Used to be, when an MP joined the cabinet, he (they were all men back then) resigned his seat and sought re-election. The theory was that an MP had been sent to Parliament to keep a wary eye upon the servants of the Crown, and if he became one, he should seek his constituents' approval of the change.
Something like that may be proposed again. David Emerson, elected by Vancouver voters as a Liberal candidate just two weeks ago, has turned up in Mr Harper's Conservative party cabinet. Harper says Emerson will not seek re-election, but some of those Liberal voters in Vancouver may well be suggesting their MP ought to come back and ask them.
I'm not sure how Harper squares the Emerson switch with his principles, but it's okay with mine. We would have a stronger Parliament if we could elect men and women as representatives of the people first and could worry less about what petty party label was attached to them.
Meanwhile, the appointment of the unelected Montrealer Michael Fortier to the cabinet and the Senate evokes the historical function of the Senate.
The appointment throws into question the sincerity of everything Mr Harper has conveyed about elected representatives and the need for an elected Senate.
But I've never approved of an elected Senate, and I'd say this appointment shows the Senate doing just what it was always supposed to do: namely, providing a reservoir of talent for the government and the country to draw on. Fortier will never be a political power without a seat in the House -- and that's as it should be. But sometimes a prime minister needs some special quality in his cabinet team. Historically, the Senate had been there to provide that, while the elected House provides legitimacy and representation.
I'd score it, good government and sound parliamentary history 2, Mr Harper's principles, 0.
