An obligatory rebuttal to yet another article insisting losing Emerson is akin to losing Pasteur:

David Emerson's decision not to run for re-election has netted a fair share of disappointment that the Conservatives are losing not only their strongest internationally-minded minister, but also the government's point-man on relations with China and India.

Now, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to appoint new ministers for trade and foreign affairs—both of which Mr. Emerson held—experts are hoping the Liberal-turned-Conservative minister rubbed off on his fellow Cabinet colleagues. (Embassy Magazine)

What, specifically, is it about Emerson that endeared him to the Chinese? Was it his pragmatism towards trade? Pragmatic ignorance of rights issues? Or was it Emerson's demonstrably "pragmatic" attitude towards our own democracy, an attitude which the Chinese dictatorship well understand. We Canadians might suggest Emerson, or the article's author, swap the term pragmatic with "disposable" wherever the words Emerson and democracy share a single sentence.

Lets not make the man out to be the saint which he is not. Lest we forget, once elected and having virtually instantly shed all intentions of living up to his pre-election pledges, Emerson called his many angry constituents "locusts". That's exactly the sort of behaviour you'd expect from an oligarch.