Category: Other

Prime Minister Paul Martin announced his cabinet yesterday. His ministers were sworn-in at Rideau Hall.

Here is a list of the liberal cabinet ministers and their responsibilities:

Paul Martin: Prime Minister
Jack Austin: Leader of the Government in the Senate
Stephane Dion: Environment
Ralph Goodale: Finance
Anne McLellan: Deputy prime minister, public safety and emergency preparedness
Lucienne Robillard: Intergovernmental Affairs
Pierre Pettigrew: Foreign Affairs
Jim Peterson: International Trade
Ujjal Dosanjh: Health
Andy Mitchell: Agriculture
Joe Volpe: Human Resources
Claudette Bradshaw: Human Resources (minister of state)
John McCallum: Revenue
Stephen Owen: Western Economic Diversification, Sport
Bill Graham: Defence
Reg Alcock: Treasury Board
Geoff Regan: Fisheries and Oceans
Tony Valeri: House Leader
Jean Lapierre: Transport
John Godfrey: Communities and Infrastructure.
Irwin Cotler: Justice, Attorney General
David Emerson: Industry
Joe Fontana: Labour
Judy Sgro: Immigration
John Efford: Natural Resources
Liza Frulla: Heritage
Scott Brison: Public Works.
Ken Dryden: Social Development
Tony Ianno: Families and Caregivers
Andy Scott: Indian Affairs
Joe Comuzzi: Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)
Albina Guarnieri: Veterans Affairs
Joseph McGuire: Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mauril Belanger: Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
Carolyn Bennett: Minister of State (Public Health)
Aileen Carroll: International Co-operation
Raymond Chan: Multiculturalism
Jacques Saada: Francophonie, Quebec Economic Development

Every time I look at a new Liberal cabinet, I swear that there must be about half of the liberal caucus sitting in the “front row”. There really are too many cabinet posts and many have been handed out either as a political reward or for the purpose of mending Liberal fences.

One might also find it ironic to see Scott Brison in cabinet. Not because he’s a turncoat Tory, but because he now represents the very ministry he so viciously railed against as an opposition MP.

The re-emergence of Reg Alcock is also puzzling. His declaration that the sponsorship scandal was a fraction of its actual size was a significant Liberal gaffe before the election. The civil service was also shook-up by Mr. Alcock, and by doing so, he suspended a problem rather than fixing it. The bureaucracy may not end up functioning as well as Mr. Martin may require in his minority government reality. But there he stays… Reg Alcock is the minister responsible for the Treasury Board.

The appointment of Ujjal Dosanjh to the Health portfolio moves Martin’s policy in this department to the left. Is this a pre-campaign measure to stake a clear difference on healthcare from the Conservatives?

Also, what’s Jean Lapierre doing in cabinet? Didn’t this separatist lose Quebec for the Liberals? Is he really going to help the Liberals break through in that province the next time around?

Hockey Star Ken Dryden also makes the starting line in his rookie year. Dryden is another example of how Martin is crafting a campaign cabinet.

I guess we’ll see how this one goes…

Perhaps a day late on my part, but yesterday Stephen Harper wrote an open letter to the National Council confirming that he will stay on as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Good for him and good for the party.

Stephen Harper ran a good and an overall positive campaign and should not be blamed for the 11th hour loss of the election. He has always put up a good fight against the Liberals on the issue of Liberal sponsorship dealings and was even fighting that battle long before Sheila Fraser’s report. His calm and professional campaign showed Canadians that while we weren’t granted the priveledge to lead, we were granted the responsibility of holding this new Liberal minority to account, and as a party we have been dubbed a government-in-waiting.

So kudos to Stephen Harper! This member is glad he’s staying on.

Here’s his letter:

July 19, 2004

Mr. Don Plett

President, National Council

Conservative Party of Canada

Dear Don:

This is to advise you formally of my intention to lead the Conservative Party of Canada through the next federal general election.

