Harper & the Gender Gap

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a sweeping cabinet shuffle Thursday, appointing Jim Prentice as environment minister while handing key positions to rookie women MPs.

Three female MP rookies have been given key posts: Lisa Raitt at natural resources, Leona Aglukkaq at health, and Gail Shea at fisheries.

Meanwhile, Cannon has been named as Canada's new foreign affairs minister.

Replacing Cannon as transport minister will be John Baird, who served most recently as environment minister.

Harper also named Tony Clement as the new industry minister.

Certainly an improvement on women in higher cabinet positions.

MERGED THREAD by moderator

This was the Opening Post of a thread entitled: Harper showcases women, rookies in new cabinet now merged into this previous active discussion. All posts from both threads have been preserved in chronological order.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[normanchateau]

Harper also deserves praise for who he chose not to put in Cabinet.

There had been much media speculation that John Weston, who took the riding formerly held by John Reynolds, would be appointed to Cabinet. Both Harper and Weston are Evangelical Christians who share a number of social conservative beliefs.

A 2005 column in The Globe and Mail reported that Weston wrote an article for the Christian Legal Fellowship website where he explained that what distinguished his law firm from other firms where he had worked was "the regularity and informality of prayer practiced by the partners."

A lawyer working for a firm whose partners are regularly on their knees praying seemed like a natural choice for Harper. But Harper resisted and for that he deserves praise.

[Mr.Canada]

Evangelical Christians are not Fundamental Christians like in the US. Many people think that the are one and the same. They aren't evil or anything. Evangelicals are just a branch of Protestantism. No big deal.

EDIT- Any true Christian group is pro life and against gay marriage and the rest of it. These groups just hijack a sect of Christianity and scripture to meet their needs.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[fellowtraveller]

Chretien is a Catholic.

I guess that means for 13 years the country was run from the Vatican.

It is interesting how some people try and try to make a mans religion as somehow defining his actions as Prime Minister. That viewpoint is so totally American in concept......

[maldon_road]

Chretien is a Catholic.

I guess that means for 13 years the country was run from the Vatican.

It is interesting how some people try and try to make a mans religion as somehow defining his actions as Prime Minister. That viewpoint is so totally American in concept......

No more than Harper allows his religious beliefs to seep into his politics. Ever since he became leader of the CPC he has made it clear that he will not try to restrict abortion. He's keeping politics and religion separate.

[Mr.Canada]

Chretien is a Catholic.

I guess that means for 13 years the country was run from the Vatican.

It is interesting how some people try and try to make a mans religion as somehow defining his actions as Prime Minister. That viewpoint is so totally American in concept......

Chretien is against abortion and gay marriage privately as a Catholic but has said that a PM must sometimes put aside his personal beliefs for the betterment of the country.

[drewski]

I question the new Health Minister. I wonder if she was put there so she could fill an Inuit AND female quote Harper had in mind. She's a newbie MP and while she was minister of health in Nunavut, there is a huge difference in scale between health there and the ministry across the country

[Mr.Canada]

I question the new Health Minister. I wonder if she was put there so she could fill an Inuit AND female quote Harper had in mind. She's a newbie MP and while she was minister of health in Nunavut, there is a huge difference in scale between health there and the ministry across the country

I'd like to see her in Indian Affairs. To perhaps give First nation people some faith.

[M.Dancer]

She's a newbie MP and while she was minister of health in Nunavut, there is a huge difference in scale between health there and the ministry across the country

Agreed. It's a lot worse up north.

[Argus]

A lawyer working for a firm whose partners are regularly on their knees praying seemed like a natural choice for Harper. But Harper resisted and for that he deserves praise.

I gather, then, you would be opposed to putting any Muslims into cabinet.

[Topaz]

The main thing now is when they are in the House and in question period HOW they will answer questions asked of them. If you have watched question period you are aware of how immature the answers were. I hope with "fresh faces" the smart mouth answers will go away.

[Argus]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Certainly an improvement on women in higher cabinet positions.

Phtt. I hate pandering. You appoint women when they are qualified, not because you want to say you appointed women.

This cabinet is too big. Why did he need 7 more cabinet ministers?

[Argus]

The main thing now is when they are in the House and in question period HOW they will answer questions asked of them. If you have watched question period you are aware of how immature the answers were. I hope with "fresh faces" the smart mouth answers will go away.

Will the smart-mouthed questions go away? I rather doubt it. If you ask a question which includes a sixty second prelude filled with accusations and insults you should expect the answer to be somewhat tart.

[jdobbin]

Phtt. I hate pandering. You appoint women when they are qualified, not because you want to say you appointed women.

That's fine and well. Since the Tories seem to have a tin ear on a lot of issues women find important, they should find qualified women to run and appoint.

This cabinet is too big. Why did he need 7 more cabinet ministers?

You won't have any disagreements from me that the cabinet is too big. Guess they didn't want to ditch some ministers despite their so-so performance.

Minister of state for Democratic Reform = make work project in my opinion.

[drewski]

The main thing now is when they are in the House and in question period HOW they will answer questions asked of them. If you have watched question period you are aware of how immature the answers were. I hope with "fresh faces" the smart mouth answers will go away.

with Van Loan now in Public Safety, I'd imagine he'd be out as Government Leader in the House which should help

[normanchateau]

I gather, then, you would be opposed to putting any Muslims into cabinet.

