Cynics Unlimited

“David Emerson is a fine individual. But I look at what Harper did and said when I left the party and I look at what he did to get David to come over and you have to conclude that’s a double standard and hypocritical,”
-Liberal MP Belinda Stronach (February 2006)

Ms. Stronach may have the right to be indignant. After months of enduring scorn and ridicule at the hands of former fellow Tories (as well as the media) for crossing the floor to join the Liberals, one of Stronach’s chief detractors courted his own “Belinda” less than a day after officially gaining power. In a surprise move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed card-carrying Liberal David Emerson as Minister of International Trade. Emerson, who stated on election night that he wanted to build a stronger and more vibrant Liberal Party, had no apparent qualms crossing the floor to become a Conservative in exchange for the cabinet position. Equally shocking was Harper’s appointment of Montreal lawyer Michael Fortier to the senate. Fortier, who was co-chairman of the Quebec CPC campaign, did not run in the election, and his appointment seems to contradict the Prime Minister’s stated support of provincially-elected senators (Harper’s home province of Alberta has been electing Senators-in-waiting for 17 years).

Naturally, these unexpected appointments have caused a firestorm of controversy across the political spectrum. Reactions to the appointments among Harper’s supporters seem to depend on whether one voted for the Conservatives strategically or evangelistically. Each group will be impacted quite differently by Harper’s apparent about-face.

Strategic Summary

The drafting of Fortier and Emerson is exactly the kind of shrewd dealing Harper must engage in order to propel himself to a majority. The Conservative Party of Canada’s otherwise encouraging minority government victory had two major holes:

• The CPC did not win a single seat in any of Canada’s three largest cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). Far from rendering themselves irrelevant (as is often stated/feared), these urban centers now stand between the CPC and a majority government in the next federal election
• Having not held office for over a decade, the Conservatives simply lack experience in a position of power

Snagging a former industry minister from Vancouver handily addresses both those problems. Fortier’s Montreal residence should appeal to many Quebec holdouts, as well as give the CPC a much-needed friend in the Senate. (Torontonians stood to gain little from these appointments, but were addressed indirectly by the appointment of several Ontario ministers previously elected under the Mike Harris provincial government. Whether this helps or hinders Harper’s relations with the GTA remains to be seen).

The geographically and ideologically balanced Conservative cabinet appears to be the final step in a well-choreographed post-election campaign to erase any and all doubts about Stephen Harper. This campaign began the day after Harper was declared winner of the 2006 election:

• Stephen Harper is in the pocket of Albertan business interests? Not according to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, who mysteriously showed up in Toronto the day after the election. After being uncharacteristically quiet throughout the election, Klein’s words for Harper concerning Alberta’s flirtations with two-tier healthcare were mildly hostile: “Leave us to our own devices … We’re responsible. We’ll try not to violate the Canada Health Act. We’ll try and do whatever we can.”
• Stephen Harper is an American puppet? Nonsense. The PM-elect’s first news conference was used to counter US Ambassador David Wilkins’ assertion that the artic passage was “neutral water”. Harper’s response was bold: “The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty … It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States”
• Stephen Harper will run a Western-centered government? Not with a cabinet that has representation from every region of Canada and a heavy concentration of Ontarians.

In short, these appointments have little to do with “revenge” and everything to do with good political maneuvering. Instead of wondering why Harper would make such non-representative appointments after running a campaign that stressed ethical representation, it might be better to ask why so many pundits didn’t anticipate the Prime Minister would pay special attention to heavily-populated areas where his party did poorly. To not do so would fatally impair his chances of gaining a majority during the next election, and these appointments are a good first step to winning over the 3 major urban centers. So far, Stephen Harper’s more pragmatic supporters have little to fear.

Ethical Summary

Stephen Harper dealt away a very important ethical advantage in appointing Emerson and Fortier. The man who vowed to clean up the Canadian Government managed, in less than a day, to adopt some of the more questionable tactics of his predecessor. The inclusion of Emerson seems to contradict the spirit of the Conservative Party’s plan for democratic reform:

“Elements in the Conservative plan of Democratic Reform include … Ending “parachute” candidates by requiring that a party’s local candidate has the approval of their constituency associations”
-Conservative Party of Canada website (originally posted December 14, 2005)

David Emerson is no Michael Ignatieff, but then again the 8700 people in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding who voted for CPC candidate Kanman Wong (to say nothing of party organizers) had no say in Emerson’s inclusion. Harper’s Senate appointment for a man who wasn’t elected to any office is an even more direct violation of stated platform:

“A senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate, and Canadians should be able to mark their ballot for their Senator, as well as for their MP. We need a ballot with senators’ names, and seats with senators that have been elected. Under a Conservative government, Canadians will choose who sits in this chair. In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people. The Prime Minister currently holds a virtually free hand in the selection of Senators. As Prime Minister I will use that power to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate.”
-Conservative Party of Canada website (originally posted December 14, 2005)

Does this only become a priority once the CPC has exhausted all of its own appointments? One would expect a party that differentiates itself on principle to lead by example.

Voters and pundits who backed the Conservative Party on ethical grounds –whether directly by championing Stephen Harper as the second coming of the messiah or indirectly by relentlessly assaulting [small-L] liberal philosophy in response to every Liberal misstep- now face a conundrum:

• Should they stick to their principles of ethical government, free of patronage and Paul Martin style courting? If so, the only incorruptible response is to level the same criticism toward Stephen Harper that they were all too happy to attach to the Liberal Party
• Should they overlook the appointments as part of the political process and focus on the growth of their chosen party? If so, they start with negative points in the ethics category and an uphill battle the next time they should choose to play the ethics card against those backing the disgraced Liberals

Choosing between the labels “fool” and “hypocrite” is a decision few would envy. It seems that even though Canadian liberals now find themselves in the underdog position, the conservative blogosphere will remain the most interesting to read.