One of the major differences between the American political system and Canadian is the ability that American voters have to hold their elected officials accountable during their term in office. In Canada, our only recourse is to await the next election to express our displeasure with an incumbent, but in the U. S., you are able to not only impeach, but also have recalls, which force a politician to run again. I have only heard of one instance when someone tried a recall in Canada, and that was for a government not a specific politician. That occasion was so fraught with difficulties, (I think it included making sure that you had twenty five left handed albino pipe fitters sign the petition) that I doubt anybody will try the process again. Of course, as everybody on the receiving end of a recall petition or impeachment proceedings will tell you, the process can be highly partisan. But than again, it's not very likely that anybody from within one's own political party is going to initiate impeachment proceedings against them. For that to happen you'd have to be caught in bed with either a dead person or a live animal, and in some States even that might not be enough. Now what you do with wildlife in the privacy of your own home is nobody's business but you own, but if you're going to run for public office, there are certain rules of conduct that the people you voted for expect you to adhere to. One of the things most voters expect from you is an iota of partisanship. They voted for you because you claimed to represent a certain party and you believed in that party's platform. Now in some elections one could safely say that there isn't much to choose from when it comes to the two major political parties in Canada. In times past, on the federal level anyway, the Conservative and Liberal parties were pretty much interchangeable. While it's true that the Liberals have moved slightly to the right of the political spectrum economically, they have stilled stayed socially progressive. The Conservative Party of Canada has metamorphosed into something new in Canadian politics. They have distinguished themselves from the rest of the field by being socially conservative and seemingly intent on rolling back social – political changes of the last twenty years. (A quick background note. In Canadian politics the federal party, has little or nothing to do with the provincial party of the same name. The nature of the provincial parties is such that their policies and platforms change from province to province. Probably only the N.D.P. has some sort of cohesion between the federal and provincial levels. In the last federal election, the Conservative Party in Ontario was remarkably quiet and never, to my knowledge, endorsed their federal counterparts.) For some voters this meant the recent election was about preventing those changes from occurring. Politicians aware of those feelings played upon their fears in order to assure their re-election. Some Liberal party candidates even wooed potential New Democratic Party (N.D.P.) voters by claiming they were the best chance of stopping the Conservative candidate in that riding. Now I'm sure some of you have picked up on where I'm heading with all of this, but for those who (the majority of the world) don't pay attention to Canadian politics I'll fill you in. In the Federal election of January 23rd/06, the Conservative party won the most seats in our House of Commons. Although they did not win an out right majority, they still won sufficient seats to form the government. As the new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper's, leader of the Conservative party, first task was to select members of his caucus to become government Ministers. These would be the people who would take responsibility for implementing the party's agenda within the various departments of the government. Naturally, he was going to want people who were in agreement with the philosophies espoused by his party during the last election. You'd think the last person he'd want would be someone who had campaigned so vigorously against him that he actively solicited N.D.P. voters to vote for him to help stop the Conservatives. You'd also think that a person who stood up and gave an acceptance speech talking about how he looked forward to thwarting the Conservatives at every step along the way while serving in opposition, would be a bad choice for as a Cabinet Minister. Well the world of politics is a funny old thing that way, because Mr. Harper selected someone fitting just that description for his cabinet. David Emerson was elected in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway as a member of the Liberal Party. He had served as Minister of Industry and Trade in the previous Liberal government and had campaigned as a loyal party member and a staunch supporter of previous Prime Minister Paul Martin. As the Liberal candidate in his riding, he received 44% of the vote, the N.D.P. candidate came second with 33%, and the Conservative trailed badly with 18%. This was a riding that was strongly against the message the Conservative party was selling. Even if some of Mr. Emerson's support came from people who were voting for him as the man, and not for the party he represented, the fact that 82% of the eligible voters in the riding, who cast a ballot, voted for someone other than the Conservatives lends credibility to the belief they did not support the Conservatives. Two weeks after standing up and declaring that he would be "Stephen Harper's worst nightmare" David Emerson accepted the same position in the Conservative Cabinet that he had held under Paul Martin. He claimed that after having had lunch with Mr. Harper, he realized he wasn't such a bad guy after all. It wouldn't have anything to do with the increase in salary and perks that go along with being a Cabinet Minister would it? I think the most surprising thing about this whole situation is the fact that nobody on the Conservative side of things seems to have been prepared for the firestorm of protest that this has caused. What's even worse is the rather blasé manner in which they seem to be taking to the reactions of the constituents in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Instead of taking a conciliatory tone in their statements, they appear to be going out of their way to antagonize the voters. Saying things like, you should be grateful that you've got a Cabinet Minister out of the deal, doesn't do much to ease the feelings of betrayal that have been generated by this manoeuvre. Saturday afternoon hundreds of people gathered in a Vancouver high school to demand that Mr. Emerson resign his seat. They want Mr. Harper to call a by-election and have Mr. Emerson run again, but this time as a Conservative candidate. With no recall legislation on the books the people of Vancouver-Kingsway have no means of forcing the government to take action. The N.D.P. have formally asked the federal ethics commissioner to investigate Mr. Emerson's defection. They think that Mr. Harper could be in violation of Parliaments conflict of interest guidelines, which prohibits members from acting to advance their own or other Member of Parliaments' (M.P.) personal interests. I can't see there being much hope in that one, since both Mr. Emerson and Mr. Harper have already covered that one by claiming it was in the best interests of the country to have continuity in such a key portfolio. Anyway, when hasn't a M.P. acted in their own best interest? You investigate one for that; you're going to have to put the lot of them under a microscope. So, what it comes down to is whether the people of Vancouver-Kingsway can shame the government into actually doing something. As it stands now, the chances of that happening look slim to non-existent. While a couple of Conservative M.P.s are saying that they are going to propose legislation that would prohibit members from switching parties in mid stream, I've noticed that there has been a conspicuous lack of talk about recall legislation. It seems that although everyone is willing to protest loudly about Mr. Emerson crossing the floor and what a betrayal that act is, nobody is willing to open that particular can of worms. None of them seem to be too interested in handing voters the power to chuck them out of office before their terms are up. I can't say that surprises me, but it does disappoint me. I'm sure that most of them would reply if asked, that what they most fear would be the ease in which partisan attacks could be formulated by such legislation. Take the case of a riding where the final margin of victory was decided by a recount. If the loser decides he doesn't like it, he could organize a recall petition in the hopes of getting a new election, and this time making sure all the people who were supposed to vote for him do so. Out of necessity, any legislation regarding recalls would have to be written in such a manner that abuses could not happen. All that means is that it would take some thought to prepare a bill that would ensure things like what Mr. Emerson did are covered, while partisanship is curtailed as much as possible. Simply making those behind the recall legislation supply sufficient proof of misdeeds, like they would in a civil case, ought to provide enough of a deterrent to prevent abuse of the legislation. Create a list of behaviours that would be considered unacceptable, and than leave it to the accusers to prove that the person or party are guilty of such misdeeds prior to them being able to begin the process of petitioning for removal and I don't think anyone could complain about the process being partisan. It is high time that Canada ensures its elected representatives are held accountable for their actions beyond just risking re-election. Why should voters be stuck with someone who has betrayed their confidence in the manner that David Emerson has betrayed the people of Vancouver-Kingsway?