# General versus Economist



## Edward Campbell (2 Mar 2006)

I have harped on this more than a few times in the past year or so.  There is a deep mistrust and lack of respect held by the bureaucratic _centre_ (PCO, Finance, Treasury) about and towards DND – both military and civilian components.

Traditionally and constitutionally public servants, despite their specific jobs in specialized departments are all expected to be loyal to and to work in pursuit of the policies and priorities of the elected government of the day.  Thus a manager in Energy, Mines and Resources and a policy analyst in Citizenship and Immigration and a branch head in Industry Canada's radio spectrum group are all obliged to get behind the government’s priorities – even when that involves e.g. cuts to their own programmes, perhaps to their own jobs.  Equally traditionally it was understood that this applied only to the _civil_ service; the _armed_ services had, it was acknowledged, slightly different loyalties and responsibilities.  The late, lamented Mr. Berry is the exception which proves the rule: civil servants are not, in the normal course of events, expected to stand in harm’s way and lay down their lives for their country; sailors and soldiers are and their leaders, in the capitals of the world, were understood to have obligations to defend their fighting men and women against e.g. the budget cuts necessitated by political or bureaucratic mismanagement.

That all changed in the ‘60s and ‘70s when, led by Washington, there was more and more _integration_ of civil and military staffs in defence ministries/HQs and increased _influence_ exerted by senior military officers in the ongoing national policy (and budget) debates.  The military has been _politicized_  not just in Canada, either.  Senior officers, especially the most senior officers, like Gen. Hillier have a voice in the bureaucratic corridors of power: they should have.  It, politicization, brings rewards and risks.  The risk is that the bureaucratic _centre_ might neither respect nor trust the defence staff.  That is, I believe the case in Canada; I believe it has been the case since, at least, the mid 1990s when I got a chance to observe it close up.

In any event here is an excellent article, by a real insider from today’s _Globe and Mail_.  It is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060302.wxcodefence02/BNStory/specialComment/home 


> General versus Economist
> *The real battle pits the Chief of the Defence Staff against the Privy Council Clerk, says veteran political adviser EUGENE LANG *
> 
> BY EUGENE LANG
> ...



DND has an additional weapon: Deputy Minister of Defence Ward Elcock is, like Kevin Lynch, almost  frighteningly intelligent; there are few people _in the world_ who have more understanding of the nature of the war we are in, right now.  He has, I think,  the ear and, in his domain, the  respect of the PCO and, the PM.  He is a classic behind the scenes man – less public, less sociable, less _liked_ (or hated) than Lynch but, in his own way, very powerful and influential.

I believe that Kevin Lynch does not argue that we need effective and efficient armed forces; I think he would like to know that the government of the days *knows* what those forces should do and, therefore, what they should look like and, consequentially, how much they should cost.  I suspect he is not, yet, persuaded that PM Harper and his government do know those things.  Hillier and Elcock have work to do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2006)

Wouldn't it be a good time to collect the money the Liberals hid away in the "slush funds"?


----------



## BKells (2 Mar 2006)

Yes, that 250$ million from the sponsorship slush fund would sure alleviate our defense budget problems.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2006)

I think you will find thats one of many.........


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2006)

We need to outflank these behind the scenes "players" by generating more public support for the CF. Although Mr Lynch may control the purse strings, he is, in the final analysis, an employee of the people of Canada, and if we, the people, through our elected representatives push hard enough, then parliament will pass the appropriate legislation. 

If Mr Lynch does not like the results, then he can leave for employment more in tune with his own priorities.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Mar 2006)

"Eugene Lang was chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham while General Rick Hillier was Chief of the Defence Staff, and he was a senior economist at Finance Canada when Kevin Lynch was deputy minister of finance."


Well, this explains part of the article.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2006)

Lynch is not the enemy; he is not even – as he was when he was DM Industry - a _competitor_.  The best description for Lynch viz à viz Elcock and Hillier is *Boss*.  Lynch is the Clerk of the Privy Council.  His responsibilities (for government, all of government) and his powers (over government, all of government)  are probably exceeded only, and only slightly, by PM Harper’s.  Lynch has and will have far more to say about defence policy than will Gordon O’Connor and Ward Elcock and Rick Hiller combined.  That is as it should be.

