News

What exactly does a cabinet shake-up mean for Harper's government?

From the role the shuffle could play in an upcoming election to the possible reasons behind the new appointments, Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe's national affairs columnist, was online Friday and answered your questions.

Your questions and Mr. Simpson's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Simpson has won all three of Canada's leading literary prizes — the Governor-General's award for non-fiction book writing, the National Magazine Award for political writing, and the National Newspaper Award for column writing (twice). He has also won the Hyman Solomon Award for excellence in public policy journalism. In January 2000, he became an Officer of the Order of Canada.

He joined The Globe and Mail in 1974. His career with the newspaper began at City Hall in Toronto and with coverage of Quebec politics. In 1977, he became a member of the paper's Ottawa bureau, and eighteen months later he was named The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief. From 1981-1983, Mr. Simpson served as The Globe's European correspondent based in London, England. He began writing his national affairs column in January, 1984.

Mr. Simpson has published six books — Discipline of Power (1980); Spoils of Power (1988); Faultlines, Struggling for a Canadian Vision (1993); The Anxious Years (1996) and Star-Spangled Canadians (2000). His most recent book, The Friendly Dictatorship: Reflections on Canadian Democracy (2001), was nominated for the Donner Prize as the best book on public policy.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com writes: Thanks for anwering reader questions on this very interesting cabinet shuffle. A new year, a new cabinet, a new start. A guess that's what Stephen Harper is hoping for. Is removing Rona Ambrose from the environment portfolio enough? What will the Harper Tories do to convince Canadians that they are now guardians of the environment?

Jeffrey Simpson: Thank you for inviting me again to be on-line with readers.

Policies will dictate whether the Conservatives are seen as guardians of the environment. The best communicators in the world can't cover up the lack of something serious to communicate. But there is no doubt that the Harperites were caught unawares by the interest in environmental questions, especially climate change, and are now scrambling to develop something better than what they unveiled some weeks ago that was almost universally panned.

Ron White from Calgary Canada writes: Mr. Simpson, why Mr. Kenney over Diane Ablonszy, both Calgarians; the PM could have appointed another very competent woman to his table, any idea why not?

K Kennedy from Toronto writes: I guess the most obvious question for many is why didn't Harper bring on Diane Ablonczy to the cabinet, and perhaps more importantly, the environment portfolio where she was such an effective critic in opposition? Even though Harper may contend that Calgary had enough representation, he still chose to bring on Jason Kenney. I've known Ms. Ablonczy for many years dating back to her time as chair of the Reform Party and almost went to work for her myself a few years back. She strikes me as very competent and the complete opposite of the kind of ministers Harper chooses that kowtow to his every whim. It's most disappointing and yet revealing at the same time.

Jeffrey Simpson: Ron and K Kennedy: You're asking great questions. This cabinet is short of women. She's a talented one. I suspect that she's not going to run again, although that might have changed had she been appointed to cabinet. Kenney is a big social conservative, a better communicator that Ablonczy and has been a designated hit man with the multicultural groups. But I'm struggling for the answer, as you can see, to your excellent questions. See: columnists are not know-it-alls. A dose of humility is good for us. Readers are often smarter than we are, and we should remember that every day.

William Mayne from Markdale Canada writes: 'Marjorie LeBreton has taken on the additional resposibility of secretary of state for seniors.'

'In recognition of the growing importance of senior citizens in our country, I believe it is important to have an advocate, like Marjory LeBreton, to ensure that we are doing what we need to for those who have contributed to making Canada such a vital and strong country,' Harper said in a written statement.

If this is true, why did Harper show absolutely no compassion for the retirement incomes of seniors in his proposal for taxing income trusts?

Jeffrey Simpson: Income trusts had grown like topsy, beyond anything the government had imagined. They were a plague on the Canadian economy, even though many people had bought into them. The Lebreton appointment is designed to appease seniors. I hate to disillusion you, but groups always feel they need "their" ministers in a cabinet — youth, multiculturalism etc. In the way Ottawa works, these "their" ministers almost never have any real influence but they make interest groups and segments of the electorate feel better.

Michael M from Ottawa writes: Mr. Simpson, I am intrigued about the musical chairs involving Monte Solberg and Dianne Finley. HRDC is a bigger department with lots of money to allocate, so it would appear to be a promotion for Mr. Solberg and a recognition of his potential for greater things. What does it say about Ms. Finley, though, and the importance Mr. Harper puts on the immigration file?

