Harper’s new Cabinet: Better and Stronger

Lets go over some of the highlights shall we?

(1) Weak performers were demoted. Simple as that!

(2) Key portfolio’s being taken more seriously. This can be seen in the emphasis on the economy (expanding the size of the Cabinet from 31 to 38), and by moving experienced ministers into important files (see Jim Prentice in Environment)

(3) Women proved that there is no glass ceiling. With 11 of the 23 female MP’s getting Cabinet positions, I dare anyone to claim that there is a bias against women in this party.

(4) History was made a few times. Leona Aglukkaq becomes the first female MP from Nunavut to be appointed to the Federal Cabinet and Steven Fletcher becomes the first fully disabled Canadian to be elected to the House, and therefore the first fully disabled Canadian to be appointed to the Federal Cabinet.

The only criticism that is being laid against the new Cabinet is that of diversity. Jeffrey Simpson has a peice in the Globe and Mail today, poiting to the lack of diversity among the Cabinet as a major criticism.

The cabinet contains not a single multicultural Canadian, despite the impressive Conservative gains in some of those communities.

I always find criticisms such as this to be so superficial. It is based the microcosim model of representation where the House and Cabinet should resemble the makeup of the country (men, women, and ethnic minorities that look similar to the polulation of the entire country.) This model makes the flawed  assumption that if you look like me and talk like me that you will think like me and therefore be the best representative for me.

Obama and Palin featured as playable characters in Mercenaries 2

There’s been a lot of talk about how well Barak Obama could effectivley deal with the terrorist threat. Thanks to EA games however, we can all sleep at night knowing that he is capable of throwing grenades into tanks, using rocket launchers, and taking on terrorists with his bare hands.

Women and the Electoral Process

There is a prevailing myth that women are inherently less electable than men. This past federal election has illustrated what many, myself included, have been arguing for some time now. That is, this myth is just that, a myth.

Take the Bloc for example. They nominated and ran 20 female candidates and managed to elect 15 of them. Women less electable? Hardly. Moving on, the other parties too found it easy to elect female members. In fact, the Conservatives, the only party to avoid the use of targets, quotas and the like, had a relativley impressive showing.

The Tories only nominated 63 women but managed to elect 23 of them. In fact, the success of Conservative women at 37.6 per cent was similar to their own popular vote.

Heres the current breakdown:

Conservative 23
Liberal 18
BQ 15
NDP 11

Anti-Abortion Activist has to pay Income Tax

A very interesting case to keep your eyes on in the future.

A man convicted last fall of not paying income tax,  because he refuses to fund abortions, has lost his appeal before the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench. Protesting against the federal government’s funding of abortions, David Little, a devot Roman Catholic has stopped paying his taxes for some years now.

Little, defedning himself, argued that his conviction last year on three counts of not paying his income taxes should be overturned because it violates his religious beliefs under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Twice the judge interrupted, saying Little should stick to legal arguments, not moral, religious or political ones.

Despite the conviction and intense beliefs, the judge ruled that little did not show any error in law. The CBC is reporting that it has been Little’s goal to be charged with tax evasion since the mid 1990’s. If charged with tax evasion Little’s case would garner the attention of the national media and raise the profile of his case and his arguments.

May suggests a “cross party coalition” for next election

 

Though The Greens once again failed to elect a single MP, and despite the fact that she will not be invited back to the next Leadership Debate (unless the Greens win a by-election …), Elizabeth May is already planning for the demise of the current Harper Conservative government. She is once again calling for a cross party coalition for the next election in hopes of defeating the Conservative incumbents.

 May has described the coalition as one where Greens, Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois would carve up seats according to the candidates most likely to defeat Conservatives.

 Unlike many other Parliamentary democracies, Canada has had the luxury of being governed mostly by majority governments. As such, we have rarely had the need to support such notions as coalition governments. In fact, Canada has only experienced one, very short lived coalition. It is because of this truly unique history that I think that Canadians would reject May’s action plan. In any event, here are a few of my thoughts on such a scenario and its implications on Canadian democracy:

 (1)Though we like to lump them together with the label of the “left”, there are indeed many differences between the Liberals and the NDP, or the Liberals and the Bloc, and so on. It is precisely because of these differences that it is absurd to think that everything other than the conservatives are the same and would thus vote accordingly. If that were true, this post would be moot since the left would be one single entity already. The fact is that there are differences, and those differences are what has produced the makeup of the current Parliament.

(2)Any active coalition with the Bloc is shameful. Though they have given up their soveriegntist leanings for now, this is a party whose sole purpose was to tear apart our country. As such, I find it appalling to even suggest the idea that Bloc MPs could be part of the Cabinet. As an extension of this I am reminded of Edmund Burke’s famous speech at Bristol in 1774. It was in this speech that Burke described the balancing that must take place within the House. An MP must of course take into account local concerns, but must also balance this with the national interest. A very important question must be asked: Can a Bloc Cabinet Minister truly make laws and bills that are in the national interest, especially given desires to destroy this nation?

 (3)This plan, if I understand May’s scenario correctly, would have Liberals run in Liberal ridings, New Democrats run in New Democrat Ridings and so on. The most staggering problem with this idea is simple: Goodbye are the days of National parties, fuelling National debate, and promoting National dialogue. With the exception of the Conservatives, this plan would have no other party running candidates in every riding across the country. Such a plan would indeed leave Canada’s Party system fragmented, and even more balkanized than some authors suggest it already is.  

 

On Dion

Right now I imagine Dion is hoping for the same chance that his party gave John Turner before him. Will this be the case? I highly doubt it. As the party goes further into debt, and braces from its political defeat, I think that the Liberal Party will see the option to keep Dion as “not worth the risk” (no pun intended… well yea it was intended). Though I am no supporter of his, I believe that Dion deserves a dignified and respectable departure. I stress this because I am not sure that it will in fact happen.

Ideology and political partisanship aside, it is clear that Dion has been treated incredibly harsh throughout the election. The CTV debacle aside, Mr. Dion has been characterized as foolish, incapable, and irresponsible. While I do not agree with him politically, does he really deserve such criticisms? Has he not served his country and democracy as a Honourable Member of Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition? Did he not have an active role in establishing the Clarity Act and challenging Quebec Nationalism? Overall, though he was not a successful leader, it can be argued that he has added to the dialogue and discourse of politics in this country. And for that, we should all be grateful.

As Jeffery Simpson of the Globe and Mail argues, Dion should look to Stockwell Day and Joe Clark as examples. Though they failed as leaders, they proved to be valuable and capable members of Parliament.

“For his part, Mr. Dion should express a continuing willingness to serve his party, province and country, albeit in another capacity – the Day/Clark model. The party, in turn, should make it the highest priority to pay off whatever debts remain from his leadership campaign, to refrain from any public criticism of him, and to ensure that everyone acknowledges that the party would welcome and facilitate his decision to remain in political life.”

To sum up: Dion has helped fuel national debate in this country, and has proven to be a capable member of the House. As such, I hope he will recieve the respect he deserves.