Ministers come and go; they are expendable; their primary role is to answer to the people, in Parliament, for the government’s actions and inactions on a file-by-file basis.  The _*national* programme_ which integrates foreign and defence policies, economic industrial and trade policies, social policies and so on and so forth lies in the domain of the PCO and PMO; that's the domain of Kevin Lynch.

Some people have argued that Harper and Lynch are too much alike: economists; policy experts; cold, calculating _machinery of government_ freaks; big, broad thinkers – out of tune with the political realities of Canada, etc, etc, etc.  Perhaps Harper would have been wiser to have selected an almost as capable career bureaucrat who has more depth on the social policy side but he chose Lynch and in so doing he sent a loud and clear message to the entire Government of Canada, including Ward Elcock and Rick Hiller in DND, about how he will lead the country and about how he expects the Government of Canada to operate.  Harper is a smart guy; he knows Lynch; he knows how Lynch’s appointment will be seen throughout government, industry, academe, the smart (small) minority of journalists, and within foreign governments, too.  He also knows that he will not toss aside Clerks the way he tosses aside public relations guys.  Lynch and Lynch’s methods and  _vision_ (and I believe he has one) will be the way all of government, including DND, consequently including the CF, work – that will not, necessarily, be a bad thing.

As I said, _“I believe that Kevin Lynch does not argue that we need effective and efficient armed forces; I think he would like to know that the government of the days knows what those forces should do and, therefore, what they should look like and, consequentially, how much they should cost.  I suspect he is not, yet, persuaded that PM Harper and his government do know those things.”_  Elcock and Hillier are smart guys, too.  They are smart enough to know that what Lynch wants – clarity of vision at the top – is good for Canada and good for DND, also.

It is in the Canadian Forces’ interests and in all Canadians’ interests to have a government which has a clear, sound, sensible, achievable _strategic_ vision.  If it does it will not waste time and resources while ensuring that it also has effective and efficient armed forces which are absolutely necessary to give _weight_ to that _strategy_.  We have not had such a vision for over 35 years.  We should all be glad that Lynch is here – even if he asks hard questions about how DND is organized and managed – he may be the right guy to start turning around the ship of state and getting it back on course.

Edit: sentence structure, penultimate paragraph.


----------



## davidprogreso (7 Mar 2006)

Greetings...

An interesting analysis.

A question,what is the fair dealing provision of the copyright act...the reason I ask ...there is a NYTimes article on PTSD I would like to post.

look fwd to hearing from you.

tks DH


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2006)

davidprogreso said:
			
		

> Greetings...
> 
> An interesting analysis.
> 
> ...



This thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35087.0.html and, specifically, this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35087/post-276794.html#msg276794 is the guidance from the Army.ca moderators which I follow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2006)

I am resurrecting an old thread (which I started) because some of the key players are involved.

Here is an article, from today’s _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, by Lawrence Martin - my emphasis added:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060809.MARTIN09/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/  





> The unwritten bylaw of Bytown: Fall in line or fall out of favour
> 
> *LAWRENCE MARTIN*
> 
> ...



Army.ca has taken Lawrence Martin to task for, essentially, straying out of his lane - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44855.0.html .  he is well within his lane here but I think he has missed some of the important points and, for his own anti-Conservative (just anti-Harper?) reasons has given too much emphasis to e.g. _”… the new Clerk, not surprisingly, has wanted to move in some personal favourites.”_

I think Martin is right when he says, almost as an afterthought, that _”… there is a big plan for the public service. But the apparatchiks are not sure what it is. In contrast to the shapelessness of the previous government, the one thing they … are feeling is a firm hand.”_

The firm hand is that of Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch – arguably *the* most powerful person in Ottawa (and I include the PM in that).  Lynch is all the things Martin says and more.  He is a strategic thinker with a vision of Canada and of the (narrow, limited but still important) role of the _machinery of government_ in making that vision a reality.