Since the federal election of June 28th, I have engaged in wide consultations in order to make a decision about my personal future in the best interest of the party and of our country. In the course of those consultations, I have detected no body of opinion in the caucus, in the party, or in the public at large that would seem to favour a leadership change at this time.

Broadly speaking, there is a consensus that our party has made rapid progress in a short period of time and has the capacity to make even more over the coming months. I want to lead that effort and ensure that the Conservative Party becomes the next government of Canada.

I am pleased to assure you also that this decision carries the unwavering support of my family, who understand what this renewed commitment will entail as we prepare for the next election.

In closing, please let me express my heartfelt thanks to you and to the rest of Council for the resounding support expressed to me in our meeting of July 7th and my genuine appreciation for the hard work you all continue to do on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Sincerely,

Stephen Harper, M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Michael Moore is an American filmmaker. I’ve seen Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine and I’ve even seen Canadian Bacon. Recently, I took in the matinee of Fahrenheit 911 on opening day and thus was one of the first Canadians to see the film.

Michael Moore made a film. Whether credible, half credible, or incredibly incredible doesn’t matter to me all too much because I am Canadian; I don’t vote in the United States, I vote in Canada. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I eat Heinz ketchup with my fries, yet I also watch Fox on occasion. Half of what I found entertaining about Fahrenheit 9/11 was the debate that I knew would ensue in the United States concerning this self-contained thesis on American policy. Bravo to Michael Moore for sparking debate and for presenting his argument. I thank him for his alternate view into his country’s politics.

So what was Michael Moore thinking when he started to talk about our politics?

“Reagan and Mulroney start to look good when you think about Bush and Harper”, Moore quipped weeks ago to, ironically, Ben Mulroney. Earlier in the day he addressed another crowd while he was promoting his movie here in Canada, “I really need you to make sure that Mr. Harper does not take over the prime ministership”.

This seems a little unfair, a little, say, none of his business. If I’m a guest in your home, I won’t tell you how to raise your kids. Did Michael Moore overstep his bounds?

Enter Kasra Nejatian, leader of the Ontario Campus Conservatives and a fellow Conservative here at Queen’s. Kasra’s site, www.chargemoore.com quotes Part 11, Division 9, section 331 of the Canada Elections Act:

No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election
period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or
vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person
is

a) a Canadian citizen; or

b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Did Michael Moore break the law? It’s not even debatable, it’s right there in black and white. The only counter argument that could be dug up by the news organizations that reported this story is “should we care?”

First, we must consider why this law is, in fact, on the books. “Prohibition — Inducement by non-residents” is the section title within the Act. It seems critical to prevent foreign interference into the very sacred process that is not only at the heart of, but rather bestows upon us our own national sovereignty. If a controversial American conservative came to Canada, during an election, and urged voters not to vote for the NDP there would be an equal, if not greater reaction against them.

The Liberals recently reformed the Elections Act to limit contributions by individuals to $5000 to cap influence by Canadian special interest groups so that the limit of their influence is only $5000. Granted, many Conservatives cried foul, but now inaction by the government towards monetary and indirect contributions (read: free coverage of one’s partisan opinion by media outlets) by foreign special interests (ie. Moore) would be absolutely hypocritical and would indicate the inherent bias in our political institutions. While one could argue the legitimacy of Canadian election gag laws against Canadians, there should be a national consensus against foreign interference. There cannot be a double stardard: we can’t gag the Canadians that we disagree with while applauding Americans who come to bat for our political party of choice.

Am I a Conservative? Yes. Am I a Republican? No.

Do I disagree with Moore about George W. Bush? It’s not relevant. However, I did find Moore’s connection of Bush’s dubious business connections to the Saudis very shocking. If Moore were to be accurate, he’d outline the dubious business connections that drive policy and government contracts (sponsorship) in this country. If Moore were to be fair, he’d stay out of our political process all together.