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