacific rim issues.

So less than 24 hours after the election, Emerson and Conservative campaign co-chairman John Reynolds were discussing the defection that on Monday caught the national capital by surprise. In retrospect, it wasn't so surprising.

Independently wealthy and more interested in policy than politics, Emerson would find little in opposition to justify the grinding travel between the capital and West Coast. Equally important, Harper was willing to give Emerson the international trade job former Liberal cabinet colleagues say he coveted.

Now that he has it, Emerson gets a second chance to complete the deal that diplomats say requires little more than signatures.

That would be an unpleasant surprise ending Liberals didn't anticipate when they put the softwood talks on hold.

[KrazyHorse]

Can't read it right now, but why would the Grits hold off on a softwood deal until after election?