Alberta's new cabinet
Cabinet making is always a favorite topic for political watchers because it involves the balancing of a multitude of considerations and generally serves to define a leader's overall tone for her government. More than that though, the personal nature of some of the considerations involved (i.e. loyalty, perceived competence, competition to leader, etc.) means that the outcomes are also completely open to interpretation. Few people can actually speak authoritatively on the subject, but that doesn't mean many won't try. So in light of that, welcome to the Official AGRDT 'Alberta's new cabinet' post!
Today's cabinet looks a lot like the one before it with a few notable exceptions. There's more ministers (cabinet grows from 18 to 23), there's more urban representation (Calgary has six seats and Edmonton three, which compares to the three seats combined they had last time around) and there's more women (five new women - Mary Anne Jablonski, Cindy Ady, Heather Klimchuk, Alison Redford, and Yvonne Fritz - join the existing two female ministers - Janice Tarchuk and Iris Evans). The only other major changes include the creation of several "parliamentary assistant" positions and the switcharoo of Dave Hancock (now Education) and Ron Liepert (now Health). The mainstream media has a good run-down of the remaining changes to portfolio composition, etc. so I suggest you take a look at these.
I have quite a few thoughts on the new cabinet, so for your reading ease, I'll organize them into seven themes:
1. Best Move: A cabinet that looks more like Alberta
It drives me absolutely crazy when people instantly dismiss the argument that a Cabinet should look like the population it represents. Some people seem to think that second you suggest that not enough women or visible minorites have been appointed to cabinet, you must immediately ascribe to the idea that men can't represent women and white people can't represent non-white people. Not only is this notion problematic because it assumes there is a single women's or racialized minority interest, but it also obscures the actual basis for the desire for a representative cabinet.
Cabinet should be diverse because when a Cabinet is not diverse, (i.e. there are no or a disproportionate amount of "qualified" women, visible minorities, and other minority groups) then somewhere down the line there is a systemic barrier to those groups' full participation at all levels of Alberta's politics. As a person who thinks it's important that all members of Alberta's society have the opportunity to participate in it's politics, the absence of a loosely proportionate amount of women or minority groups is quite disconcerting.
That said, I have to give Stelmach props for recognizing the talent and qualifications of the five new women he appointed to Cabinet. Now if only, there was more than one non-white person around to demonstrate that there aren't systemic barriers to the people of color who make up eighteen percent of Alberta's population.
2. Worst Move: Groeneveld needs to be put out to pasture
This one probably reflects the soft spot I have in my heart for agricultural policy, but...for anyone out there who tries to make the diluted argument that cabinets are picked on the basis of qualifications, I have two words for you: George Groeneveld. His retention of the Alberta Agriculture portfolio has to be one of Stelmach's worst moves. I know Mr. Groeneveld has substantial experience in agriculture and with Alberta's Wheat Pool, but this man is far past his prime. If you don't believe me: watch question period. He spends more time searching through papers on his desk for his PAB written answers and his glasses then he does responding to the question. It's actually sort of painful to watch.
This sad situation contrasts sharply with other jurisdictions, like the EU, Oregon, and even Ontario, which are trying new reforms and innovative approaches to the production and marketing of food in their jurisdiction. Here in Alberta, the biggest news to come out of Agriculture last year was the Auditor General's revelation that up to $34 million a year was going to ineligible recipients of Alberta's farm fuel subsidy program, as the program or it's recipients had not been reviewed in ten years despite the government's own regulations that required a review every three years.
Honourable mention: Janis Tarchuk's retention of the Children and Youth Services portfolio. While I give her credit for being congenial to her opposition critics (this is a rare quality in Tory cabinet ministers, Hancock and (to an extent) Evans are the only others that come to mind), she has no clue what is going on in her department. Her inability to speak authoritatively about solutions to the appalling state of Alberta's foster care program and more generally, it's social infrastructure, or even to explain how her department didn't spend almost $31 million of its budget in 2006-07 and $25.9 million of federal child care money it received this summer in spite of massive child care space shortages, are prime examples of why Tarchuk should have been showed the door
3. Evans to Finance and Enterprise (I know, I think the new portfolio name is strange, too)
Although I disagree with her politics, views, and value systems, I think Iris Evans is an excellent MLA and cabinet minister. Her work ethic is notorious, and she does seem to care a lot about the work she does. I think it will be interesting to see what she can accomplish in the Finance and Enterprise Portfolio, here's hoping she can hold her own against this guy.
4. Rob Renner will continue to not accomplish anything in the environment portfolio
Maybe Stelmach should have placed Pierre Alvarez or one of the heads of Suncor or Enbridge in this portfolio instead. At least then something would move forward in this file. See here and here for more of my thoughts on this.
5. Hancock-Liepert Shuffle
This has the potential to quickly become Stelmach's worst move, if Liepert's behavior in Health is anything like his performance in Education. Liepert's attitude towards the ATA during their negotiations last year was divisive, dishonest, and down-right child-like. I don't think I've ever seen a grown man act like such a bully. Alberta would be looking at a province-wide teacher's strike right now, had it been up to him. If this is the approach Liepert is planning on adopting towards nurses and other health care professionals, expect him to cause more problems then he solves. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Dave Hancock is by far the most capable minister and given more time, would have likely come up with some innovative solutions to Alberta's health care challenges.
So what was Stelmach thinking? Liepert is seen by Tories as a hard-line fiscal conservative, not afraid to make deep cuts. Moreover, many Tories have openly complained about Alberta's "bloated" health care budget, and indeed, "increasing access to quality health care and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health care service delivery" is outlined today as one of the new government's five priorities. I wouldn't be surprised if Stelmach was looking to use some neoliberal measures to address Alberta's health care systems, and he sees Liepert as the henchman to do it. Will he go so far as to push for privatization? In the spectre of the disaster that was Bill 11, only time will tell. However, considering Stelmach was a member of the unfortunate episode in Alberta's history known as Deep Six, I can't say I would be surprised in the least if he took steps in this direction (for more on Stelmach's neo-conservatism check out Jeremy Klasuz's excellent article on, 'Ed Stelmach: the Forgotten Years.')
6. Ted "I hate gay people, and I don't really trust women, either" Morton maintains SRD
Just a reminder that this creep is still lurking around.
7. On parliamentary assistants...
Stelmach deserves some credit here for introducing the Westminister tradition of parliamentary secretaries to Alberta. While only time will tell how effective they are, they will hopefully solve one constant problem in Question Period. Namely, that under current practices when a minister is away, another minister is expected to answer questions on their behalf. This exercise is always a complete disaster, as no one knows who is supposed to be standing in for who, and the stand-in is never prepared. These exchanges always end with a vague promise to "pass the question along" and a minister's absence can work as a tactic for Tories looking to avoid confrontation (and media attention) over controversy in a specific portfolio.
Make sure you stay tuned tomorrow for a AGRDT Guy Boutilier send-off!
