reduce the size of the federal cabinet ? How would we ever survive without the likes of J Couillard frolics etc ? Reduce if you can , but get some credible people with some ability to think and shut their big mouths at the same time !!!! Forget gender or representation or race please and get the best people for the job …what a novel idea !!!

I must admit…I am not thoroughly versed in the portfolios of all the federal cabinet posts (shame on me, i should be…there’s a task for this week) so i can’t comment intelligently on which ones to keep and which ones to cut…but i must say that i am in favour of the theory of finding the best PERSON for any of these jobs, demographics invisible. It begs me to ask…is it not ALSO discrimination when a candidate gets passed over by the process solely because someone else fits a demographic profile better?

I am reminded of a search I participated in for a new headmaster at my daughters’ all-girls school. The politically-correct majority involved in the hiring committee were hell-bent that it HAD to be a woman (the previous well-loved, retiring headmaster had been male)…the girls needed the role model, a woman would have a better understanding of the issues of girls, blah, blah, blah…well, the rest of us caved in, and in the end, the position did indeed go to a woman…who turned out to be a complete mismatch…one of the least respected and least effective headmasters in our entire duration at the school. The board, in the end, had to replace her, or face insurrection. Ironically…they replaced her with the MAN they passed over in the initial search, and who had been the very well-respected and effective vice principal for years. He is still running the school today. The school lost good staff, a large chunk of long-time financial support, and a lot of families just because they were more worried about the person getting the job than what this person brought to the job.

It makes me wonder how many times this has happened in the name of “fairness and equality” (which, if applied intelligently, can be good values) in our government. More waste, and missed potential, yet again; simply because good principles are misapplied without looking at the big picture. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that all regions and peoples should be well represented in government, but sometimes the best man for the job MIGHT just be the man, or the woman, or the Westerner, or the Easterner…but really, it matters more what their passion, experience and track record vis-a-vis the job are than their chromosomal makeup or where they’re from.

Step up on crime! Criminals get more protection than victims! Imigrants should become Canadians in the full sense!We are letting them get away with too much.

Oh, come on. This is Canada. Who is the best candidate for a job anywhere in the federal government (minsters or the bureaucrats) has very little to do with who actually gets it - a perfect example of one thing that is wrong with this country.

On a more positive note, Mr. Harper does have more candidates, and more capable ones with some actual real life experience and transferable skills, to fill various roles in cabinet.

If you’ve looked at any of the article links, actual kudos are due Jim Travers at the National Liberal Rag, er, Toronto Star.

I think one of the better examples would be Halton’s (Oakville) Lisa Raitt, former Chief Executive of the Toronto Port Authority. That experience should give her something more than a pure “junior” ministerial role.

I am not so concerned about the size of the cabinet for position elimination as I am the size of spending on the federal bureaucracy. How far would at least capping the size of the bureaucracy go towards keeping the federal budget balanced?

Diane Abloncsy for one-capable,smart,speaks to the point,by-passed for years.Not sure enough to vote for removal of a cabinet post.

I agree —excellent advice!!!Would help prevent useless unqualified cabinet ministers.

Give Cabinet Posts to competent & worthy people regardless of where they are elected.But as usual Harper(on the advice of his Chief Quebec advisor ,Mulroney ) will give a disproportionate number to the few he has from Quebec forgetting merit and competency completely.And to think I once thought he would be different?????

While I can’t say who should be promoted to the PM’s cabinet, I can surely recommend who should be removed and the agency along with with him.

Generations of Canadians have been denied full benefit from the fruits of their hard work and allowed to keep more of the money they earned honestly. Year after year, Canadians are presented with numerous indisputable reports from highly respected independent public policy organizations, taxpayer advocacies and economic think tanks that confirm how federal and provincial governments continue to financially hinder productivity, undermine international competitiveness and erode the standards of living – especially the lifestyles of middle and lower class citizens. In addition to taking spending power from the private sector, excessive taxation also distorts everyday decisions in a way that is neither desirable nor necessary. Furthermore, government spending on the protection of persons and property, one of the most important functions of government, has declined as a percentage of total spending.