No, only those who who get down on their knees regularly in their office to pray like CPC MP John Weston.

Rahim Jaffer is a Muslim but he has the intelligence not to get down on his knees sniffing the floor numerous times per day to receive his promised virgins in heaven.

[normanchateau]

No more than Harper allows his religious beliefs to seep into his politics. He's keeping politics and religion separate.

Oh really? Then why did he vote against Bill C-250 if not because he's a religious nut?

[Mr.Canada]

Oh really? Then why did he vote against Bill C-250 if not because he's a religious nut?

LOL, now where dragging up votes from 2003?

Wow the pool must be empty.

That bill would prevent anyone from printing anything that says they don't support homosexuality. It limits freedom of speech which is wrong.

Not only that but it would have blocked the ability to report the amount of STD's the gay community as whole suffer from in comparison to the rest of normal society.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[normanchateau]

That bill would prevent anyone from printing anything that says they don't support homosexuality. It limits freedom of speech which is wrong.

Then why is Harper in favour of hate speech legislation as it pertains to race, ethnicity or gender? Why does he only oppose it when it relates to homosexuality?

If Harper merely opposed it because he's a defender of free speech, why would he not oppose all hate legislation? He only opposes lergislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. He has no problem with legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of Christians and Jews.

[jdobbin]

I guess this is the new cabinet thread.

There has been some talk about how Lawrence Cannon will be a good Foreign minister. I can't disagree. I just wonder if Harper will give him some breathing room.

Cannon is one of the few Red Tories Harper has and I am wondering if he will be more of an advocate for Canada and Canadians abroad as well as carving out a policy direction suitable for the 21sy century.

[Mr.Canada]

Then why is Harper in favour of hate speech legislation as it pertains to race, ethnicity or gender? Why does he only oppose it when it relates to homosexuality?

If Harper merely opposed it because he's a defender of free speech, why would he not oppose all hate legislation? He only opposes lergislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. He has no problem with legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of Christians and Jews.

Cite me some references where groups in Canada have openly printed texts calling for the mass murder of homosexuals.

I learn that from M.Dancer.

[Mr.Canada]

I guess this is the new cabinet thread.

There has been some talk about how Lawrence Cannon will be a good Foreign minister. I can't disagree. I just wonder if Harper will give him some breathing room.

Cannon is one of the few Red Tories Harper has and I am wondering if he will be more of an advocate for Canada and Canadians abroad as well as carving out a policy direction suitable for the 21sy century.

The news I've been hearing, reading and watching has been saying that our PM is loosening his grip and is going to concentrate on the bigger issues and let the smaller ones be handled by the ministers the issue involves. Which will be nice for a change I'll admit.

I didn't like the Putin like control he exhorted over his caucus either. Some control is necessary obviously but not too much.

[Bryan]

Minister of state for Democratic Reform = make work project in my opinion.

Not necessarily. That is a subject that was a central pillar of The Reform Party. It's one of the things they had to put on the back burner to get the PCs to sign on to the new party. Since electoral reform is such a hot button issue right now, and senate reform is something that Harper himself has brought back to the forefront, I think having this as a separate ministry is appropriate at least temporarily.

Steve Fletcher is a Reform/Alliance guy, and an incredibly ambitious hard worker, so he won't be just paying lip service to the title. If there is a chance for even incremental improvements in our system, Fletcher is the guy to do it.

Besides that, I think expanding cabinet in general is appropriate on a temporary basis at this time. Give the ministers whose portfolios are most directly involved in economic considerations for the country a more streamlined task list to concentrate on, and let other keeners work on the tasks that are more social than fiscal. If anything, they probably could have done a little bit more of this, as long as it was short term.

The one change I'm most happy with is Prentice out as Industry Minister. I don't doubt his integrity or sincerity, but he was simply out of touch with the issues involved with the copyright legislation he was trying to bring forward. I think Clement will be more sympathetic to the personal property issues involved in this legislation, and that Prentice's tough approach will be more appropriate in environment (a portfolio that has had two weenies in a row).

More women is a good thing. Harper has more qualified women than he has places to put them right now. It also has the nice effect of cutting off any attempt by the Liberals to try to claim to be the party of women in the next election.

One big mistake, IMO, is keeping Strahl at Indian Affairs (why has that portfolio not been renamed to something more appropriate yet?). There are several strong aboriginal Conservative MPs, should have made a change here.

[normanchateau]

Cite me some references where groups in Canada have openly printed texts calling for the mass murder of homosexuals.

Nice try but hardly a response to my questions. Harper opposed C-250 either because he's a social conservative and religious nut.

[Mr.Canada]

Nice try but hardly a response to my questions. Harper opposed C-250 either because he's a social conservative and religious nut.

EDIT-This is from 5 years ago, this vote.

Cite me some reference please otherwise your statement is baseless and should be disregarded by the fine people reading this forum.

His spending and budgets don't really mesh with him being a social conservative since becoming PM.

As I said any and every branch of normal Christianity believes gays are committing sins if they have sexual contact with a person of the same sex. Since about 70% of Canadians are Christians I guess 70% of Canadians are religious nuts by your observation.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada