This has garnered surprisingly little attention. It is a concrete principled commitment to women's rights that will impact how we are governed.
Trudeau promises gender parity in cabinet
Wed, 2015-06-24 17:34
#1
Trudeau promises gender parity in cabinet
Wed, 2015-06-24 17:43
#2
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-rolls-the-dice...
While the gender-parity goal is perhaps to be lauded for corporate boards, a cabinet gender quota takes Canada back to the 19th century when cabinet posts were allocated by religion. The 1873 cabinet of Liberal prime minister Alexander Mackenzie included four Catholics, three Presbyterians, three Anglicans, two Methodists, one Congregationalist and one Baptist (himself). His cabinet was judged to be "inept and nondescript" according to W. A. Matheson, the author of The Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
Bruce Campbell also writes for Canadian Policy Alternatives. Not impressed.
Wed, 2015-06-24 17:51
#3
The same way he promised open nominations?
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:04
#4
Shouldn't be a hard goal for Justin to achieve, according to NorthernReport the NDP will control every seat and the Liberals will be past memories in Canadian history.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:05
#5
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-rolls-the-dice...
While the gender-parity goal is perhaps to be lauded for corporate boards, a cabinet gender quota takes Canada back to the 19th century when cabinet posts were allocated by religion. The 1873 cabinet of Liberal prime minister Alexander Mackenzie included four Catholics, three Presbyterians, three Anglicans, two Methodists, one Congregationalist and one Baptist (himself). His cabinet was judged to be "inept and nondescript" according to W. A. Matheson, the author of The Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
Bruce Campbell also writes for Canadian Policy Alternatives. Not impressed.
What leads you to believe that this is the same Bruce Campbell? Just curious.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:20
#6
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-rolls-the-dice...
While the gender-parity goal is perhaps to be lauded for corporate boards, a cabinet gender quota takes Canada back to the 19th century when cabinet posts were allocated by religion. The 1873 cabinet of Liberal prime minister Alexander Mackenzie included four Catholics, three Presbyterians, three Anglicans, two Methodists, one Congregationalist and one Baptist (himself). His cabinet was judged to be "inept and nondescript" according to W. A. Matheson, the author of The Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
Bruce Campbell also writes for Canadian Policy Alternatives. Not impressed.
What leads you to believe that this is the same Bruce Campbell? Just curious.
Good catch, I assumed that it was. I hope I was mistaken.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:23
#7
Good catch, I assumed that it was. I hope I was mistaken.
No problem. Mistakes happen. I just couldn't imagine Bruce Campbell of CCPA attacking anyone for promising gender parity. No-brainer.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:26
#8
Perhaps in order to achieve gender equity Justin should exclude himself from his cabinet. That would also likley raise the average level of competence.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:30
#9
Catchfire
Defo not the same Bruce!
Fri, 2015-06-26 03:23
#10
indigo 007
Trudeau is promising everything and will deliver on nothing. He is a walking and talking political cliche.
Fri, 2015-06-26 06:46
#11
Its a well intentioned idea, but wrong on a practical level. If a winning political party that wins does not end up with having anywhere near gender parity, one way or the other, you could have a situtuation where its not possible or you have to have unelected cabinet ministers (not that I have a problem with picking people for a cabinet post if they're not elected as long as they're is a really good reason for it), or they might not be the brightest bulbs, I prefer meriticracy. Don't get me wrong I support diversity, not just of gender, at the cabinet table, but I prefer a deeper approach that addresses the root issues, then a blunt force approach.
Fri, 2015-06-26 09:39
#12
Run from the left, govern from the right. Long time LPC motto.
Fri, 2015-06-26 18:22
#13
Its a well intentioned idea, but wrong on a practical level. If a winning political party that wins does not end up with having anywhere near gender parity, one way or the other, you could have a situtuation where its not possible or you have to have unelected cabinet ministers (not that I have a problem with picking people for a cabinet post if they're not elected as long as they're is a really good reason for it), or they might not be the brightest bulbs, I prefer meriticracy. Don't get me wrong I support diversity, not just of gender, at the cabinet table, but I prefer a deeper approach that addresses the root issues, then a blunt force approach.
The size of cabinet is determined by the PM who also determines portfolios. Harper's cabinet is huge, 40 people many of whom people wouldn't recognize.
Each minister of the Crown is responsible for the general administration of at least one government portfolio, and heads a corresponding ministry or ministries, known in Canada as departments or agencies. The most important minister, following the premier, is the Minister of finance, while other high profile ministries include foreign affairs, industry, justice, and health. The official order of precedence does not follow the same pattern, however, with ministers being listed in the order of their appointment to the Privy Council or, if appointed to the Privy Council on the same day, in order of election or appointment to parliament.[12]
Unique positions in Cabinet are those such as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and President of the Queen's Privy Council, who have no corresponding department, and some ministers (such as the Minister for International Cooperation) head agencies under the umbrella of a department run by another minister. Further, the prime minister may recommend the governor general appoint to Cabinet some ministers without portfolio, though this has not been done since 1978, and, unlike in many other Westminster model governments, ministers of state in Canada are considered full members of Cabinet, rather than of the ministry outside it, which has the effect of making the Canadian Cabinet much larger than its foreign counterparts. These individuals are assigned specific, but temporary, responsibilities on a more ad hoc basis, fulfilling tasks created and dissolved to suit short-term government priorities from within a department under a full minister of the Crown. Ministers of state may also be named but not specified any particular responsibilities, thus giving them the effective appearance of ministers without portfolio, or be delegated problems or initiatives that cut across departmental boundaries, a situation usually described as having the [situation] file.
It will be easy for Trudeau to reach gender parity in Cabinet. Meritocracy would be great if it actually existed but it doesn't, certainly not in cabinet. PMs try to have cabinet members from all provinces as an example. Even if all the most qualified people happened to live in Ontario the PM would not appoint only them. They would look for regional balance. Gender balance is no different.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/cabinet/
Choosing a Cabinet in Canada requires considerable artfulness on the part of the prime minister, who must try to ensure that it represents the country's regional, linguistic and ethnic diversity. When a victorious party fails to elect MPs in certain regions, a prime minister often resorts to the Senate to fill out the Cabinet. The number of women in Cabinet, the number of francophones, and a role for Aboriginal politicians and members of other minority groups, are all important considerations.
Cabinet-making has also traditionally been an exercise in power politics, whereby influential figures with important followings within the governing party are awarded prominent roles in the Cabinet. In this way the party leader and prime minister seeks to maintain power by sharing it, and by seeking consensus rather than confrontation with his internal party rivals.
Fri, 2015-06-26 18:34
#14
I agree with you Pondering that meritocracy doesn't really exist in politics. Justin is a perfect example.
Fri, 2015-06-26 18:41
#15
LOL
Fri, 2015-06-26 18:41
#16
Actually I like this idea. Obviously there's no way to trust anything Justin says, but the initiative itself is a good one in theory. I think a party might find themselves courting more excellent female candidates if they realize they're going to have to fill up those cabinet positions somehow.
Fri, 2015-06-26 19:00
#17
Unfortunately, the Liberals have recruitd more than 80% of their candidates and their number of female candidates is less than 1/3. Maybe if he hadn't just come up with this idea in the middle of the campaign...
Fri, 2015-06-26 19:14
#18
Unfortunately, the Liberals have recruitd more than 80% of their candidates and their number of female candidates is less than 1/3. Maybe if he hadn't just come up with this idea in the middle of the campaign...
I could be off but I counted 93 women, and I don't think any of them are college students. Harper has the largest cabinet ever at 40 members.
I don't think he would have trouble finding enough women that are qualified to sit in Cabinet.
Fri, 2015-06-26 19:20
#19
Of course he won't. There's still plenty of nominations for him to rig.
Fri, 2015-06-26 20:37
#20
Justin will do for women what Paul Martin did for child care and First Nations.
Fri, 2015-06-26 21:02
#21
And that is the weakest argument against Trudeau that you could put forth. It is an admission that it is a good policy.
Fri, 2015-06-26 21:25
#22
Of course it's a good idea. The NDP has had a policy of gender equity for years and years, in nearly every aspect of the party.
