[QUOTE=Elbows]
Minister of Health, an actual Doctor
[/QUOTE]
If I may take a contrary position, it’s not like the Minister of Health is going to be doing any surgery.
Alan Blakeney was once asked this question, along the lines of: “If you had a doctor in your caucus, wouldn’t that be a good choice for Minister of Health?”
Blakeney’s reply: “Sure: until there’s a doctors’ strike and the doctors want more money. Or the government is planning a major reorganization of the health system, and the doctors are opposing it. Or until there is a dispute between doctors and nurses over their respective areas of professional activities.”
His overall point was that he wanted the best and brightest possible in his caucus, but that previous job or professional experience didn’t slot them towards a particular cabinet position. In our system, the professional expertise comes from the civil service; the minister’s job is to apply a critical eye to the recommendations from the civil service and to positions of lobby groups, such as doctors.
The public has a right to expect Cabinet ministers will consider the overall public interest, not just the interest of their own profession.
All of that said, it does look like an impressive group that Trudeau has pulled together.
Never in the entire history of Canada has the Cabinet been selected based just on intellect and knowledge. If anything, every Cabinet in recent memory, including this one, has been the most gifted Cabinet in the history of the country up to that point.
Prior to thirty years ago or so, the selection of the cabinet was based on
Selecting a number of white men,
With a distribution that ensured representation from various geographical areas, and
Paid back political favours.
Bitching about quotas NOW - well, it’s a hell of a time to start.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
If I may take a contrary position, it’s not like the Minister of Health is going to be doing any surgery.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I’ve always wondered why people would make a big deal about stuff like this. It’s not the job of the Minister of Heath to make medical decisions. The job is an administrative, financial and political one.
Similarly, the fact that the new Minister of Defence is a soldier is not terribly meaningful. Running the entire armed forces really doesn’t have much at all to do with Harjit Sajjan being an intelligence officer, which is a small, limited job in the context of an enormous and complex organization with many jobs very different from his. What does he know about the details of procuring jet fighters or rebuilding the navy? What is more interesting about him is that he seems hard working and bright and has a reputation for working well with people. Those are valuable attributes, no matter what your last job was.
[QUOTE=Esox Lucius]
Don’t you already have a version of him in Obama? There’s a lot of similarities between their stories and ideologies.
[/QUOTE]
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but what the hell are you talking about?
What possible similarity do you see between Barack Obama’s story and Justin Trudeau’s?
The irony is that Trudeau himself has the least impressive resume and is probably among the least-accomplished members of government as far as pre-political life goes. Started out with a BA and BEd and became a teacher. That of course is totally a totally noble profession, but did he stick with that? Nope. Started and didn’t complete a degree in engineering. Then started and didn’t complete a masters in environmental geography.
So our current prime minister has a long history of dabbling!
Don’t get me wrong - I am optimistic that he’ll be a good Prime Minister. But I think it is funny that we are lauding the depth of his cabinet when he really doesn’t come close to matching them in accomplishments.
Exactly so. Here’s a condensed account of John A’s travails in putting together his first Cabinet in 1867:
[QUOTE=Bruce Hutchinson, in “Mr Prime Minister 1867-1964”]
… the construction of a Liberal-Conservative Government was difficult, almost impossible, and gave Macdonald the worst hours he had ever known so far.
In the first place, he must pay a high price for the ambassadors of Ontario. The Reformers in the coalition, now calling themselves Liberals, demanded three portfolios, leaving only two for the faithful Conservatives, Macdonald’s original friends. As the Prime Minister alone would be comparable in power to several colleagues, this arrangement was eminently fair to the Liberal boss, William McDougall.
…
Quebec belonged to Macdonald’s almost equal partner and alter ego, Cartier. The two men had built the coalition together. They had been interdependent administrators in a series of of pre-Confederation governments and their personal friendship was as strong as their public alliance.
…
[Cartier’s] price of three French-Canadian portfolios was reasonable. Nevertheless, it left an insoluble problem of arithmetic.
The English-speaking, Protestant minority of Quebec must have a minister — obviously Alexander Tilloch Galt, the apostate Rouge, now purged of his reforming Liberalism, whom Macdonald had lured into the coalition long ago. Galt was as “unstable as water,” Macdonald said, but he had been the first advocate of Confederation, the maker of pre-Confederation tariffs and a competent minister of finance.
If Galt must have the same portfolio in the new Government, there was no room for the ambassador of the Irish Catholics, now too large a community to be unrepresented. Thomas D’Arcy McGee, the darling of all the Irish, the peerless orator of Confederation and Macdonald’s old drinking companion, justly claimed the ambassadorship. Unfortunately there was no place for him in the Quebec delegation.
As July 1 approached, Macdonald saw that the jigsaw puzzle simply would not fit together.