DND will miss Ward Elcock if, indeed, he is shuffled out.  Defence has, traditionally, been a ‘good’ 2nd tier DM’s post (the top tier includes: Finance and, on a rotating basis, Health, Industry, Human Resources, Treasury Board and, sometimes, even Foreign Affairs – the rotation reflects the shared priorities of the PM and the Clerk).  The better DMs have stayed, quietly, in place for several years – think of e.g. Buzz Nixon and <screams of horror> Bob Fowler.  (Neither was popular, especially with the military staff, but both were ‘good’ DMs who served their bosses: PM and Clerk, well – implementing the _centre_’s policies efficiently and effectively.)  DND will, however, be made to fit within a _machinery of government_ system which reflects Mr. Lynch’s views.

It is important to re-emphasize that these machinations are at the _centre_ (see Don Savoie - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/spsm-rgsp/media/savoie_e.asp - for a proper definition of _centre_) where PM Harper and Clerk Lynch operate.  Defence Minister O’Connor and CDS Hiller are, most emphatically, *not* at the centre – they are in orbit, usually a fairly distant orbit, around the centre; as with planets orbiting a star they are buffeted by the centre but the reverse is not true.

A second important point: defence policy is, properly, being made by the _centre_.  I am confident that Mr. Lynch hears and gives due consideration to the opinions of Mr. O’Connor, DM Elcock (especially), the Assistant Deputy Minister for  Policy ( http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/about/org_chart_e.htm#adm and  http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/about/adm_e.htm ) and even the CDS.  He gives them due consideration but he, and his hand-picked team in the PCO (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&page=AboutPCO ) will develop and recommend the final policy to the PM and cabinet.

See also: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42247.15.html


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

All this stuff reads out of a spooky Robert Ludlum novel.


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2006)

Interesting read, thanks for putting it together. 

IMHO, there is not a government department that does not have fluff in its' navel. A good example, cited many times here, is the slow, creaking purchasing mechanism the the DND is mandated with. Probably a whole lot more I, nor will  most people, ever will know about. 

For far too many years government has been run as a personal slush fund/booty for the government in power, and it has invested it vision in being somewhat functional, while toadying up to the person(s) in power. The civil service has some excellent people, it also has an awful lot of duds, that would be better off in a Tim Horton's. 

I may sometimes not like what I hear happening, but in all likelyhood I will hear very little of what does happen and why. As long as it gives us a more efficient government doing the job they are there for and not a bunch of whimsical navel gazing, I can live with it.


----------



## civmick (9 Aug 2006)

Was annoyed to read the last two paras of Martin's article - hope it's bullsh!t - safety comes first Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2006)

civmick said:
			
		

> Was annoyed to read the last two paras of Martin's article - hope it's bullsh!t - safety comes first Harper.



I asked an acquaintance (who is supposed to know) about this (cell phones interfere with aircraft frequencies) some time back.  He told me that 20+ years ago, when cell phones were in their infancy, there was some, undocumented concern, re: interference to some aircraft (navigation?) frequencies.  Apparently there has never been any proper electromagnetic compatibility analysis which shows any real, current problem but the air transport community is unwilling (maybe properly risk averse) to stop saying it.

There is a _potential_ problem if a cell phone at 35,000’ connects to a whole bunch of cell sites on the ground – rather than just the one or two or three which is in the terrestrial systems design – but I don’t know (didn’t ask) about the scope or consequences and my acquaintance didn’t seem to think it was a ‘show stopper’ of a problem.

There are two real problems in civil aviation:

•	Using your cell phone will interfere with the profits of the companies which provide those phones on the back of your seat – the ones which cost $10.00/minute or so to use; and

•	Managers dread the prospect of the onboard hostility which will result when rude, crude people start gabbling away – a 65 dB above comfort level (95 dB above the necessary) – on their cell phones in the already noisy aircraft cabin.