The problem is the lingering credibility gap for the Liberal Party. There's been zero mention of gender parity until now, and the sudden timing is politically motivated. With only 30% of their candidates being women, their commitment to a 50/50 cabinet is extremely doubtful.
Fri, 2015-06-26 22:06
#23
Of course it's a good idea. The NDP has had a policy of gender equity for years and years, in nearly every aspect of the party.
The problem is the lingering credibility gap for the Liberal Party. There's been zero mention of gender parity until now, and the sudden timing is politically motivated. With only 30% of their candidates being women, their commitment to a 50/50 cabinet is extremely doubtful.
There is nothing sudden about it. It is part of a 32 point plan. Policy is coming out because the election is coming up. The NDP will also be adding considerably to their platform. That doesn't mean they are making it up the week they release it.
If the NDP is so dedicated to gender equity then they should match the commitment.
The Liberals commitment to electoral reform strengthen's the NDP's hand because it isolates Harper as the only one against it. It makes electoral reform that much more likely.
The NDP should "steal" some policies from the Liberals. First up, gender parity in cabinet and marijuana legalization. If the NDP is so "leftist" they should step up.
Fri, 2015-06-26 22:40
#24
Please. The Liberals are trying to catch up to the NDP.
80% of Liberal MPs are MEN, and they've been basically stuck at that ratio for years. The Liberals are still the only federal party to never had a female leader. It's notoriously an old boys club. It's the same culture that led those two Liberal MPs to sexually harass those young women.
It's one thing to "reveal" your plan before an election. But with 70%+ of their candidates being male, it shows you that they had barely thought about it even a few months ago when they were nominating candidates.
This wasn't a reveal. This is damage control. The Liberal Party is looking for a quick promise they can come up with to get back voters they lost over Bill C-51.
Sat, 2015-06-27 00:39
#25
Please. The Liberals are trying to catch up to the NDP.
80% of Liberal MPs are MEN, and they've been basically stuck at that ratio for years. The Liberals are still the only federal party to never had a female leader. It's notoriously an old boys club. It's the same culture that led those two Liberal MPs to sexually harass those young women.
It's one thing to "reveal" your plan before an election. But with 70%+ of their candidates being male, it shows you that they had barely thought about it even a few months ago when they were nominating candidates.
This wasn't a reveal. This is damage control. The Liberal Party is looking for a quick promise they can come up with to get back voters they lost over Bill C-51.
Say what you will these are two progressive positions the NDP has not taken and they prevented a marijuana legalization at the NDP convention.
The Liberals allowed a vote and accepted it as policy.
The NDP is free to correct both these mistakes taking the last of the wind out of the Liberals.
Sat, 2015-06-27 08:12
#26
Pondering, you keep touting Justin's position on legalizing possession of marijuana as some shining example of how "progressive" he is.
Did you know that he voted in support of Harper's draconian minimum senteces for drug offences, including a mandatory six months in jail for growing more than FIVE marijuana plants? Do you think this was "progressive"? Or even consitent?
Sat, 2015-06-27 08:29
#27
Of course it's a good idea. The NDP has had a policy of gender equity for years and years, in nearly every aspect of the party.
The problem is the lingering credibility gap for the Liberal Party. There's been zero mention of gender parity until now, and the sudden timing is politically motivated. With only 30% of their candidates being women, their commitment to a 50/50 cabinet is extremely doubtful.
There is nothing sudden about it. It is part of a 32 point plan. Policy is coming out because the election is coming up. The NDP will also be adding considerably to their platform. That doesn't mean they are making it up the week they release it.
If the NDP is so dedicated to gender equity then they should match the commitment.
The Liberals commitment to electoral reform strengthen's the NDP's hand because it isolates Harper as the only one against it. It makes electoral reform that much more likely.
The NDP should "steal" some policies from the Liberals. First up, gender parity in cabinet and marijuana legalization. If the NDP is so "leftist" they should step up.
Oh please Pondering, they likely sat around a table brainstormed how to get female voters back, tossed whatever they thought up together, no matter how much it contradicts previous positions and called the resulting cluster fuck that no one outside of the political junkies will read.
