The two faces of Stephen Harper

I think Stephen Harper has the right to appoint whomever he wants to his cabinet. He must understandably be a bit more careful as leader of a minority government but the membership is his perogative.

At the same time, however, the ethics czar (an admitedly Liberal appointee) has the right to look at the appointment of David Emerson. It seems a bit silly to look at this but he has the right to (and probably the responsibility if MP's complain).

I frankly don't understand the uproar about Mr Emerson but I am likely a good deal more cynical about politicians and their motives than most. Of course he crossed the floor because he could be in cabinet. It may be that he thought he could serve the interests of his constituents and the province of British Columbia. It is more likely (in my estimation) that he wanted to stay in cabinet and this gave him the opportunity. Its about the political game more than idealism.

What I think is really telling is that as shrill as Mr Harper was in opposition about ethics and the appearance of propriety, he is refusing to cooperate with Mr Shapiro. This sort of moral superiority (I can do what I want and trust me that its right) is just what makes Canadians cynical about politicians. He promised to be different. He promised to be transparent. It took him about 48 hours to show that he's just like all the others. He's the p'tit gars from Calgary.

Mr Harper - we believed you when you said it would be different. What we expected was that you would prove it. You assumed it was proven and then said "Trust me." Its clearly just more of the same.