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael: The first question I asked yesterday is the one you asked: Why the Solberg-Finley shuffle? Finley had been having some health challenges, but of all the portfolios in the federal government immigration has one of the heaviest workloads. The pressures from interest groups, pleaders, MPs etc is intense, relentless and thankless. Ask many urban MPs and they will tell you their largest constituency files, by far, are immigration-related ones. And given the nature of our system, way too many files end up as special pleading files on the ministers' desk.

R. M. from Regina Canada writes: Would it be fair comment to suggest that the Conservative government has achieved (purposefully it would appear) the least/lowest profile of and for Cabinet ministers in many years? And if you agree, what impact/implications that has for the nature of government and governing in Canada?

Jeffrey Simpson: R.M. I wrote a book four or five years ago entitled The Friendly Dictatorship about, among other things, the centralization of power in the prime minister's office under Chrétien. I have been around for 30 years or so, and nothing compares with the centralization under Harper. Everything runs through him. Period. Take a look at the government's big files. Climate change is now being run from PMO. Foreign policy from PMO. The mythical fiscal imbalance, from PMO. Etc.

Nick Wright from Halifax writes: Mr. Simpson: thanks for taking our questions. It seems that Mr. Harper feels that his only problem on the environment file is one of 'communication.' The Globe's Campbell Clark reinforces the point when he says that 'Mr. Harper's plan was to divert attention away from climate change by placing emphasis on more visible problems, like smog, but it was botched.' In other words, Rona Ambrose was replaced because she failed to sell the diversion to the voters or shout down the opposition parties. If Mr. Harper really hasn't moved beyond thinking he just needs to spin the environment as an issue, rather than tackling climate change head on, what do you think his chances are of becoming credible on this file before the next election?

Jeffrey Simpson: Nick: The Conservatives have in their caucus climate-change deniers. They have every seat in Alberta, the province with by far the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases and home to the oil and gas industry that has done everything possible to thwart serious action. And the prime minister was a skeptic. So the political judgment of the party was that climate change just wasn't that important. It was one of many environmental concerns, and less politically important that, say smog. Remember that the last Conservative platform was all about retail/tactile politics — things people could fell and see; that is, little bribes. Climate change can't easily be seen, because it happens incrementally. Moreover, previous Liberal governments had talked endlessly about climate change and done little, and it didn't seem to have hurt them. So the rather sudden increase in interest about the issue caught the Conservatives entirely by surprise. This very morning, I spoke to a senior Conservative adviser and he still didn't think the issue was that salient. So Ms. Ambrose was put into an impossible position: given a file for which the government was ill-prepared and asked to come up with something while public expectations were soaring. Her failure was that of the government. The shuffle and the new cabinet committee on the environment and energy security are belated admissions that the government underestimated the importance of the file.

Sasha Nagy:(A special treat, globeandmail.com's Executive Editor Jim Sheppard checks in from his holiday cruise…)

Jim Sheppard from Somewhere off the coast of Aruba writes: Hello, Jeffrey. Sorry I'm not there to torture you in person. I'll be diving near a sunken ship in Aruba tomorrow [Friday] while you are doing this discussion. Thanks for doing it, BTW. I'm curious about the potential political impact, anyway. As Mr. Harper said, this doesn't seem to be an election-ready shuffle. Is he really ready to go to the polls on this cabinet? Or does he think the opposition is not serious about bringing down his government in the next few months? I'll look forward to reading your reply when I'm back on the ship.

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim: For those reading this online or later, this email is from my torturer — the on-line editor of The Globe — who is off enjoying the sun while I toil in cloudy, foggy, drizzly — and warm — Ottawa. Nobody knows when an election will be held. Anybody who says he or she does is bluffing. You re-arrange your cabinet for all eventualities. I don't see any other big changes he could have made to have produced a more election-ready cabinet. Our distinguished editorial writers griped this morning that he should have moved Bev Oda from Canadian Heritage. Elections are never decided on the kinds of issues she deal with. The writers also wanted Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister, moved. But the issue there is Afghanistan, and as with all other major matters, that's run politically out of the prime minister's office. Cabinet shuffles almost never change the political fate of a government, especially one as centered on the prime minister as this one. This government will rise or fall on One Man. Period.

Cory MacDonald from Toronto writes: Jeffrey. I know that the conventional wisdom is that Rona's move to Intergovernmental Affairs is a good fit. I'm not so sure. I know she has some civil service experience in intergovernmental affairs, but its very low level experience. At the same time she has not shown herself to be particularly adroit at handling hot button files. Quebec's place in Canada is still the quintessential 'hot button'. Stephane Dion was a very successful Intergovernmental Affairs Minister under the Chretien government and her french is said to be just 'passable'. Do you think this move will backfire for the Harper government?

