Harper Made Illegal Move

[Jersay]

OTTAWA (CP) - A rebellious Conservative wants to introduce legislation that would deter future David Emersons and Belinda Stronachs from switching political parties.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ontario MP Garth Turner hopes to push ahead with a private member's bill even after being reprimanded by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his outspoken stand.

"It's on the public agenda and I think it needs to be addressed. People feel a bit cynical about the system," Turner said in an interview Friday.

"Let's talk about it, let's try and fix it."

He says he doesn't regret his decision to speak out against Emerson's jump to the Tories. But he expects there will be a price to pay.

In his online blog, Turner writes that he expects to be assigned an office in "a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement."

He said he had a series of unhappy meetings with caucus officials Thursday over his comments, including one with Harper.

"I think it is now safe to say my career options within the Conservative caucus are seriously limited," writes Turner, a former columnist and Progressive Conservative MP, now representing the Ontario riding of Halton.

"If you would like a course on how not to be popular in Ottawa, then take a seat."

Turner told The Canadian Press that he was asked to "curtail my activities" - but refused.

"I am a member of Parliament," he said. "That's my job. When my constituents are upset about something, it's my job to relay that."

Turner said earlier this week that Emerson, a Vancouver-area Liberal who crossed the floor Monday to take the post of trade minister in Harper's cabinet, should step down.

His proposed legislation would require MPs to face voters in a byelection when they want to switch parties. It's extremely rare for a private member's bill to succeed in the House of Commons.

Even if it were successful, the bill would only apply in the future, not in Emerson's case.

"You couldn't do something like this retroactively. But I think, going forward, we need to improve the system from what it is today," he said in an interview.

On Friday, New Democrat MP Peter Julian asked the ethics commissioner to investigate the circumstances surrounding Emerson's decision to join the government. Emerson has said he was approached by the Tories and offered the cabinet job.

Julian said that could place Harper in violation of Parliament's conflict-of-interest code, which prohibits members from acting to further their own or other MPs' private interests.

"It is our opinion that the considerable increase in salary, augmented potential pension, staff and assorted perks enjoyed by members of the cabinet such as a personal car and driver amount to furthering Mr. Emerson's private interests over what he would have received as an opposition MP," wrote Julian, who represents the B.C. riding of Burnaby-New Westminster.

"Therefore, in our opinion, Mr. Harper may be in breach of Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Code and I would ask that you investigate this matter."
In what he called a principled position, Turner said all government members - not just cabinet ministers - should be elected as members of the party that forms the government.

"Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it's the other way around."

Turner said his comments were deemed "not helpful."

Harper has been under fire all week for appointing Emerson and unelected Montrealer Michael Fortier to cabinet.

Fortier, a Tory organizer who was handed Public Works, will be appointed to the Senate until the next federal election, when he plans to seek a seat in the Commons.

The appointments, which Harper says were designed to give two of the country's biggest cities representation in cabinet, rankled many Conservative MPs.

The party had previously contended that floor-crossers like former Conservative Belinda Stronach should have to face the electorate before taking their new seats. And Harper has been a strong advocate of an elected Senate.

Turner said he had "swallowed with gusto" promises of more free votes, more powerful committees of "free-thinking" MPs, a more responsive government, and an elected and responsible Senate.

He said Harper's decision to appoint a floor-crossing Liberal and an unelected party official to cabinet "seemed to fly in the face of everything I had told voters about accountability and democracy."

"It also made me question the whole process."

Turner, who moved into his constituency office Thursday night, said he knew in advance the potential consequences of taking his stand.

"Speaking of offices, after today I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa," he said. "That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/2006...F9vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

 

[Colpy]

I'm not fond of people crossing the floor for cabinet posts, either to the Liberals or to the Conservatives.

I do, however, believe the fault lies with the floor-crosser, not the party they have moved to. If you know what I mean.

The Conservative Party does not consider themselves to be scary, or nasty, or Darwinian, or whatever else Emmerson called them. They are simply a "big tent" party, and if a man of talent joins them, even if invited by them, well........it ain't exactly a detriment to them. Or so it seems at first.

People who accuse the Tories of hypocracy in this matter forget that the last Parliament voted on a bill to outlaw the practise.....and only 40 of 99 Tories voted for it. Not even close to a majority. So much for hypocracy.

All that said, the people getting screwed here are the man's constituents. As a matter of honour, HE should resign and go to the people for a mandate as a Conservative.

 

[Jersay]

But it appears that this Emmerson move was actually illegal in the ethics that Harper wants to change. So from the story so far, he might have done an illegal act, so a scandal if you would like to call it that.

You know he has learned one thing from Mulroney, he knows how to hide from the media.

 

[Finder]

Anyone else notice that there's like a dozen threads on this topic?

