Wednesday, February 08, 2006

And this too, shall pass

Tim says that its pragmatism over principle. Valiantmauz says that the will of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway is being ignored. Funnily enough, I don't entirely disagree. All the justifications and rationalizations don't matter to people who say that what happened just isn't right and nothing is going to change their minds.

Integrity, accountability, hypocrisy, principles, ethics -- all highly charged words in politics and all being used in the wake of the Emerson/Fortier appointments, mostly to condemn the move.

I don't want to be sucked in to that vortex of blind partisanship, nor do I want be aligned with political behaviour that is unethical --- but I find it hard to equate what's happened here with some of the serious ethical lapses of the previous government. I just don't see this as starkly black & white.

Do these appointments display a lack of integrity on the part of Stephen Harper? Harper has said he would do things differently -- read, no more patronage appointments, more transparency, elected people holding the bulk of the power etc. In my opinion, neither of these appointments changes that. He has not reversed his stance on floor crossing or Senate reform and I don't see that this betrays principles the Conservatives espoused during the election.

If one believes that Harper was looking for a way to slip a pal quietly into Senate, or that he believed he could convert the people of Vancouver Kingsway into Conservative supporters by the appointment of Emerson, then perhaps one might conclude Harper lacks integrity, but I don't think the facts don't support that conclusion.

Harper has made a temporary appointment to Senate, which in no way undermines his commitment to an elected Senate. Fortier's promise to resign his Senate seat and run in the next election should silence the idea that Harper is simply attempting to award friends. There are few benefits to the role that Fortier has agreed to play in the Harper government, and plenty of headaches are certain.

Emerson's appointment doesn't benefit the Conservative Party or its fortunes. How could it? Whether Emerson runs in that riding in the next election or not, the seat is unlikely to go Conservative. Appointing him was a risk, but it would seem that Harper truly believed Emerson could fill an important role in this government. Geography was the major factor in this post, not qualifications. If he'd appointed an unqualified Liberal in a constituency that had a higher showing for Conservatives hoping to boost their chances next time, Harper's ethics would be questionable. As it is, this appointment doesn't benefit Harper, except to give a Cabinet voice to Vancouver.

Is the Harper government somehow unaccountable? This is a minority parliament and is therefore more accountable than most. These two appointments will increase the need for a Conservative government to perform well, or else.

Emerson is accountable to his voters, but there is no question that serving your constituents in government is a far easier task than serving in Opposition. Will they care what colour his website is? Some might -- they voted Liberal, they got Tory and many are justifiably angry. Only an election will give them a chance to express that anger, and although they feel entitled to one now, that isn't going to happen.

When Stephen Harper won the leadership of the Alliance, Ezra Levant stepped down from his Calgary seat in order that Harper could run, and ultimately have a seat in parliament. That's the way these things generally work -- a bi-election is called because a member of the same party resigns his seat. That can't happen here -- the very reason these appointments were made is that there is not Conservative representation in Vancouver and Montreal -- who exactly would step down to allow a by-election in Montreal? And while it might be noble for Emerson to step down and have a by-election, his almost certain defeat wouldn't benefit anyone.

Accountability is another word people keep using, particularly in reference to Fortier.

In my opinion, Harper doesn't side-step accountability by appointing someone who won't sit in the House. Both men remain accountable, and suggestions otherwise just don't make sense to me.

A Minister's presence in the House of Commons for Question Period is hardly an assurance of accountability. Despite not having been elected, Fortier will no doubt be accountable to the Senate, and to Parliament through his Parliamentary Secretary, to Harper and to the people. Fielding Opposition questions during Question Period is not what makes a Minister accountable -- it's simply a tangible representation of accountability. As long as there is a knowledgeable person to represent the department (James Moore) to take questions, the government will be required to provide answers and therefore be accountable.
In the past, it has never seemed necessary for a Minister to be in the House to answer questions about his portfolio -- often they have been inexplicably absent. Under previous governments, having an able and well-informed proxy was not deemed necessary either. I tend to believe that because of the additional scrutiny this appointment will have created, James Moore will be amply prepared to answer any questions the Opposition would wish to put to the Minister.

Harper's character is not really the issue here. He hasn't done anything 'unethical'. His political judgment is the issue. Some would say he'd have been better to do without Cabinet representation in Vancouver and Montreal than to have given the appearance of being like governments of old. He promised to bring change and on the first day he appears to have repeated the same old patterns as previous Prime Ministers.

I think it's important to remember that neither Harper, nor the men in question, benefit materially from the appointments, nor do they improve in stature or respect within their communities. When people do something unethical or unprincipled in government, there is generally gain involved -- financial or otherwise. I just don't see that here. Neither is there the certainty of a majority government where years go by and these sorts of issues are forgotten.

As a BTW -- A commenter (and also the Letter of the Day in the NP) suggested that these appointments 'prove' Harper's team lacks the experience to run the government.

Does that mean that there was no one qualified to handle Transport in that big, smart Liberal Party so they HAD to have Lapierre? No one worthwhile to manage Health, so they HAD to have Dosanjj? No one quite intelligent enough to handle the Ministry of Complex Files -- so they HAD to have Belinda? If experience was the only factor in determining who would form government and who would be a minister, there would never be any change in government.

I guess I'm really still trying to work all this out. Sigh. Remember the simple times . . . ?


canadianna

12 comments:

Lemon said...