Jeffrey Simpson: Ms. Ambrose was in inter-governmental affairs while a mid-level civil servant in Alberta. That is actually bad training for playing a national role. I spent quite a bit of time with her when she first arrived in Ottawa talking about fed-prov relations. She was very provincialist, carrying that Alberta perspective. But, look, it doesn't matter. Mr. Harper runs federal-provincial relations. Period. She won't have much to do, frankly.

Ross Smith from Toronto writes: John Baird's most recent public act was to intervene in the Nation's Capital's plans for a light rail transit line, and was arguably responsible, not only for its unfortunate death, but also for the election of an inexperienced mayor who ran on a platform opposing LRT. Is this his reward for his untoward behaviour? And how are we to have confidence in a Minister of the Environment who doesn't support green technology, particularly in a sprawl-obsessed, transit-poor city like Ottawa?

Thanks for your always thoughtful and provocative ideas. Ross

Jeffrey Simpson: Ross: There is frankly nothing in Baird's career as I have observed it that suggests he has any particular record in environmental protection, including his interference in the Ottawa mayoralty — an interference that was all about assisting the Conservative (Larry O'Brien) defeat the incumbent Liberal Mayor. O'Brien won and, predictably with someone who has no government experience, it's now amateur night at City Hall in Ottawa.

Sasha Nagy writes: Wajid Khan's rumoured crossing over to the Conservatives has just been announced. Can you give us your thoughts on the significance of this defection?

Jeffrey Simpson: Wajid Khan will disappear after the next election. He signed up several thousand Muslims and won the Liberal nomination in a safe Liberal seat. The Liberals will nominate another Muslim against him, and he will likely lose. It gives a government a visible minority presence that it lacks, so in the short term this is good, and it balances a little the optics of a government that had pretty much handed its Middle East policy over to the Canada-Israel committee.

Steven Hobbs from Calgary writes: It seems to me that the Tories are living up to their promises on the Justice portfolio thus far. So is the shuffle of Vic Toews to Treasury Board viewed as a reward? Or is Nicholson being placed in Justice to actually move all the bills through the House since he must have been politically saavy enough to be House Leader?

Jeffrey Simpson: Steven: The Conservatives' justice measures won't change, just the salesman. Nicholson is a smoother presence that the flintier Toews. Remember, though, that for the Conservatives to spend all the money they want in the forthcoming budget, there have to be cuts somewhere. Flaherty, the finance minister, announced an expenditure review in his economic statement — hopefully a more coherent one than the last one that Baird presided over — so maybe Toews as Treasury Board president will have an important, low-profile role to play in cutting spending.

Ida Richards from Edmonton writes: What are the qualities (education, experience,personal traits etc.) needed in a Cabinet Minister? That said, does Mr. Harper have any real /potential stars among his M.Ps ? Thanks.

Jeffrey Simpson: Ida: Cabinet ministers who are successful come in all shapes and sizes. There is no rule. Obvious desirable qualities are intelligence, hard work, honesty, communications skills, political savvy, team-building. There can't be, by definition, any real stars in a government run as obsessively by the centre as this one — except for the prime minister himself.

John Elliott from Rainy River ON writes: As a senior who suffered somewhat from the Conservatives action on income trusts, I am so heartily sick of being lied to by politicians of all stripes, I am in a quandry of knowing who to support. It's certainly not the present government, probably not the Liberals, and definitely not the fringe. I really appreciate the great country we have and the privileges we enjoy. Why are we electing such a bunch of lying goof balls? Is it time to resurrect Preston Manning?

Jeffrey Simpson: John: There are lots of angry seniors like you over the income trust "lie." You won't obviously agree with me: they did the right thing after promising the wrong thing in the election campaign.

Party Whips can pay M.P.'s if you demand loyalty and silence from Kincardine Canada writes: Thank you for taking my question.

Can you explain what is with Harper's fixation on Democratic renewal by focusing on the Senate? Your books seem to indicate that you believe there is room and need for real democratic improvements elsewhere.

Jeffrey Simpson: No actually in my last book I called for an elected Senate based on proportional representation: the Australian model. I also called for a Senate with four tiers of seats, not equal, but closer to it than today's Senate. The trouble is that if you go the Harper route, there will be a hybrid Senate; but the trouble with going for complete reform is that, given the nature of constitutional change in Canada, it will not happen.