Anyhow I hope enough mp's vote for it. Really crossing the floor, errr I don't mind it too much, but when it's done right after the election so blantly for a possition in government!!!

What pisses me off the most was his election against these type of thing. I can't see how he will every get the confidance of his soft supporters again if he keeps this up.

 

[Jersay]

I hope he continues on this way, with him on his high horse, because it will result in a quick election.

And when the next election is called, people make a good sound choice. Vote NDP.

 

[FiveParadox]

Opposition to Proposed Law

:arrow: Opposition to Crossing Restrictions

I would not support any legislation that would end the right of a Member of Parliament to cross the floor of House of Commons; they have the capacity to do so for a very good reason. Sometimes, the party that one was elected to, ceases to be that same party, or begins to fail its essential purpose (in the eyes of the Member, his or her constituents, or both).

One must keep in mind that, if one were forced to go to a by-election whenever one switched parties, then this would place, essentially, far too much power in the hands of the Party Leaders; if one were to boot a Member from his or her caucus, then that Member would be unable to serve their constituents until they had joined another party — as we know, Independant members of the Lower House are almost entirely powerless.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Harper Made Illegal Move

"I'm not fond of people crossing the floor for cabinet posts, either to the Liberals or to the Conservatives."

Fair enough.

"I do, however, believe the fault lies with the floor-crosser, not the party they have moved to. If you know what I mean. "

I don't think the fault here is with the people who are not aware that, according to law, we vote for the candidate, not the party. And as far as membership in any party is concerned, that's the candidate's own business, just as it would be if he should switch religion.


"People who accuse the Tories of hypocracy in this matter forget that the last Parliament voted on a bill to outlaw the practise.....and only 40 of 99 Tories voted for it. Not even close to a majority. So much for hypocracy."

I prefer to look at the candidate, not his party. As long as Harper himself believes there is nothing wrong with this, and would treat all MP's equally in this matter (i.e., all MP's are free to switch to whatever party they like at any time, however many times they like, and even choose to not be a member of any party), then I have no issue with hipocricy here.

"All that said, the people getting screwed here are the man's constituents."

Not all his constituents. Those who were educated enough to know that legally they were voting for him and not his party did not get screwed because they voted for the man not the party. But I do agree that those who are not sufficiently educated to be aware that we don't legally have a party system (PR or some other similar sytem, for example) certainly did get screwed, not by the candidate, however, since he has every right to change parties, but ratehr by a shoddy education system which failed to educate students that in Canada we vote for the candidate, not the party.

If a party system is what people want, fine, then push for PR or some other system. But until that's done, I for one will defend candidates on this matter. I don't appreciate a system which is neither here nor there; we need to make a decision. If we vote for the candidate, then that's final; once he's elected, he represents his constituents, while his party affiliation is his business. And if we think it's our business, then lest's switch to PR. All or nothing I say. I still prefer voting candidate myself, but would rather an all-for-party system (PR or other similar system) over a half baked neither here nor there system whereby we vote for the candidate while the candidate votes on behalf of the party. Heck, if he's voting on behalf of teh party, then I'd ratehr just vote for a party myself and switch to PR altogether.

I'd also suggested an other option before so as to end this debate over party affiliation once and for all, whereby those who want to vote for party could, while those who want to vote for candidate could do that too. It's here:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11378



"As a matter of honour, HE should resign and go to the people for a mandate as a Conservative."

I fully disagree. I vote for my candidate as is the law in canada, and expecting him to vote for what is best for man, his party affiliation being none of my business; why should I have to run to the polls every three months just because my fellow constituents ignorantly voted for the party of a candidate they didn't even know or perhaps even liked out of ignorance of the laws of their own country. It's their responsibility to inform themselves of these laws and then vote the candidate they think will do the best job regarless what party he might belong to.

 

[Machjo]

Re: Opposition to Proposed Law

:arrow: Opposition to Crossing Restrictions

I would not support any legislation that would end the right of a Member of Parliament to cross the floor of House of Commons; they have the capacity to do so for a very good reason. Sometimes, the party that one was elected to, ceases to be that same party, or begins to fail its essential purpose (in the eyes of the Member, his or her constituents, or both).

One must keep in mind that, if one were forced to go to a by-election whenever one switched parties, then this would place, essentially, far too much power in the hands of the Party Leaders; if one were to boot a Member from his or her caucus, then that Member would be unable to serve their constituents until they had joined another party — as we know, Independant members of the Lower House are almost entirely powerless.

All good points.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: RE: Harper Made Illegal Move

I'm not fond of people crossing the floor for cabinet posts, either to the Liberals or to the Conservatives.

I do, however, believe the fault lies with the floor-crosser, not the party they have moved to. If you know what I mean.

I think it should be the fault of whoever initiated the thing.