Stephen Harper, Cabinet

Harper adopts Martin's morals

A cartoon appearing in the Toronto Sun said it all. It showed Stephen Harper standing in front of a mirror holding a newspaper whose headline read, "Liberal, unelected in Tory Cabinet". The reflection in the mirror was not Harper but Paul Martin giving Stephen the thumbs up. At least those of us living in Ontario got to see the cartoon; its only a matter of time before Ontario AG Michael Bryant moves to ban cartoons over concerns about public safety, but I digress.

The cartoon was, of course in reference to Harpers two controversial cabinet choices; David Emerson who defected from the Liberals before the pencil marks on the ballots had a chance to fade, and Michael Fortier, a political flak who was put into the Senate so that he could not only sit in Cabinet but become Minister of Public Works.

Harpers moves were so serious that they were mentioned in the first paragraph of Sun columnist Sheila Copps first article after the Conservatives took power. The first paragraph!!! Those of us who have followed Sheila over the years expected that the first paragraph of her first post-election column would have been about how Harper didnt give a ministerial post to Diane Ablonczy and now there arent enough women in his cabinet. Ablonczy isnt mentioned until paragraph 5. The Emerson and Fortier appointments must be serious stuff.

Harper, of course defends his actions. But in the course of doing so he shows that he has the same contempt for Canadian voters that was shown to them by the Liberals under Chrétien and Martin. He then had the colossal nerve to characterize the criticism hes receiving for the appointments, especially from the voters in Emersons riding of Vancouver Kingsway as being merely "superficial". Even Martin at his worst would not have gone that far.

Harper and his supporters, including many on the blogosphere are defending his actions with the argument that crossing the floor and unelected cabinet ministers have been done before and that both Emerson and Fortier are bright men and that their inclusion in the cabinet is for the good of the country, yada, yada, yada.

Whether we like it or not, Canada is a left leaning country that loves Liberal governments. It seems right from the start, Stephen Harper has forgotten why he was elected in the first place. He would still be leader of the Official Opposition if it werent for the fact that Canadians grew tired of not only Liberal corruption but the culture of cronyism that Harper wasted no time in emulating.

The appointments of Emerson and Fortier to cabinet positions can be rationalized on all kinds of levels but those appointments were made on the grounds that the end justifies the means, a philosophy that practically defines the Liberals. Are Harpers reasons for making those appointments really any different than Jean Chrétiens comments about whats a few million dollars in lost money if it keeps the country together? Is Harpers rationalization of his actions based upon the abilities of Emerson and Fortier really any different than Martins defense of David Dingwall or his "good friend" Ralph Goodale? The answer is a resounding, "no".

David Emersons crossing of the floor that started with discussions the day after voters went to the polls was nothing like the defection of Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives. At least Belinda remained in the Conservative caucus for 11 months prior to switching parties. She could at least advance the argument that her views changed during the 11 months that she spent as an MP in the Conservative Party. The only thing that changed for Emerson was that his party lost power and he was no longer in government.

Paul Martin was elected in 2004, in part, because he vowed to slay the "democratic deficit". He didnt do that, but neither did he make that deficit any worse. Stephen Harper did. If Harper truly believed that he needed Emerson and Fortier and had even a modicum of respect for Canadians he could have created non Cabinet positions for them.

Harper thinks he won the last election but he didnt. Its been a long time since anyone has actually won an election in Canada. All parties lose and under our system, whoever loses the least gets to hold the reins of power.

But in this election there were winners. The real winners were those who refused to vote because "theyre all the same". Not voting sure beats voting for a Liberal who then turns into an instant Conservative the moment the results are released.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Toronto Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Arthur can be reached at: Columns 2006 '05 '04 '03 '02 '01 '00 1999 Media 2006 '05 '04 '03 '02 Toronto 2006 '05 '04