Ranald Walton from Hamilton Canada writes: This cabinet shuffle demonstrates to me, just how important our new government considers environmental issues. At the very least, it represents a real effort by this government to put a lot of effort and resources in to this long-neglected area. On a related topic, I was hoping Mr. Simpson could comment on how risky he believes Mr. Dion's strategy of focusing on the environment is, given the very poor record Canada had during the years Mr. Dion was in government and specifically when he was Minister of the Environment. Doesn't focusing on the environment now, just highlight the Liberal governments' poor record in this area and make the first tentative steps of the new government look even more positive?

Jeffrey Simpson: Ronald: You're right. The Liberal record was very poor. I have just finished writing a long book chapter about it for a book I am co-authoring on climate change. There was nothing good about it. So obviously the Conservatives will throw this in the Liberals' faces. The only thing, however, worse than the Liberal record was the position taken by the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance that largely denied global warming was a problem, quoted every scary prognostication from the energy industry and Big Business and generally lined up with Big Oil. The Conservatives, pre-election, didn't consider the issue very important, and have been caught by surprise. They inferentially admitted as much with what they did this week. Now we shall see what emerges. My sense is that people will forget what the Liberals did not do, and focus instead on what each party now proposes to do, and which one has the most credibility on the issue.

Maatje Piket from Prince Rupert writes: Good Morning Jeffrey and Happy Political New Year to you ... I was very interested to see John Baird assigned to the Environment Portfolio. I had a hunch that this was going to happen and don't know if that feeling was shared by others. John Baird and NDP's Nathan Cullen (my NDP MP and Environment Critic) were spotted in very chummy conversations at the Liberal Leadership convention and were very busy little bees, doing what they could to create mischief there.

Given the unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the NDP - what strategy do you think they will try to come up with to at least 'look good' to public given that right now on the environment platform, it is the Liberals and the Green Party who have the momentum on the environment portfolio. Can they, will they, come up with credible plans to deal with carbon emissions and global warming? Thanks in advance for your insights.

Jeffrey Simpson: Maatje: Nice to hear from that beautiful part of Canada. As I shall try to explain next week in columns, replacing Ambrose with Baird in and of itself won't do anything unless the Conservatives face this unalterable fact: regulations and taxes have to be used to tackle this problem. Volunteerism, subsides and exhortations will not work, ever! Unless the Conservatives are prepared to force — and I mean force — changes from the energy industry (meaning the oil, gas and coal industries principally located in Alberta), then there will be window-dressing but no substantive policy change.

Irving Nyman from Toronto writes: What does Harper intend for his international priority?

Jeffrey Simpson: Irving: Well, the prime minister keeps saying that one of his priorities, and one of the things he is most proud of having accomplished, is re-invigorating Canada's presence in the world. Where? The Afghan commitment was made by the Liberals and is now reinforced by the Conservatives. The defence budget is going up, but it will take years to recruit more people, train them, and then bring new equipment on line. The aid budget hasn't gone up. In the billion-dollar expenditure cuts announced last year, Foreign Affairs got hit. We're trying to get along a little better with the Bush administration, and that might have helped with the softwood lumber deal. But I don't think that's what the prime minister is talking about. Frankly, it beats me what he means, apart from political rhetoric which is the lifeblood of this town. It's hard to see where focus lies. I mean, we irritated the Turks with the recognition of the Armenian "genocide," then when cooler heads prevailed the government did a volte-face and accepted the Turkish ideas for dealing with this matter. We've irritated the Chinese but are now sending ministers over there rather belatedly. Our grade policy is stuck in neutral. We oppose progress in the multilateral round to protect our supply-managed farmers, and we haven't got anything interesting going on bilateral deals. The PM refused to meet European Union officials because he was scared they'd beat us up over climate change. I mean, if this is a "new" and forceful foreign policy, it's hard to figure out.

Sasha Nagy writes: Jeffrey. Thanks for joining us, I think our time is near an end. Any final comments? I am interested in some of the ministers left standing. What about Stockwell Day and Peter Mackay for example. How do you assess their performance. After the many gaffes that pair has made over the years, suddenly they seem so … stable.

Thanks again.

Jeffrey Simpson: Day hasn't gotten the government into trouble. He's learned to work hard, keep his head down and avoid saying silly things. Good for him. As for Mackay, he's not a player. He doesn't know foreign policy, which is being run out of the Prime Minister's Office anyway. For Canada's foreign policy under Harper, please see my previous answer. It's been hard to fathom.

Thanks for reading.