If I was in charge of the VIP aircraft I would remind staff (cabin and flight deck) that problems should be fed ‘up the chain’ to the PM, through his staff – which is plentiful and readily accessible.  It may not be as good an after work tale as saying _“And then I told the SOB to turn off his @#$%& Blackberry!”_ but, as with very senior military officers, it works better.  Of course, the whole discussion assumes the story Martin quotes is true - sounds more like an urban legend to me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Aug 2006)

There is a National Defence Flying Order (Chap 9 para  38) that specifically bans cellphone usage inflight on all CF aircraft.  If this story is even true, all the aircraft captain would be doing is enforcing an order that he, in theory, could have his ticket pulled for not enforcing.  I personally would not be really amused if one of my pax tried to use a celphone, especially during a critical phase of flight like an instrument landing.

A point to note, by law (both NDA and Transport Canada regulations), all passengers of an aircraft in Canada are under the command of the Aircraft Captain, where safety of flight is involved.  And that means everyone- you, me, the CDS, the PM and the Queen.  Everyone.  Disobey the instructions of your pilot and you could face legal action.

edit- corrected the order in para 1.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Aug 2006)

At the end of Mr Martin's column in the _Globe_, Aug. 11 (full text not online):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060811.wcomartin0811%2FTPStory%2FspecialComment%2Fcolumnists&ord=2050128&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

'In response to a paragraph in a column saying the Prime Minister and staff had given tough treatment to a pilot who wanted their electronic devices turned off, Sandra Buckler of the PM's communications team has written to say I was on the receiving end of bad information.

Her views of the matter, which do not coincide with my own, are as follows. "For the record, the Prime Minister does not own a BlackBerry. He and his staff fully respect all of the rules of Transport Canada and all electronic equipment, including laptops being turned off before takeoff. I know of no dispute. I cannot speak to the motivations of the pilot."

She maintains that the issue involved a laptop, and the pilot in question "was going to retire and did retire. We didn't do anything to him."'

Via _Norman's Spectator_.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2006)

In this _commentary_ from today’s (7 Sep 06) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, Lawrence Martin stays, mostly, within his lane:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060907.wxcomartin07/BNStory/National/home 


> In Defence, the civilian side is on the slide
> 
> *LAWRENCE MARTIN*
> 
> ...



*IF* former ADM(Mat) Allan Williams was correct and the _vital civilian-military balance_ was out of kilter then much of Martin’s article would be something other than wasted, anti-military, anti-Conservative blather.  Since Williams is wrong Martin’s _commentary_ is a waste of space.

First: Ward Elcock is, almost certainly, the strongest DM at DND since Buzz Nixon (one of the founders of CFN (which, by the way stands for (Lew) Crutchlow (former ADM(Mat), (Max) Friedl (former RCAF MGen/engineer) and (Buzz) Nixon (former DM)).  The fact that he wants major, massive reforms in how DND operates – including, especially, in the cumbersome procurement process which Mr. Williams loved and cherished, and in the war against al Qaeda and its _fellow travellers_ is prosecuted is one of the reasons, maybe the main reason, that successive defence ministers have found Gen. Hillier’s pleas for more, More, *MORE* so persuasive.

Second: It may be true, according to the *rumours* I hear, that Elcock and Hillier are playing ‘tag-team’ with the minister and that they have cowed the senior bureaucrats and the admirals and generals, too.

But: *nothing is out of balance*.  What is 'new' is that neither the DM nor the CDS are political lap-dogs - it's been 30 years since anyone has seen that so it's understandably foreign to youngsters like Allan Williams and Lawrence Martin.

Martin resurrects the old canard about O’Connor’s alleged _ties_ with CFN.  *That’s dirty, partisan, anti-Tory propaganda* and the _Globe and Mail_’s editor should have excised it.  O’Connor should sue Martin into the poor house for that rubbish – but he will not, cannot because he is a working politician and, therefore, fair game for baseless slurs from Liberal hacks and flacks.

Martin has no good, even a not-too-bad reason to argue against the sole source procurement of aircraft because there is none.  He resorts to slander.  It’s shameful but then he’s a _journalist_, isn’t he?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Sep 2006)

Oh yes.  The so-called "competitive" bidding system has served us oh so well....ok maybe not the CF, but an entire generation of bureaucrats in both PWGSC and DND (both in and out of uniform), who have made careers of ensuring that nothing gets bought in less than 15 years.  That pork gets spread to build truck plants in Upper Moose Nipple, Sask to build 1000 trucks and then shutdown; to ensure that we pay a premium to "Canadianize" everything we buy; to ensure that we ignore perfectly workable "on-the-shelf solutions" for designed and built in Canada items that are wildly over-priced and frequently don't work.