The answer came at the eleventh hour from an unexpected quarter. Charles Tupper, a man of bulldog look and similar courage, who had led Nova Scotia into the union against the brilliant megalomania of Howe, withdrew his own undeniable claim in favour of Edward Kenny. This obscure Nova Scotian could represent his province, and the Irish Catholics elsewhere.
McGee withdrew also, in an act of generosity to be rewarded a few months later by the bullet of a Fenian assassin in an Ottawa street, where Macdonald knelt in tears over the body of his friend.
New Brunswick would naturally be represented by its veteran premier, Samuel Leonard Tilley, a compact little man with a bright, knowing face who had pushed his province into the union after some costly but honourable intrigue. The jigsaw was complete.
So the first Cabinet came from the maker’s work-bench, ostensibly representing on an equal basis all the vital divisions of the country. In fact, it was ruled by Macdonald, Cartier, Galt and Tilley. All subsequent Cabinets would be ruled by a similar inner group, some ministers being more equal than others.
[/QUOTE]
Other than the accomplishment of leading the third party in the Commons to a strong majority government, a feat that no third party leader has ever done before in Canada?
I assume the similarity to Obama is just that Obama has appointed more historically disenfranchised candidates to high office than his predecessors.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that a former physician will only look out for the interests of physicians. After all, legislators are mostly lawyers and are hardly (at least in the US) working in the interests of practicing lawyers.
Having the experience of a practicing physician will make it easier for the MOH to cast the necessary critical eye on civil service recommendations. Being a former soldier means the MOD has more experience with the methods and power structures of the military. More importantly, those people are going to have something to offer in terms of setting policy, which is a minister’s main job.
What I don’t think is that only people with in-field qualifications should be considered for cabinet posts.
Looks like a well-qualified, diverse and lively Cabinet. Hope the PM can keep them working for him and for the country, and not going off in a million different directions.
Next time read my post, or you may be the one embarrassed. Did I say anything about women?
As I mentioned in the other post on Trudeau, I could not care less what gender the person is. All I want is the best available.
And by stating that the cabinet would be gender balanced, Trudeau has already handicapped himself, and possibly our country.
This is not about fun facts. This is about running a country competently.
Well, indeed! He is obviously a brilliant politician.
But if you look over my remarks on his resume again, you’ll see I was specifically referring to his pre-political accomplishments.
We are (with complete justification) feeling very positive about our cabinet’s depth in terms of their lives prior to entering politics. I just find it amusing that our PM’s somewhat lackluster resume (his impressive political accomplishments not withstanding) is being ignored.
And for the record, I’m looking forward to seeing what he and his cabinet colleagues can accomplish in government, and despite being a free-market capitalist with republican (note the small r) leanings, I think we as a nation made a good choice.
I agree with you 100%. How did any of them get these positions, other than their gender? All I want are the best people available, and if everyone of them were transgenders and could only speak French, that would be fine with me, so long as they are the BEST AVAILABLE.
I meant in the way they were elected: relatively inexperienced liberal politicians who swept to power on promises of hope and change against hugely unpopular conservative parties. The first time I saw “hope and change” attached to Justin Trudeau, I immediately thought of Obama’s first win. Obama said America isn’t a division of red and blue states, it’s the United States, and Trudeau says Conservatives aren’t our enemies, they’re our neighbours.
You seem to be so convinced that the cabinet Trudeau selected is somehow inferior - pretty much the only person I have encountered, personally or in the press who feels this way.
Tell you what. Come up with THREE examples of appointments to cabinet who are NOT well qualified, and explain why. Then come up with alternatives from the Liberal caucus who are better qualified, and explain why.
Caution; this may actually cause you to read about the background of the new ministers.
We have to remember no to confuse accomplishments in one sphere with competence in another. Ben Carson down in the US is a spectacular cautionary tale. Brilliant, hard working brain surgeon, complete whack-job candidate…though given the GOP maybe it’s the wrong analogy.
You don’t have to be weighed down with diplomas and awards to be capable of navigating the Public Service, driving policy, fighting for budget and gathering allies. That’s what makes an effective cabinet minister and that’s what we’ll discover over the next 6 months.
The proof,as they say, will be in the pudding. Only a complete partisan fool would say that anyone appointed a few days ago could never do the job properly. Likewise for anyone who says they will all do perfectly, with no screw-ups.
I mean, that isn’t a lot of similarity, really; I could draw more similarities between Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. Trudeau and George W. Bush are similar in more ways than that.
Their stories are actually quite different. Obama reached the highest office in his country despite having the odds stacked heavily against him; Trudeau is a child of immense privilege. Trudeau came from behind in his campaign to overtake TWO opponents; Obama was ahead of his opponent more or less every single day of his. And their stories will vary from now on; Obama’s administration has been handicapped by a belligerent Congress, something that has no equivalence in our system.