Existing Canadian federal, provincial and local obstructionist government policies often impede the goals for a sustainable future. Excessive taxation (exaggerated expropriation of revenues) is the greatest impediment to sustainable future initiatives, innovation and development of new technologies, preparation and implementation. In many parts of Canada, especially Quebec, the exaggerated expropriation of corporate and personal revenues has imposed an inhuman burden of taxes on its citizens to the extent where Quebecers are the most heavily taxed people on the North American continent and people are increasingly incapable of meeting their financial responsibilities.

Any government that constitutionally gives itself unlimited “carte blanche” powers of taxation, if uncontested or allowed to proceed unabated, citizens will find themselves at levels of subsistence - in a world of financial apartheid where the affluent dominate and the lifestyles of middle and lower class citizens, as we know them today, is reduced to living in ghettoes.

Abusive taxation continues in Canada because citizens remain complacent while aware of these economic and social injustices that include morally unethical practices of a collection agency that creates impossible situations for people, imposes further debt, obstructs progress and intimidates citizens with bank account seizures. Complacency is the principle reason why a Canadian version of a “Boston tea party” is long overdue. So let’s all bid adieu to Revenue Canada and its minister.

Dalton makes some good points.

I would add to Dalton’s post that all Canadians feel that they have rights.

Too few Canadians also realize that they have responsibilities that go with those rights and that those responsibilities have to be upheld first.

Tell the feds to get real and get honest. Cabinet posts should always be filled by merit alone, not by some stupid social engineering affirmative action scheme. When the best man (woman) for the job is passed over because some politically correct idiot thinks gender or geography should take precedence over ability, the public is shortchanged. And my message to Prime Minister Harper is short and simple: Stop pandering to Quebec. Look how much good it did you in the last election. As for eliminating some Cabinet posts altogether, how about getting rid of all of them except those that represent only the legitimate activities of honest, limited government, like national defense? Most of the others are window dressing to buy the votes of dumb voters using their own money.

I sometimes wish we had the advantage of the American ystem–WHERE THE pRESIDENT CAN CHOOS his cabintet FROM a VERY WIDE SPECTRUM OF NON ELECTED SPECIALISTS.
Our system limits the selection to those who were successful running for office, and many of them get elected because of service to a particular riding –often in local politics ,a nd his qualities are not often of the world class specialists needed to run a federal governrment.
Just think in the previous election, Tony Clement was nearly beaten by a very local candiadate.

Diane Abloncsy - Diane Abloncsy - Diane Abloncsy!!!!

I vote for Ted Menzies for Minister of Ag. He is a hard working and knows ag insde out and he is from the west. We don’t need pandering MPs just because they are elected. International Trade is another most important ministry and of course Revenue and that’s about all we need. Let the market hum. I agree with the US system, getting the best people to head our Ministries but that’s a wish. Jason kenny can put out fires and let him teach others in Que. and NFDL. If they are successful reward them. We need the best people for the jobs no matter where they are from. If you don’t work or produce something in a day you don’t deserve to eat. unless you are ill.

I for one only vote for my local candidate because I have to in order to vote for Mr. Harper. My candidate has been elected in since the days of the Reform party but I cannot honestly say our constituency, the party or the country has benefited from it. I believe Mr. Harper feels the same way because this person has never been given a cabinet post. We have far too many “representatives” for our population, many of them useless baggage. It is not much wonder such a small portion of the citizen’s vote.

C. Northcote Parkinson wrote a classic little book in the 1950’s called ‘Parkinson’s Law’. In it he traced the evolution of various advisory/executive bodies, particularly in England from the Middle Ages onwards. He came to the conclusion that whenever such a body exceeds about 16 members it loses its effectiveness, simply because it is no longer possible for the members to discuss anything on an informal basis. Once you get more than about 16, the group is so large that people start making prepared speeches, while a few of the more senior members get together for lunch beforehand and make all the important decisions. On this basis, our Cabinet lost its effectiveness a long time ago, and has become little more than regional window dressing. Naturally, because nature abhors a vacuum, it has been superceded by the PMO. If the Cabinet is ever to become the principal decision-making body in Canadian government again, it will have to be pared down drastically. I suggest about 12 members would be a good target to aim for.