News

While most normal folks were talking about the weather or the potential for a liquor store strike in Toronto, political junkies were fixated on a different subject. There were not one but two cabinet shuffles in provincial governments yesterday.

In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded to the departure of Michael Bryant for the City of Toronto last month. This precipitated a small reorganization of the cabinet that consolidates responsibility for the economy in a lot fewer hands.

Since forming a government in 2003, the general direction has been to fragment responsibility for the economy among more and more ministers. First, McGuinty created the new Ministry of Research and Innovation in 2005, hiving that off from Economic Development and Trade. Later, he broke off a new Ministry of Small Business, and last year McGuinty split Economic Development and Trade into two separate departments.

The theory behind these moves was that adding more pro-business voices to the cabinet table, more salespeople for Ontario and more ministers focused on the economy would create more action and better results.

While the multiplicity of economic ministers did achieve results, it also created a diffusion of responsibility, making it hard to get all of the civil servants who worked for these various new departments running in the same direction.

So today, we see three departments – Economic Development, Trade and Small Business – merged back into a single department with a single strong minister, Sandra Pupatello, at the head.

However, the Premier took a different direction with the other new economic department formed under his watch. The Ministry of Research and Innovation has been a success story, cultivating new companies based around cutting edge technology. Rather than collapse that department into a super-ministry, the Premier kept it as a stand alone department, but reporting to John Milloy, who already has the portfolio of Training, Colleges and Universities.

This move links the public-sector research undertaken primarily within Ontario’s universities with the private-sector innovation champions by MRI. That should lead to better commercialization of the ideas generated by Ontario scholars.

Politically, the move places Milloy – who represents Kitchener, home of RIM and a growing high-tech cluster – in the position of champion of his home town’s booming research economy.

The Premier made another smart policy move that also pays off politically by moving responsibility for forestry from the Ministry of Natural Resources to Northern Development. This puts the two pillars of the Northern Ontario economy, mining and forestry, together in one super-department. It also ends the practice of having MNR act as both advocate for the forestry sector, but also its regulator. While the details are still being sorted out, it appears the new Ministry of Northern Development, Mining and Forestry will be the advocate, while MNR will continue to act as regulator.

The move also pays off political because it positions Mike Gravelle as a regional champion at a time when seats like his in Thunder Bay are imperiled by a worldwide collapse in demand for forestry products. While it is a double-edged sword to have the minister responsible also represent ground zero of an embattled industry, Gravelle’s increased profile and ability to help transition Thunder Bay’s economy should pay off in 2011.

The single best move in the shuffle was putting John Wilkinson into Revenue. While on paper the move looks like a demotion, in reality, McGuinty is placing the most critical file in his government in Wilkinson’s hands: the sale-tax harmonization.

The Stratford MPP could sell Maple Leaf tickets in Montreal. For instance, check out the personal video on the website for Wilkinson’s former department, MRI. It will take a full time Minister to explain to the public why harmonized sales taxes and lower income taxes will translate into more jobs.

Finally, the folksy Ted McMeekin moves from the technocratic Ministry of Government Services to the folksy Ministry of Consumer Services. The technocratic number-cruncher Harinder Takhar moves from the folksy MCS to the technocratic MGS. That’s simply a matter of matching like with like.

The obvious thing that comes out of the Ontario shuffle yesterday is that there is more to come. There are rumours of two ministers stepping down to run for mayor of their respective cities. There are several deserving backbenchers who will likely get a promotion. There are some ministers who may not choose to run again.

It is a safe bet that there will be another shuffle as soon as late this year, but a certainty there will be at least one more before the election in 2011.

If McGuinty’s shuffle was a calm and stately mid-term tweek, Shawn Graham’s shuffle in New Brunswick was a whole-scale overhaul.

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham speaks to reporters after his address to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 9, 2009.

The entire front-bench seemingly took one seat over. Health, Finance, Business, Environment, Education and Justice all changed ministers.

While there are good reasons for the changes in isolation, the overall impact will likely be a government on hiatus for the summer as most of the senior departments are consumed with simply briefing their minister and the business of state moves to the backburner.

However, Graham’s government is purposefully moving from its “get results at any cost” first half to the “consolidate and moderate for re-election” second half of their first term. A whole sale shuffle at that time is not uncommon and typically needed as the minister who won the battle might not be the one to win the reelection war.

Shuffles are very difficult, and the temptation is always there to move people simply to provide the illusion of action.

Generally, first ministers should start from a premise of “first, do no harm.” Shuffles are inherently bad: they cost time and energy, they create short-term political challenges, and large ones can shut down the business of government for weeks on end. Shuffles should start with a position of minimal change and work up.

First, the premier or prime minister needs to know who is running again. He should meet one-on-one with all the ministers to give them basic feedback on how they are doing and their intentions in the next election. Obviously, they are going to want to hold off showing their cards until the last possible moment, but the first minister will need to put them on the spot and exact a pledge to run again from them. There may be others who he will want to ease into retirement. The one-on-one meetings will also allow the first minister to gauge his thoughts about each one in sequence.

Second, take a hard look at the cabinet and see if anyone who should be removed. Some people are excellent constituency representatives or party organizers, but not made for the managerial demands of a cabinet portfolio. They can contribute more in a different role.

Those two questions will help him or her see if there is the ability to make the cabinet smaller over all. Cabinet always grow over time. There are lots of good people and only so many seats. But tough times often call for a message of restraint, and making cabinet smaller is a good itself, as Darrell Dexter in Nova Scotia touted last week.

Third, are there any backbenchers who must go in, for talent, demographic or regional reasons? Ideally, no one goes in as the cabinet always too big already.

Fourth, are there any ministers whose duration in the same portfolio begs for a move? After years in one spot, the relationship between the minister and stakeholders can become strained, and the minister can simply run out of gas. A change is as good as a holiday, in some cases.

Fifth, are there intractable stakeholder relationship breaks that would require a shuffle to fix? Did labour negotiations or critical policy changes create too much history to allow an incumbent to improve relations with a key constituency?

Sixth, are there any ministers overburdened by their role? If so, can their role be lightened? For instance, by adding a Revenue Minister, Premier McGuinty freed his Finance Minister to focus exclusively on the fiscal situation, rather than selling tax policy changes.

Seventh, are any ministers taking on new political responsibilities? Campaign, party or fundraising commitments should be taken into account when considering capacity.

Eighth, are there any ministers with capacity to take on more duties within their existing portfolio? If so, then they could be assigned cross-ministry projects without shuffling. An example would be adding another ministry to John Milloy’s responsibilities, putting more on the plate of a smart young minister with lots of talent and capacity.

Ninth, are there any key constituencies who are not represented in cabinet? By this, I mean stakeholder constituencies like unions, home builders, environmentalists or business leaders. Do they feel they have a champion around the cabinet table, and if not, do you need to assign them one?

Last, what message does the first minister want to send? Messages in vogue these days include “more women,” “new blood,” “taking action on the economy,” or “leaner cabinet for leaner times.” Graham sold his shuffle as ending the growing polarization in the province, while McGuinty focused on using the changes to sharpen the focus on the economy and competitiveness.

After these ten questions are answers, shuffles tend to be relatively straightforward matters to work out. Hopefully, they are also small and do no harm.