How democratic of Dion. Why would gender even enter the picture--I foolishly thought that the candidate was to be chosen by the people of the constituency.

Posted by: George at August 20, 2007 10:01 AM

---

Lib-ocracy in motion.

Posted by: at August 20, 2007 11:00 AM

---

There are 32 members of cabinet, not 26. You seem to have included Harper’s six Secretaries of State when counting the number of women in cabinet but excluded them when counting the number of cabinet positions.

Out of Harper’s seven female "ministers", three are actually Secretaries of State. This alone increases the percentage of women in cabinet by quite a bit. But even if we accept that Secretaries of State should be treated on par with full ministers when counting the number of women in cabinet (the numerator), then surely we must also include them when counting the total number of cabinet positions (the denominator), no?

Using the correct numbers, women make up less than 22% of Harper’s cabinet (7 divided by 32) and just 15% of full cabinet ministers (4 divided by 26).

-----

As an aside, what does the number of women in cabinet have to do with the boards of major media companies, anyway?

First, two wrongs don’t make a right (“Gee Ma, big media companies, many of which are run by Conservative supporters, are just as bad at hiring gender representative management teams as Conservative politicians!”).

More importantly, there is simply no comparing the dynamics of a private company to the workings of a representative government. The job of a media company is to make money for its shareholders. Sure, since roughly half their audience is women they might make more money if they hired some people who know a little more about that segment of the audience. And sure, being in the business of journalism they might feel some fealty to the public trust or responsibility to serve the entire community. Some people may even undertake an organized effort to pressure them to take such concerns seriously. But at the end of the day companies are in business to make money and--short of out right discrimination or criminality--are only accountable to their shareholders.

Governments, at least those of the democratic/Canadian variety, are intended to understand and serve the needs of a large and diverse country. Can anyone seriously deny that having more women represented in the most important decision making body of our government helps that body to “understand and serve” the needs of women? Like every other organization in our society, the make up of cabinet has little to do with individual merit, but--instead--how to create the best team. And, unlike private companies, our government is accountable to us, so this seems like a matter of perfectly reasonable concern for the general public.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 20, 2007 01:43 PM

---

The Liberals and their Minions in the MSM are all about propagating myths. The Conservatives don't spout off about gender equality, they have it, they practice it.

Dion is the twit who said he wanted to aim for 33% "woemens"(Dion speak), he's covering his ass to make it look like he's doing it by appointing a few sacrificial lambs in ridings of no chance.

What ever happened to common sense? Whatever happened to the best person for the job criteria?

Posted by: Libby at August 20, 2007 02:10 PM

---

The point I think Steve was trying to make anonymous is not that governments are equivalent to private businesses but as Dianne Ablonczy says, women don't tend to enter this line of work.

As well, I don't consider Toronto Star, CTV or Globe and Mail to be very Conservative friendly papers...

This is very evident when we consider Paul Martin's Cabinet, which has roughly the same proportion of women. And despite Dion's bravado, I'm sure when he becomes PM his cabinet will also have a similar proportion. And if it doesn't, you'll see a lot of 'fluff' ministers who's entire purpose is for window dressing and not actual work. Which is more degrading to women do you think? To be passed over by a man who is obviously more qualified for a position? Or to be picked over a man simply to be a potted plant for the PM? (at least Harper treats all his ministers - male or female - as potted plants) And most importantly, which is better serving the views of their representatives?

As for team building, individual merit is essential. Putting someone into a position simply because they are a woman or a minority hurts the team if that person is unable to meet the requirements of the job. Just as there are men who truly don't deserve to be in Cabinet, there are also women who don't deserve to be in Cabinet or who aren't the best choice for the job. You wouldn't hire a man to be a police officer if he couldn't meet certain physical requirements because that would endanger his safety and the safety of others. Reasonable accommodations can be made if the candidate brings certain other talents (ie. a police officer who can speak mandarin, since most mandarin-speakers tend to avoid police service).

Anyways, long response but to conclude, candidates, male or female who lack the political experience or another compensatory talent/skill should not be appointed. And if elected, they should not be put in Cabinet. The goal is to attract well qualified female candidates, not simply any female candidates.

As for Michelle Simson, she may be a Liberal hack, but at least she has political experience. In my mind then she meets my requirements, even if I think she has bad political ideas. (unless there was a better qualified female candidate out there)

Posted by: southernontarioan at August 20, 2007 02:38 PM

---

What I find really interesting is that our anonymous Liberal friend totally ignored:

(1) the shameful letter from Michelle Simson; and
(2) the letter from Shelly Goldstein asking for an apology from Ms Simson.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 20, 2007 02:55 PM

---

What a great victory for feminism! Just reading the rich creamy goodness that oozes from the politically correct media makes me feel good inside. The focus of the articles was on the number of women in cabinet, not on such things as ability, success in previous positions, or aptitude. No longer are women treated like objects, instead, they are counted as objects.

http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=7334

Posted by: DrWright at August 20, 2007 04:25 PM

---

Actually the cabinet has 7 women out of 31 (can't include the PM for this type of calculation) and 5 of 26 not including the Secretaries of State. 23% and 19% respectively.

I agree that the comparison to the corporate world is a valid one and the comparison to media outlets likely the most valid of all. Being that they "keep the government's feet to the fire" they look pretty hypocriticol reporting on the travesty of Harpers unbalanced cabinet when their boardrooms are even more unbalanced.

I've always thought a better comparison is to attempt to have the percentage of women in cabinet reflect the approximate percentage of women in the House. There are 64 women out of 308 seats or 21%.

Harpers cabinet is a pretty good ratio comparitively.

Posted by: at August 20, 2007 05:04 PM

---

I find it interesting that Anonymous thinks there is a difference between democratic and Canadian governments, otherwise why would he/she have specified "...those of the democratic/Canadian variety" instead of just using one term.

Posted by: Mike at August 21, 2007 09:53 AM

---

southernontarioan:

"The point I think Steve was trying to make anonymous is not that governments are equivalent to private businesses but as Dianne Ablonczy says, women don't tend to enter this line of work."

That’s a fair point as far as it goes, but I think it’s quite clear that “women don't tend to enter this line of work” mainly because politics and governance have been overwhelmingly male dominated pursuits for the overwhelming majority of human history. Our political system has evolved over the course of that history and thus it should come as no surprise to anyone that the system we have today is much better suited to the average man than to the average than the women. But the only way to correct this situation is to make an affirmative effort to ensure more women’s involvement in the system, helping to shape a political world that’s more inviting to women in the future.

“As well, I don't consider Toronto Star, CTV or Globe and Mail to be very Conservative friendly papers…”

I said many, not all (not that I think CTV is pro-Liberal, pro-NDP or pro-Green either. And--while we’re at it--The Globe and Mail, while very pro-Liberal, is also about as pro-Big Business as it gets).

“…consider Paul Martin's Cabinet, which has roughly the same proportion of women.”

100% correct. 110% pathetic, but 100% correct.

“Putting someone into a position simply because they are a woman or a minority hurts the team if that person is unable to meet the requirements of the job.”

Well, obviously. I know Conservatives would love to believe this is why women (and “minorities”) are not better represented in our country’s most powerful institutions, but it’s just not the case. You know how I know? Stephen Harper just proved it.

By Harper’s own standard, Carol Skelton was qualified to be in cabinet. In fact, the Conservatives hold 10 out of 12 Saskatchewan seats and Harper still chose Skelton to be the minister with political responsibility for the province. Skelton was bounced from cabinet because she’s not running re-election, and thus not of as much political value to Harper as someone else might be. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think it certainly proves that if Harper had made it a priority he could have had more--at least one more--women in cabinet (either by bouncing someone else or expanding the cabinet by one space).

Brian in Calgary:

I'm not a Liberal and I couldn't care less about Michelle Simson.

But since you’ve asked for my opinion…

The post above doesn't provide enough information for me, or any other honest individual, to make much of a judgment about Ms. Simson or the case in question.

First, we don’t know--from Steve’s post--what claims or accusations Frank Klees made in Question Period at Queen’s Park, and thus don’t know to what Ms. Simson was responding.

Second, part of Ms. Goldstein’s letter seems to validate two of Ms. Simson’s questions. Specifically, Ms. Goldstein writes “Ms Simson asks what Mr. Klees did for our family at the time of the Conservative provincial government. For the record, at that time, Mr. Klees came to Lori's assistance to help her get the out-of-country health care she required.”

This seems to suggest (again, all the relevant information is not provided in Steve’s post) that the Goldsteins’ inability to access adequate health care actually occurred--or at least began--while “the Conservative Party was at the helm of our province” and long before Klees decided “to ‘bushwhack’ the Liberals publicly in the legislature”.

Did Klees’ question in the legislature imply otherwise? Were there on going problems in the case (as Ms. Goldstein’s letter SEEMS to suggest)? Did Klees bring any such problems to the Health Minister’s attention in a non-political manner before raising it in question period? Was the health care system any more or less effective in ensuring quality care for Lori Goldstein under the Liberals than when Klees himself was on the government side of the House? What was Klees role in helping the Goldsteins to obtain care in the US? You know what? We don’t know.