U Been Busy
Here's my post, similar to yours:
The main criticisms on Emerson's appointment to the Cabinet subsequent to his decision to change parties have been:
(a) It was an unethical action by the PM
(b) Bad Optics.
This appointment would be unethical, by definition, if it violated an ethical principle such as honesty, an explicit promise, or a code of conduct such as exists for Members of Parliament.
Emerson's appointment did not, by any definition, violate any principle of ethics, nor does it represent a stain to the Prime Minister's integrity. He consistently has stated that he is not in favour of any restrictions on the ability of a Member to cross the floor to another party. Thus, one could assume that he would not deny his own party's ability to benefit from such an action by an opposition party member. (Note - I am not considering Mr. Emerson's position in this matter.)
The optics are obviously bad.
My comment on this is whether we want the PM to run his government on the basis of how things look to the public and media. I say not, that we expect him to do tough work that has to be done, and to be prepared to accept the responsibility and costs of this.
One of the greatest problems the Liberals had as a government was that they continually did what the polls told them to do, and this resulted in a government that finally stood for nothing. And they took advantage of every possible loophole to stay in power.
The Prime Minister is doing what he believes is right, and is certainly within the rules, without jumping through a giant sized loophole.
He has and will get a lot of heat for this, he will need to stand behind his decisions, whether popular or not. That's what a good leader does.

A Dog Named Kyoto said...

Brian, you make some excellent points. The appointments were not unethical, but clearly the optics were bad.

And I agree that one sure sign of leadership is to do the best thing for the country and accept the consequences.

Canadianna - excellent post - as usual.

Steve Stinson said...

An eminently reasonable post. I still fail to understand why so many are all worked up about this. I thought it was a brilliant strategic move.

I guess if anything can be taken from the dissent within the party it is that CPC members are a principled lot, even if some are unable to see shades of grey.

I do not recall a single peep out of the Liberal Party when Belinda pulled her stunt. All we heard was gloating. That speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

Excellent comments and post! As for the coservative bloggers and MSM that are 'scared' and ready to jump ship, they should stick to knitting.Harper is not like Dithers...he is bold and decisive, and I'm lovin' it!!VF

MarkCh said...

I wouldn't worry about the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway. The only ones who have a possible beef are the ones who voted Liberal, and what would they say: "we voted for a Liberal, and ended up with an unprincipled MP who was only interested in power?" Well, duh...If you didn't want that, then why did you vote Liberal in the first place?

Paul MacPhail said...

Canadianna, you have obviously spent more time on this than I did. Excellent post.

valiantmauz said...

Canadianna, I suppose my response to your earlier post was born of disappointment. I was looking forward to the swearing in of the new Parliament, and feeling optimistic about the new government. I really, really was.

But I cannot, for the life of me, respect a politician who so blatantly betrays his constituents. I blame Emerson far more than I blame Harper - Emerson stated quite clearly that he would not have crossed had the Liberals retained a minority.

What does that tell you about Emerson, PHD nothwithstanding?

How does it make you feel, knowing that Harper recruited such a man to his party?

More than that, how does it make any voter feel, knowing that their vote can be made irrelevant the moment the votes are counted?

Many Canadians are cynical about government, and believe their votes mean nothing, to the point that 65% turnout is considered an improvement. Emerson has just proved their cynicism in spades.

However this Parliament plays out, 6 months, 18 months or even a full term, no Canadian can go to the polls the next time trusting in the legitimacy or power of their ballot.

How is that good for Canada?

Anybody who criticizes the "optics" of this move is missing the point.

Canadianna said...

Gary -
1. I never said the riding ever was Conservative. In fact, I said that the riding was unlikely to go Conservative in a byelection -- I've actually done some reading. I know the history.
2. Do you have a link with an audio clip, a translation?
3. Harper has publically promised Fortier would resign. Fortier has publically promised to resign. The appointment is an unpopular decision -- they will be held to this or it would be political suicide. The fact that the promise was part of the announcement and not some afterthought shows Harper expects to be held to this.
4. Accountability doesn't just mean re-electable -- it means answerable. Emerson will have to answer to the people of BC if he doesn't deliver. He might not have to answer to angry Liberal voters, but either you want governance or revenge.
5. You say 'accountability according to the Conservative party is done directly during question period' -- is this part of their bylaws or something? If you've ever watched, QP is for show. The questions are submitted ahead of time so they can be researched. All the antics, the rhetoric -- it's done for the sound bit. That doesn't make a Minister accountable -- if it did, the Liberals would have answered for the Sponsorship scandal years ago.
Answering pre-arranged questions in the three ring circus of Parliament doesn't make a Minister credible or accountable. We're in a sad state if people think it does.
6. Both men have lucrative careers and stellar reputations outside of politics. Neither man is likely to have been enticed by a Minister's salary or a limosine. Power? They're government ministers taking over two heavy portfolios. If they do well, it'll be a boon to their private sector lives after politics. If they fail, they do damage to their credibility.
How you see this as a 'gain', I don't know. I guess it's a matter of opinion.
Interesting site. Thanks for visiting.

Canadianna said...

valiantmauz- I'm disappointed too. Seeing you almost ready for this government was really good. Knowing that people who doubted them in the first place will be unlikely to trust again -- that is very frustrating.
That's why I've written about this twice. As much as I don't hate it -- I completely get why you do.
That makes it hard to just let go.
It should be incentive to Harper never do anything like this again -- whether it will matter is something only time will tell.

Candace said...

Regarding Fortier's promised resignation, does anyone think Harper is so foolish as to not have a signed but undated letter in his pocket?

Anonymous said...

Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»

Anonymous said...

Concerning Fortier and Sponsorship scandal and Groupaction and conflict of interest, look at http://canott.blogspot.com