32 point plan, what was Justin thinking, there is a reason why Harper has a rep for keeping his core promises to just a small essential promises.
Sat, 2015-06-27 12:10
#28
Pondering, you keep touting Justin's position on legalizing possession of marijuana as some shining example of how "progressive" he is.
Did you know that he voted in support of Harper's draconian minimum senteces for drug offences, including a mandatory six months in jail for growing more than FIVE marijuana plants? Do you think this was "progressive"? Or even consitent?
I know he voted for an omnibus bill that contained that measure. That is why Harper used ominbus bills. Now the Liberal position is legalization.
There is plenty of time in the next couple of months for the NDP to adopt these positions if they agree with them.
Sat, 2015-06-27 12:20
#29
Oh please Pondering, they likely sat around a table brainstormed how to get female voters back, tossed whatever they thought up together, no matter how much it contradicts previous positions and called the resulting cluster fuck that no one outside of the political junkies will read.32 point plan, what was Justin thinking, there is a reason why Harper has a rep for keeping his core promises to just a small essential promises.
Yes they probably did, so they came up with something they hoped would appeal to women. That is what politicians do. It doesn't contradict any previous positions, and if it did I'd be fine with that too. I want parties to change their positions on issues in response to people and to advance justice.
Justice in the form of marijuana legalization and equal representation in cabinet for women.
You act like the NDP can't do these things and/or that they aren't important. They can and they are. The election is still 4 months away.
Sat, 2015-06-27 13:11
#30
oh for pete's sake pondering. i'm far from a political junkie and even i know the NDP have been reaching and acting on gender parity long before this action of the Liberals.
as for pot legalization bahahahaha liberals are behind on it too.
Sat, 2015-06-27 13:31
#31
oh for pete's sake pondering. i'm far from a political junkie and even i know the NDP have been reaching and acting on gender parity long before this action of the Liberals.
as for pot legalization bahahahaha liberals are behind on it too.
What matters to me is what they are willing to commit to now on both files. That they used to be ahead on these files makes it less acceptable that they are behind now. They still have plenty of time to update their commitments.
Sat, 2015-06-27 13:32
#32
The NDP already supports gender parity -- the approach is different. The NDP will nominate and then elect more women and have a more balanced caucus than the Liberals and the cabinet will reflect that. The Liberals have fewer women running.
Gender parity in cabinet is not as significant as some might like to think. Cabinet positions are not equal. So if the Liberals stack the junior positions to meet an arbitrary cabinet percentage the result would be less effective than electing a caucus that is much closer to parity and then elevating from such a strong base cabinet positions that will reflect parity in power as well as numbers.
On this I trust the NDP and not the Liberals. We need to see a cabinet where women are equally represented in the most powerful positions not just in seats around the table.
You can't make that promise unless you have a lot more candidates.
Sat, 2015-06-27 14:28
#33
Numerical quotas have poor optics. The first female cabinet minister to be perceived as having done wrong -- regardless of whether she really has or hasn't -- will be wide open to accusation that she's a "token" who was necessary to make the math work out, and that someone else would have been the obvious choice for that portfolio.
Sat, 2015-06-27 15:05
#34
The NDP already supports gender parity -- the approach is different. The NDP will nominate and then elect more women and have a more balanced caucus than the Liberals and the cabinet will reflect that. The Liberals have fewer women running.
I don't think any of the Liberal candidates are students. There are plenty of women like Cynthia Freeland, Carolyn Bennett, Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Joyce Murray and more that are fully qualified to sit in cabinet.
Gender parity in cabinet is not as significant as some might like to think. Cabinet positions are not equal. So if the Liberals stack the junior positions to meet an arbitrary cabinet percentage the result would be less effective than electing a caucus that is much closer to parity and then elevating from such a strong base cabinet positions that will reflect parity in power as well as numbers.
As noted, there are plenty of qualified women to fill a Liberal cabinet. The size of the pool doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of it.
On this I trust the NDP and not the Liberals. We need to see a cabinet where women are equally represented in the most powerful positions not just in seats around the table.