From what I can glean from Steve’s post, Mr. Klees seems to be claiming that the Goldsteins’ case is an example of Ontarians’ inability to obtain adequate health care under the policies of the McGuinty Liberals (and possibly, given the US angle, that this demonstrates the “inferiority” of a single-payer health care system).

On the other hand, Ms. Simson seems to be suggesting that the Goldsteins’ problems with the health care system occurred, or at least began, while the Conservatives were in power. By doing so, Simson seems to be suggesting that Mr. Klees is cynically using this case to attack the McGuinty Liberals when, in fact, it is an example of Mr. Klees’ own party’s failures and the costs of the Chretien/Martin/Harris health care cuts.

Which is more accurate? I have no earthly idea, and--from this post alone--neither do you.

As for the rest of Ms. Goldstein’s letter, I am sure it is entirely accurate and forthright. I’m sure Mr. Klees did a fine job in helping the Goldsteins’ find the care they needed (as I would hope any MPP would have). However, that does little resolve the question of whether Mr. Klees, when he used the case as a political example, did so dishonestly.

Some may see the fact that Shelly Goldstein “took Klees’ side” as evidence enough that he’s in the right--without any need to think through the details--but c’mon. Klees helped Ms. Goldstein obtain health care for her desperately ill daughter; do we honestly think Ms. Goldstein cares about the political aspects of the case? No, of course she’s going feel to tremendous gratitude and loyalty to Mr. Klees. That’s only natural.

The only way we can reach any conclusion about this case (without more information) is if we assume Mr. Klees is right and Ms. Simson is wrong. That would make her a big moron. And a bit of a fool. But why would we assume that? You can see how that would just be stupid, right?

Posted by: at August 20, 2007 05:04 PM:

"Actually the cabinet has 7 women out of 31 (can't include the PM for this type of calculation)..."

Of course you have to include the Prime Minster. Yes, he's "automatically" part of the cabinet, but if the Prime
Minister were a woman would we not count her as part of cabinet's representation of women?

"... and 5 of 26 not including the Secretaries of State. 23% and 19% respectively."

There are five women minsters, but only if we count Marjory LeBreton as a full cabinet minister even though she has no actually executive branch portfolio other than as a Secretaries of State. There are still 32 cabinet positions.

Posted by: Mike at August 21, 2007 09:53 AM

I wrote "democratic/Canadian" because it is democratic governments that are "intended to understand and serve" their citizens needs and Canada--unlike some other democratic states--that is "large and diverse".

Posted by: Anonymous at August 21, 2007 07:00 PM

---

Anonymous:

I don't think conservatives believe that women in general are not able, but if fewer women choose a certain line of work then there are fewer qualified women available to choose from.

Harper's caucus has very few women in it. You can blame the individual constituencies for not searching hard enough for female candidates, or you can blame Harper for not encouraging women to run, either is fair. But nonetheless with fewer women in general in caucus, there is fewer qualified candidates to choose.

And my point about Martin's cabinet may be 'pathetic' but it illustrates the point that while Liberals may 'talk the talk' they hardly 'walk the walk'. In other words, criticism from the Liberals on this front is hypocritical because many of these same Liberals did not complain as vociferously (or at all) when they did the same thing. I'll accept criticism from an NDPer, but not from a Liberal or their supporters.

My only problem with Dion's quota system for female candidates is that I do not believe that quotas will be successful in attracting the best candidates for the job. For example, Windsor, Ontario has a large Chinese population, but the NDP MP is a white male. But he is married to a Chinese woman, giving him strong ties to the Chinese community and making him an effective voice for that community.

Although if you only considered his status as a 'white male' one could argue that because he is not a 'chinese male/female' he is not an effective representative of that community.

Carol Skelton was bounced because being in Cabinet can be seen as 'training' for future, more prominent roles (perhaps even leadership). So, it makes little sense to give someone training when you know they will quit in a year or two. Female or male.

Posted by: southernontarioan at August 21, 2007 07:22 PM

---

The whole idea that a woman should be sent to one of the most important jobs in this country simply because she is a woman is discrimination of the worst kind. Are women so inept that Dion feels that they simply cannot achieve on their own merit? Why does he feel that having boobies and no penis somehow makes one smart enough to make decisions for all Canadians? Going by Dion's way, we run the risk of having a lot of useless twits running around the HOC. I say women who want to be in politics should compete on merit just like everyone else. I'd personally be insulted if Dion felt I couldn't get to where I wanted to be on my own brain power. Geesh! L

Posted by: Leasa at August 21, 2007 07:27 PM

---