The print media commentary (Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and even the National Post) consistently note the audacity of the Harper Cabinet appointments. The Post, as expected, struggles to minimise the significance of the day-one broken promises while The Star treats with end-of earth alarm (what's new?).
The consensus is that Harper has taken a huge risk, alienating his key supporters in the expectation that their loyalty is solid. Maybe.
The appointment of a Quebec Senator as Minister of Public Works who will be responsible for implementing many of the Gomery Commission recommendations is being described as even more perverse than the floor-crossing minister for Vancouver. Not only will the Senator be saved from the daily grind of questions in the House of Commons (Scott Brison will not be able to question him) but he was a CPC campaign co-chair! Exactly the kind of party insider who got the Liberals into so much trouble, An unelected minister responsible for government spending in Quebec and across the country. Yes - I think "perverse" is the word. Whatever the Harper government's professed commitment to accountability may be, we know how deep that commitment is on the ground.
Interviews with Vancouver-Kingsway constituents are consistently negative too. David Emerson campaigned vigorously for the Martin Team on the pretense of keeping the Conservatives from power. The voters' support for the Conservatives was clear - 18%. And less than two weeks after the votes were counted Emerson joins the Cons. While I support the right of an MP to switch parties, doing so, so close to an election and in exchange for a Cabinet post, defies any ethical rationale. Maybe a recall law would be a good idea.
There is also some concern this morning that the new Justice minister, Vic Toews, supports public questioning of potential judicial appointments while retaining the Prime Minister's right to make the final decision. This warrants close attention as Canadians head down a dangerous road to politicising judicial appointments and compromising the independence of the judiciary.