You can't make that promise unless you have a lot more candidates.
The NDP hasn't made that promise. They should have no problem doing so if they have enough qualified candidates.
Yet when it comes to the proportion of candidates who are women, the NDP is tops. A Citizen analysis of the candidate lists shows 42 per cent of NDP candidates are women. The Liberals come second at nearly 36 per cent, while the Conservatives are last with less than 19 per cent.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-boasts-more-female-candidates...
36% is plenty high enough to find qualified women to fill powerful positions in cabinet.
Sat, 2015-06-27 15:12
#35
Numerical quotas have poor optics. The first female cabinet minister to be perceived as having done wrong -- regardless of whether she really has or hasn't -- will be wide open to accusation that she's a "token" who was necessary to make the math work out, and that someone else would have been the obvious choice for that portfolio.
And as I say they are meaningless when it comes to cabinet. They are very meaningful when it comes to candidates and MPs as they are presumed to be equal positions.
The gender balance of a cabinet is subjective. If the top 5 cabinet positions are all men -- I don't care how many junior ministers are women it is not a balanced cabinet.
Sat, 2015-06-27 15:21
#36
Numerical quotas have poor optics. The first female cabinet minister to be perceived as having done wrong -- regardless of whether she really has or hasn't -- will be wide open to accusation that she's a "token" who was necessary to make the math work out, and that someone else would have been the obvious choice for that portfolio.
I very much agree.
Sat, 2015-06-27 17:20
#37
Very interesting hearing males object to gender parity because "others" may think that some of the women are just unqualified place-holders.
Duh, invest in a mirror?
The pledge for gender parity in cabinet is a good initiative, even if it might not go far enough, for reasons that Sean has pointed out. But it's a minimum - not something to find excuses to dismiss.
Sat, 2015-06-27 17:41
#38
Very interesting hearing males object to gender parity because "others" may think that some of the women are just unqualified place-holders.
Did I say that I objected to it?
Here's a thought, for any party leader considering this: just do it. By that I mean, just assemble a cabinet with gender parity. DON'T announce to the world that you're going to do it, and then when you actually do it nobody can say "Oh, you HAD to appoint this or that minister to make the numbers work".
ALL the same benefits -- except for the free publicity, I guess.
Sat, 2015-06-27 17:44
#39
Is that why only 33% of the Liberal candidates are female or is it because of a pattern of Liberal lies?
Magoo comments below are spot on, particularly with the campaign on left, govern on right Liberals.
Just another madison avenue ad to try and con the masses.
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:03
#40
Very interesting hearing males object to gender parity because "others" may think that some of the women are just unqualified place-holders.
Duh, invest in a mirror?
The pledge for gender parity in cabinet is a good initiative, even if it might not go far enough, for reasons that Sean has pointed out. But it's a minimum - not something to find excuses to dismiss.
Yes, the same old arguments trotted out against all affirmative action programs.
We can't know in advance which portfolios he will assign to women but I have no reason to believe he will ghettoize the many capable Liberals women.
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:14
#41
Trudeau promises no wage and price controls. Zap your frozen but prices are allowed to rise. Liberals promise renegotiation of NAFTA. Liberals promise to end GST. Liberals promise daycare. Liberals promise marijuana reform and gender parity.
Only a Liberal partisan or an insane person would believe anything contained in a Red book during an election campaign. I have been telling my Liberal friends the same thing for three decades, when the Liberals win and actually do as promised I will vote for them in the subsequent election. I've never had to vote Liberal in my life.
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:22
#42
Only a Liberal partisan or an insane person would believe anything contained in a Red book during an election campaign.
I will never vote for them either. But why the hell don't all the parties promise gender parity in cabinet? All you've done is find another reason to pooh-pooh it. Same with legalization of marijuana. The Liberals propose it, so our job is to remind everyone that they're liars?
If Tom Mulcair promised to nationalize the oil industry, would you say, "oh yeah sure, just like Bob Rae nationalized auto insurance?" Maybe you would. I'd throw a party.
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:25
#43
Yes, the same old arguments trotted out against all affirmative action programs.
