This editorial by the Edmonton Journal really makes sense to me. Why does a Prime Minister necessarily have to choose Cabinet Ministers according to provincial criteria?
If most of the talent is out West, so be it. Those are the people who should get the plum positions, IMHO.
And as the Journal suggests, Thunder Bay may have a lot more in common with Fort McMurray than Toronto.
It’s time to think out of the box – and out of provincial constrictions.
Now, let’s move on to Senate reform.
* * * *
Sunday Update: I caught the rerun of CBC’s ‘At Issue’ this morning. Andrew Coyne seemed to be supporting this point of view – namely that we should start talking more about competence instead of regionalism and gender, when it comes to Cabinet building. Chantel Hebert seems to agree to a point. The relevant segment starts just past the half-way mark.
Tuesday Update : Gee, this sounds familiar… Regions aren’t everything – Globe :
…A better idea would be for Mr. Harper to spend less time preoccupied with geography, and more of it worried about merit. Certainly, he cannot overlook any region entirely. But the reality is that there are more talented Conservative MPs in Alberta and British Columbia than in the rest of the provinces combined. And in a government in which few ministers have distinguished themselves, it is nonsensical to have people such as Diane Ablonczy, James Moore or Jason Kenney biding their time as backbenchers or junior ministers while colleagues from elsewhere are in over their heads…
I wish, but the opposition would scream blue murder if more MP’s from Alberta were promoted to Cabinet positions.
Or maybe Ontario and Quebec would wise up and elect more Conservative MP’s so PM Harper could put their people into Cabinet.
It would be interesting to hear the whining from Toronto! It might wake them up to the fact that voting Liberal is a vote for being in the wilderness next election.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. When one city in Canada can wipe out the votes of one province, it’s time to show them that Alberta voted the right way and they voted for powerless opposition members.
Or maybe Ontario and Quebec would wise up and elect more Conservative MP’s so PM Harper could put their people into Cabinet.
Exactly what I was thinking. You can’t have it both ways.
Even in a minority government WE must govern the whole country and as such have in cabinet “the perfect mix of …” female/male, west/central/east, French/English, and all in between. The reason for balance is not to let those “out of the loop” believe that they are hard done by. It is wrong but it is reality. I support having the best, most competent in cabinet but that won’t win a majority. Can’t p… off the voters because “we really don’t understand what is good for us”!! It is all about political correctness!!
Sure, it makes logical sense but it’s politically naive.
Naming someone to Cabinet is not just a question of merit; it is also a political calculation. Cabinet, not the House of Commons, is where power and influence are exercised. You cannot create an impression that particular provinces or constituencies are not properly represented in such a critical institution.
There is also the practical consideration of ensuring that provincial considerations are effectively communicated around the cabinet table. Despite a supposed weakness in terms of Quebec MPs on the government side, it certainly can’t be said that the Conservatives have had a ‘tin ear’ on Quebec issues. Would this be the case if only a single Cabinet Minister were selected from Quebec … perhaps Lawrence Cannon from Gatineau?
That is not to say that I don’t share the sentiment that there is some excellent talent that is being denied a shot at a Cabinet post based on geography.
Ladies, ladies….
“Or maybe Ontario and Quebec would wise up and elect more Conservative MP’s so PM Harper could put their people into Cabinet.”
What you just said there is the same as when Chretien said, “if the West wants in they should elect more Liberals.” And you should wash your mouths out with soap.
Unfortunately, regionalization in cabinet is a necessary evil. Remember how the west would howl when there weren’t enough westerners in a cabinet? I can tell you, west coasters were mad for many years at always having to suffer under a fisheries minister from Newfoundland. Harper can’t stack cabinet with all westerners. It would be political suicide.
What you just said there is the same as when Chretien said, “if the West wants in they should elect more Liberals.” And you should wash your mouths out with soap.
Reid, Chretien wasn’t always wrong.
But I see your point, which seems to be shared by Larry, and WCT.
Ultimately, the onus is on the constituency to elect a good candidate. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why political life doesn’t seem to interest a lot of very capable people. Sometimes the pickings are slim.
“Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why political life doesn’t seem to interest a lot of very capable people.”
You only have to watch QP to get your answer to that. I assume most intelligent mature people do not want to go back to junior high school.
It is a national embarassment – and all parties are responsible for that.
Gayle, I totally agree.
“Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why political life doesn’t seem to interest a lot of very capable people.”
Remember Gwyn Morgan ?
Not to mention the way some current MPs have been treated by the opposition. And the media.
Think James Moore, Tom Lukiwski, Peter Mckay, Jim Flaherty,and even Bernier. I’m not saying these guys were all blameless, although James Moore certainly was, but there ought to be a way that everyone can keep some shred of dignity.
I think most smart people don’t want to be subjected to this kind of treatment, and unfortunately Canadians are the losers.
Picking cabinet ministers based on regional representation while ignoring their qualifications and capabilities to do the job is discriminatory and leads to sub-optimal, perhaps even embarrassing results.
Maybe unfulfilled entitlement expectations are why Garth Turner turned on his boss and Conservative MP colleagues when he was still a pretend-conservative:
“I’m from under-represented Ontario! Make me a minister!”
The practice of selecting ministers based on regional representation and not their qualifications was probably why Bernier became our bumbling Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Perhaps Harper put Bernier into Foreign Affairs thinking that there would be an election soon enough that Max wouldn’t have enough time to screw up, then shuffle him off after the next election? The problem, of course, was that Harper didn’t get the election he wanted, and Bernier was even more incompetent than Harper thought.
The end result is bad for the country, government and the unqualified appointees.
And yes, if you don’t practice this “regional discrimination”, you’re branded as “unfair”. You’re branded as “biased”, not for good choices, but against poor ones, and somehow that’s deemed to be a bad thing?
The “politically correct” compromise is to pick a strong and competent core, and try to appease the entitlement lobby and their MSM cheerleaders without inflicting too much damage on your government’s performance.
JJ … your comment about the constituencies picking the best candidate is correct but in my experience most constituencies (all parties) are mostly a closed shop when it comes to “democracy”. The in-crowd picks the candidate and there is very little grass roots participation which is our fault.
I know that my suggestion will NEVER fly, particularly given the way the parliamentary system works but … here goes.
If geographical representation is desirable
• all the more reason to have elected senators, based on per capita
• have members of the provincial legislatures comprise cabinet
OK, before you start saying no, let me explain.
Those elected to the provincial legislatures are there to represent their own local constituents as well as those of the province or territory.
Who better to represent those interests at the cabinet table?
Who would qualify for those appointments?
Well, once elected in their respective provinces, those members would have to be vetted by their premiers and okayed by the PM, regardless of their party affiliation.
The number of provincial representation at the cabinet table would thus be based on per capita – the higher the population, the more would sit in cabinet – and the party affiliation would be irrelevant. The important thing would be the best policies to benefit Canada in all its parts.
See, I’ve yet to understand why Canada needs 308 (perhaps going to 330) MPs plus 105 senators, plus provincial legislators (75 in Quebec), plus municipal councils under other umbralla organizations. The US population is 10 times bigger than that of Canada, and at the federal level, they have enough with 435 members of Congress plus 100 senators. That’s 535 people to our 413!
Yeah, I know, I tend to dream in wonderful technicolour …
gabby,
somethings don’t scale down to good. I’d bet there’s a floor pretty close to 400 for any fair-sized country, even with small populations!
joanne,
i think its smart to let Canadians see his western talent. At least here in Quebec, an Ablonzy for example, would win points and trust from Quebeckers for Conservatives. Cabinet breaks down by function, not region – competence should rule the functions, not regions.
Cabinet breaks down by function, not region – competence should rule the functions, not regions.
Chucker, thanks for your thoughts on this. You just made me think of another reason why Cabinet selection should be according to competence rather than region – If any of these folks plan to be serious contenders for the leadership someday, they wouldn’t be playing favourites with their home province. Instead, they would be trying to be as fair and effective as possible for all Canadians within their particular cabinet role.
[...] Blue Like You | What’s the big deal about geography? [...]