On February 6 2006 David Emerson, elected a mere two weeks earlier as a Liberal, walked into Rideau Hall to be sworn in as a Conservative cabinet minister in Stephen Harper's government. Adding insult to infamy the country quickly discovered that Emerson, forever a parachute candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, had been in secret negotiations with the newly elected Harper government to switch parties less than 24 hours after the last votes were counted.

Citizens of all political stripes turned out into Vancouver's streets in anger and protest. Canadians from across the country voiced their opposition to what Emerson and Harper had done. We rightly felt as if our votes, indeed the votes of all Canadians, had been disrespected and devalued.

There ought to be a law.

Yesterday Don Davies, Member of Parliament for Vancouver--Kingsway stood in the House of Commons and introduced a bill to that end. Bill C-446 (2nd Session, 40th Parliament) would have forced David Emerson to run in a by-election and earn the right to represent our riding as a Conservative.

Of note:

27.1 (1) Any person holding a seat in the House of Commons who becomes a member of a registered party as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act is deemed to have vacated the seat and ceases to be a member of the House if, in the last election, the person was endorsed by another registered party or was not endorsed by a registered party.

I like this bill. It effectively prohibits floor crossing, which is one key measure we had sought during the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson. If a candidate runs and wins under one party banner, or as an independent, and then switches to another registered party, the MP should lose their seat and be forced to go to the electorate to try to earn a fresh mandate.

Minutes of Mr. Davies' appeal to the House from Hansard:

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-446, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (members who cross the floor).

He said: Mr. Speaker, three years ago, in Vancouver Kingsway, a member of Parliament was elected as a Liberal and crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative two weeks after that election.

Our citizens were outraged. They regarded this as an act of democratic betrayal. It rendered their votes meaningless. People from every political persuasion joined together to demand the restoration of their democratic rights. People like Mike Watkins, Jurgen Claudepierre and Shannon Steele worked tirelessly for this noble goal.

I am honoured to rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that serves to restore respect for democracy in our country.

This bill would require any member who crosses the floor to resign and run in a byelection. It would put the actions of a floor-crossing member to the test of the will of the voters of his or her constituency, where it properly belongs. In a time when voters are increasingly cynical, I believe this would go some way towards restoring confidence in our political system.

I hope that all members of this House put their partisan interests aside and support this law. It is good for our democracy. It is good for our country.

See: Bill C-446

Bravo Don.

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.

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.

Two floor-crossers who ran were unceremoniously run out of parliament, perhaps haunted by the curse of David Emerson, uber-floor-crosser of them all.

While David Emerson wasn't the first floor-crosser muck with the democratic process, he'll go down in history as its worst example to be sure. Lets not forget that in this parliament, like peas in a pod, Emerson had company.

David Emerson was later joined in the floor-crossers hall of infamy by former Liberal then Conservative now nothing Wajid Khan, and by former Conservative then independent then Liberal Garth Turner. Where are they now? As of Tuesday's election results, all three are removed from parliament. Only two bothered to try for re-election, Emerson was too chicken to run.

One February morning about two and a half years ago David Emerson shocked the nation when he turned up at Rideau Hall to be sworn in as a member of Stephen Harper's Conservative cabinet. Only two weeks prior he'd been a sitting Liberal cabinet minister, re-elected in no small part thanks to his vow to be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare.

Reaction was immediate and intense. From the start it was clear that Emerson's virtually instant defection was not viewed as a Vancouver-Kingsway specific issue but one of national concern. Vancouverites supported by democracy loving Canadians from right across the country, including even conservatives, erupted in sustained furor which carried on for months. One thousand De-Elect Emerson campaign signs sprouted on lawns all over the city, urged on by Emerson himself who called his detractors "locusts", and by Harper who claimed the outrage was the work of only a handful of partisan protesters.

This chronic lack of understanding of Canadians is precisely why Harper has twice been restricted to minority governments, and despite the apparent strength of his recent win, my instinct is Harper will not politically survive the next attempt.

Contrary to Harper's assertions, support for the effort was both broad and non-partisan, and only grew each time he or Emerson opened their mouths. Indeed the De-Elect Emerson Campaign mailboxes were filled to overflowing with letters of support, spiced with only an occasional and usually lamentable attack. Harper continued his own attacks on democracy, stooping at one point to rip into Parliament's own Ethics Commissioner , Bernard Shapiro, who, rightly, responded to public pressure by calling an inquiry into the Emerson Affair.

Public anger continued to mount despite or because of various outlets including standing-room only town hall meetings, numerous street corner protests and the on-going lawn sign campaign. A plane buzzed parliament pulling a giant banner suggesting "Emerson Call Home"; more De-Elect Emerson lawn signs started showing up outside Vancouver on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa and Montreal, even in Pictou-Antigonish, home of Progressive Conservative Party sell-out Peter MacKay. Public fury ran unabated. A hastily arranged rally and protest march drew out over nine hundred young and old, from every ethnic group imaginable, one breezy April Sunday. The value of our vote had been more than devalued, it'd been as good as ripped from our hands by Harper and Emerson and as we marched down Kingsway past Emerson's constituency office, we all had a sense that what we were doing could at least make a small difference.

Politicians were not universally sympathetic, and Liberals, despite claims by Conservatives that they were supporting our campaign, were actually less than helpful. For example, despite being reminded that his native India had passed legislation restricting floor-crossing, Vancouver South Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh, who in current times is now claiming high and mighty moral indignation over what he perceives as the centre / centre-left abandoning him, refused to support our call for legislation.

