Column: Ministers represent more than the people who elected them

By Shaun Kazem Ziai

Solving a Rubik’s cube isn’t easy for a beginner. However, once the method to the cube’s madness is discovered, it becomes a simple exercise in patience and concentration.

Like this popular brainteaser, it’s a straightforward assignment for an experienced political mind to piece together a coherent multi-faceted federal cabinet, which seems to reflect the diverse needs and values of Canadians.

A French-speaking minister here, a western minister there…

Unlike the Rubik’s cube, however, a simple formula that solves the puzzle of representing the country’s physical diversity cannot be relied upon to ensure each minister has the political will to represent the national interest, without regional bias.

In picking cabinet ministers the prime minister must consider these biases, which goes a long way in affecting the dynamic of any government.

In January’s cabinet shuffle the prime minister ignored some of the regional pressures facing his ministers.

This was partially due to Chrétien’s preoccupation with a number of political dilemmas.

Among them was the loss of Brian Tobin, the need to fulfill long-overdue promises to certain ministers, and the burden to act in a way that would not show favour to leadership hopefuls.

Chrétien was thus forced to base cabinet moves on political grounds, instead of an MP’s value to a given portfolio.

For instance, Chrétien was forced to shuffle Allan Rock from health to industry, in order to fulfill his long-overdue promise to give Rock an economic portfolio. Rock demanded such a move to round out his cabinet experience, and to boost his Liberal leadership aspirations.

Such decisions led to cabinet shifts, including Anne McLellan’s from justice to health.

This poses a potential conflict.

As an Alberta MP, McLellan will have to juggle the ever-growing pressure from her provincial government for health-care reform, while at the same time reflecting the federal government’s popular campaign promise to protect universal health care.

Perhaps McLellan’s inside knowledge of Alberta, where the fervour for health care reform is at a fever pitch, will allow her to deal with the issues in a more open and frank way, than former health minister Allan Rock.

Or, perhaps her experience in dealing with the controversial topic of gun control legislation further qualifies her to be a mediator between the federal Liberals and Alberta’s predominantly conservative population.

However, it is difficult to see how she could enforce the national interest, if it poses the risk of her being demonized by the ever-popular conservative government of Ralph Klein.

This is due to the fact that every election she finds herself in a dogfight just to hang on to her seat in Parliament.

She only won her riding of Edmonton West by 733 votes in the last election, edging out the Canadian Alliance candidate 21,978 to 21,245.

So far her response to the Mazankowski Report shows her to be taking these regional political considerations into account.

For example, in stark contrast to popular outrage during the last election over Canadian Alliance musings about privatizing health care, McLellan has opened the door to private hospitals.

This stance makes it clear that a regionally diverse cabinet does not guarantee a variety of Canadian views will be reflected in each portfolio.

This Rubik’s type approach to cabinet building must be avoided so that the national interest is not overshadowed by a small group of constituents who hold the key to a minister’s political career.