02-26-2019, 04:39 PM
(02-26-2019, 04:23 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: ...A notable exception that comes immediately to mind for me was Chagger who I was genuinely concerned about given her lack of experience with either small business or tourism. Given that she moved on from her Ministry to become the Leader of the Government in the House - a pretty important position - I'm not aware of any particularly egregious failures.
That question ("are they filling quotas or are there good candidates who aren't white men?") continues to be a talking point not because it's proven to be valid in Trudeau's cabinet (or in any of the other places that it's used), but because it's a useful tool to cast aspersion onto candidates who come from backgrounds outside the historic norm. If you assume that any white male candidate is qualified without evidence, you should assume that the same is true for anyone else and if there is anyone else you're concerned about you should focus on their specific lack of qualifications, not the fact that you think they're filling a quota...
Hey- it seems to me that this is directly related to the title of the thread!
I think that, in 2015, it was disturbing to some that Trudeau made the commitment to a gender-balanced cabinet before he knew what talent pool he would have to draw from. Most MPs elected in the past have been male. Parliament is not gender-balanced. Would he have been able to achieve a gender-balanced cabinet if his caucus wound up being 75% male? To what lengths would he have gone? I think these were the types of concerns.
That's less of a concern now that his cabinet has functioned for four years with no serious issues (that's a matter of opinion). Also, when a party wins nearly 200 seats and does a good job of continuing to try to recruit experienced female candidates in winnable ridings, those misgivings become less credible.