Jane Taber's article in Saturday's Globe and Mail mischaracterizes Emerson's attack on democracy and his background:

Mr. Emerson is well respected in political Ottawa and considered a solid performer, although he had that controversial blip when he crossed the floor from the Liberals to join the Harper cabinet in 2006. But he is not a career politician and has a wealth of experience in the business world, as the former CEO of lumber giant Canfor. A new U.S. president, a new role for Emerson? (Oct. 17 2008, The Globe and Mail)

My response was published in today's Globe and Mail:

Not to be taken lightly

October 20, 2008

Vancouver -- Jane Taber refers to David Emerson's (and by extension Stephen Harper's) disrespect for representative democracy by changing parties as a "controversial blip," trivializing what was no less than an all-out attack on both our style of government and the nature of our democracy itself (A New U.S. President, A New Role For Emerson? - Oct. 18).

The Canadian tradition of responsible government holds that cabinet ministers should be elected. Those elected got there under the banner of a party promising to deliver on a vision, or something more mundane, but they promise nevertheless to deliver. And as cabinet fealty is mandated, it really does matter that candidates both believe in and swear to uphold the promises and platform they campaign on.

Mr. Emerson did neither.

None of the last parliament's four floor-crossers--David Emerson (Liberal > Conservative), Wajid Khan (Liberal > Conservative), Garth Turner (Conservative > Independent > Liberal), Blair Wilson (Liberal > Independent > Green)--returned to parliament. Realising that he would become a lightning rod for unwanted attention during the campaign, Emerson opted not to run. The other three were soundly defeated in Election '08.