Dosanjh wasn't the only one keeping quiet. Every Conservative MP who had voted for floor-crossing legislation in an earlier parliament shut up tighter than a west coast mussel. Former MP for Liberal Vancouver Quadra Stephen Owen (who was also critic for Democratic Reform) empathized with our concerns but refused to speak out publicly against his "friend" Emerson. Still a number of MP's from various parties (notably the NDP which to this day continues to support a floor-crossing ban) responded to our campaign's calls for support.

We've learned a lot from the l'affair Emerson and you can be sure this knowledge is ready to be shared with any constituency which falls victim to a politician that follows Emerson's footsteps, regardless of party or direction, in the future.

Considering what happened to Emerson, and the fate of other floor-crossers from this last parliament, with any luck other Canadians will be spared this ignominy for some time.

De-Elect Emerson

Voters don't want Liberal to 'do an Emerson' (John Bermingham, The Province)

The Emerson factor is alive and well in Vancouver-Kingsway. The shadow of Liberal-turned-Tory cabinet minister David Emerson looms over the fight for Vancouver-Kingsway. "It's still coming up frequently," said Michael Watkins, spokesman for the De-Elect Emerson Campaign. "The people who were upset before still are."

"Having Emerson as our representative really means that we had no representative," he said. This time around voters will want to know their X on the ballot actually means something, he said.

In the 2006 election Emerson received 43.5% of the vote; Ian Waddell (NDP) 33.5%; Kanman Wong (Conservative) 18.8%. Not one of them lived in the riding, by the way.

Judging by the progress of the sign wars, it looks like it'll be a tight race between Wendy Yuan and Don Davies. Its my unscientifically arrived at perception that Mr. Davies has far more signs out in total, with signs not only on busy thoroughfares but also dotting the landscape within neighbourhoods.

Emerson on the run

A member of the De-Elect Emerson Campaign provided these images, taken today as Emerson attempted to go door-knocking with the stand-in candidate Salomon Rayek. It appears folks in the neighbourhood are not universally keen on Emerson, which is no surprise to me given the public reaction to Emerson here in Vancouver-Kingsway, even to this day.

Click for a larger image

Before getting very far into their perp-walk, Rayek and Emerson spotted a giant mobile Emerson Must Resign billboard. A sheepish looking Emerson trotted back to the campaign office only to quickly emerge and drive off. Sources say Mr. Rayek had no comment.

Sigh. What do you expect from either Emerson or the Conservative "we don't care about what's right" Party of Canada.

Emerson raising hackles in Vancouver-Kingsway

David Emerson may not be running again -- but in the middle of the campaign -- constituents are still receiving his mailings, promoting the Conservative Party's track record, mailings paid for with taxpayers dollars

One of them is Vancouver - Kingsway resident - Jonathan Williams, who got some unexpected mail this week. In the middle of an election campaign - Williams received newsletter from MP David Emerson promoting the Conservative party.

Political advertising must be paid for by the party or candidate. The catch though is that if the newsletter was sent prior to the election being called -- even just one day prior -- it's technically within the rules.

(Original vintage De-Elect Emerson sign photo credit to Ian Weniger, noted via Rabble.ca. Ian I hope you don't mind!)

Wrapping up coverage on duplicitous David Emerson may take a while since each time we shake the closets for remaining skeletons they keep falling out left and right.

Some new and catch up items:

Warren Kinsella's Clear Canadian Campaign Coverage (Sept. 6, 2008)

LOSER: Political polygamist David Emerson, who now wants us all to know he was never a Liberal. What we know, instead, that David Emerson represents the worst of politics: the man who, in his essence, believes in nothing. The reason he isn't running again is simple - he'd get massacred in Vancouver-Kingsway. Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out, Dave.

Critics find David Emerson's foreign-affairs role ironic (July 10 2008, The Georgia Straight)

“I hope [David Emerson] runs again so I can kick his ass,” [former Campaign to De-Elect Kevin Chalmers] said by phone after stepping off a plane from Toronto. “Given the lack of depth in the bench strength there, I can understand why the prime minister would go to him [to replace Maxime Bernier]. On the other hand, it is ironic that when you look at him being in that role—and trying to take Canadian values and democracy and looking at Kosovo or China or what has gone on recently in the world—you wonder, how can this person be an advocate or a voice for democracy under the circumstances?”

David Emerson, 'son-in-law of China' (July 2 2008, The Globe and Mail)

“Analysts think that Emerson's appointment as foreign minister might bring an improvement in relations between Canada and China,” the Global Times added. “He is expected to reduce the ideological differences between Canada and China…. He is the Canadian minister who is most familiar with Chinese issues, and the one who has visited China the most times.”

[Editor: Ideological differences indeed - neither China nor David Emerson believe in real democracy]

Lie is such a strong word, but it fits so why not use it?

Emerson quoted in Vote-splitting this election's wild card: Emerson (Sept. 5, 2008, The Vancouver Sun)

"When Paul decided he wasn't going to stay on as leader, I felt that my obligation to the Liberals had essentially expired and Mr. Harper called me," [Emerson] said.

The lie here is Emerson was in secret negotiations with the Conservatives to cross not when Paul Martin made his plans weeks after the election but, as admitted by co-conspirator former MP John Reynolds, was in discussions with the Conservative Party less than 24 hours after the last vote had been cast during the election. When Harper called is irrelevant. Reynolds would not make the offer without Harper's express permission before hand.

What's not known is when the offer was first conceived. Many have speculated as to whether the offer was on the table before the election was over.