There's a difference between this and "Affirmative Action".
Affirmative Action is a state requirement which compels businesses to ensure that typically underrepresented groups will be hired, to address that underrepresentation. It's the government telling (often reluctant) business owners that they have to do the right thing. It's not at all unreasonable to think that in the absence of AA, many hiring business owners wouldn't.
If Trudeau's party forms government, he can appoint his cabinet however he wishes. There's zero need for him to "pass a law" now that will bind him later.
Do you see the difference? AA is a federal law that compels businesses. In the case of Trudeau, he's somehow both the feds and the business.
Why is this distinction meaningful? Because if Trudeau (or the leader of whichever party forms government) were to simply appoint a cabinet that's half female MPs, then not only has the goal of parity been met, but NONE of those female MPs will be saddled with the potential criticism that they were chosen not for their skills and talents, but because they helped the leader fill a quota to keep a promise.
What's the REAL goal here? Gender parity in cabinet? Or winning feelgood votes by promising a quota to ensure it?
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:37
#44
It's a Liberal madison avenue con job designed to suggest the ridiculous notion the Liberals are going to form the government. Unionist is a big fan of this kind of nonsense. 
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:43
#45
In the interest of accuracy, the Liberals have recruited a lot of candidates since December 2014, disproportionately men. Their percentage of female candidates has fallen to around 30%.
This was a knee-jerk promise made for damage control, and not something they were actually planning or working towards.
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:48
#46
I rest my case. Don't judge whether the initiative is worthy. Judge the motives of those who proclaim it.
Of course, if Tom were to proclaim it, it would be laudable.
Why are there people here incapable of criticizing some parties' actions and incapable of praising others'? Who are these parties supposed to get their ideas, their actions, their platforms, their mandates from, if not from people like us?
Sat, 2015-06-27 18:55
#47
Is that why only 33% of the Liberal candidates are female or is it because of a pattern of Liberal lies?
Magoo comments below are spot on, particularly with the campaign on left, govern on right Liberals.
Just another madison avenue ad to try and con the masses.
Fewer women apply to run to be candidates which is why both the NDP and the Liberals have specific outreach programs to persuade more women to run. The NDP has had better success in that regard but not by a huge margin.
Not attaining gender parity in mps running or winning doesn't mean gender parity can't be met in cabinet. We do not live in a meritocracy and if we did there is usually not just one person capable of fulfiling a position. "Let the best man win" is fine in a race in which only one can run fastest. In situations in which multiple people can fulfil a position it is an opportunity to give women and minorities equal representation.
The best white man for the job doesn't always get it especially in important high-level jobs. The white man with the best connections is often the winner.
Sat, 2015-06-27 19:09
#48
I don't know what makes you think that the NDP *wouldn't* include a massive slate of qualified women in their cabinet. They've strived for gender parity at literally every stage of their recruiting process, and they've done this for decades. Years ago, they've announced policies to help every board of every crown corporation to achieve gender parity. They have requirements that encourage gender parity in the executive level of the party's internal organization. And, again, we elected a record number of New Democrats in 2011, which led to a record number of female MPs.
Why does the NDP's track record for the past several years somehow count for less than a sudden Trudeau campaign promise that doesn't even fit with what the Liberals have been doing for the past few months?
Sat, 2015-06-27 19:32
#49
I don't know what makes you think that the NDP *wouldn't* include a massive slate of qualified women in their cabinet.
You honestly don't get it. I'm absolutely sure they will. My point is that [b]they should proclaim it[/b]. And do it. We need to change the discourse in the society.
Sat, 2015-06-27 19:38
#50
My point is that they should proclaim it. And do it.
Or just do it.
To do it would be to proclaim it, only better.
Sat, 2015-06-27 19:42
#51
No, then we're in full agreement. And hopefully that includes the part where we should change the discourse for just reasons, and not cynical ones.
There's a party that's been pushing for greater gender equity at all levels of politics for years, and I'd like to think they HAVE been trying to change the social discourse, even outside of election season. And there's a party that's suffering in the polls due to Bill C-51, and they're cynically trying to change the social discourse away from that betrayal.
All things in context.