Yep, that system is worth preserving.  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Sep 2006)

Yet another Lawrence Martin scandal-mongering, innuendo-plagued piece of garbage.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## North Star (7 Sep 2006)

Lol...he just doesn't like the fact that the world has changed. He should retire to an old-folks home and blather on about the "good old days" under Trudeau and Chretien, before their utopianism came crashing down with the Berlin Wall and the Twin Towers. 

Sorry, but a new generation's in. Get used to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2007)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an _editorial_ from today’s _National Post_; I considered posting this in the RCMP board but my key point relates to security/intelligence and the Privy Council Office, thus it’s in this thread, despite its age.

My *emphasis* added.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=ae7b120d-ceeb-4750-8e6d-aaff08a85212


> Depoliticize the RCMP
> 
> *National Post*
> Published: Tuesday, April 03, 2007
> ...



The _National Post_ has it right: the Chief Commissioner should be the _apolitical_ chief of a _uniformed_ service – just as the CDS is the chief of the Canadian Forces.  There was (still is, I suppose) a strong lobby in Ottawa which was always uncomfortable with the _paramilitary_ origins, traditions and (less and less) management of the RCMP.  They *may* have some valid concerns but they went too far.

With all possible respect, Reid Morton is wrong.  The Privy Council Office is exactly the right place, in my opinion the only place, from which to direct security/intelligence (and defence) matters.  There is no doubt that the Clerk of the Privy Council has finely tuned political antennæ – as (s)he must have in order to balance the _mandarins’_ long term _strategic_ goals and plans with the short term priorities of the elected government of the day.  That is the nature of our Westminster style parliamentary democracy, as it has been since Robert Cecil was Queen Elizabeth I’s _clerk_.   The _management_ of the RCMP and CSIS can be safely left to the Deputy Minister in the Public Safety ministry – as the _management_ of DND/CF is left to DM Ward Elcock.  The business of setting goals and priorities, however, as with the goals and priorities of the CF and CSE are way too important to be left to anyone except the Prime Minister’s top  official – the Clerk of the Privy Council.  Reid Morton’s position is popular, I think amongst many people in the security/intelligence community but it is also destructive –t is, essentially, an attempt at empire building which failed when Morton _et al_ were serving and ought not to succeed now.

In sum: by all means, Prime Minister: _decouple_ the CC from the civil service - make her/him analogous to the CDS, but do not change the role of the PCO in _leading_ all defence, security and intelligence services.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Lynch is not the enemy; he is not even – as he was when he was DM Industry - a _competitor_.  The best description for Lynch viz à viz Elcock and Hillier is *Boss*.  Lynch is the Clerk of the Privy Council.  His responsibilities (for government, all of government) and his powers (over government, all of government)  are probably exceeded only, and only slightly, by PM Harper’s.  Lynch has and will have far more to say about defence policy than will Gordon O’Connor and Ward Elcock and Rick Hiller combined.  That is as it should be.



However little PM Harper's powers may seem to trump Lynch's there is no doubt, nor can there be any question that if the PM says jump, Lynch will in the end ask how high.  All the intelligence, skill and savvy the man has will not stop the PM from firing his ass in a heartbeat if he were to confound the will of the duly elected government. 

If this is not the case, our nation is already dead because our democracy is a sham.

To the meat of my argument though...

I think Edward that you are writing the PM off as being softer on defence than he is.  Think about this politically.  

Except in circles like this site and other defence friendly areas defence is at best a distant third or fourth choice with most Canadians behind, health care, the economy, social programs and perhaps the environment. 

PM Harper is no dummy, he knows this, but he is also a conservative minded politician who (if his true feelings were to be discovered) would display typical conservative ideals on the reasons and rational behind the interaction of sovereign states.  In other words he believes that; States are rational actors that act in their own best interest (witness his governments support of Israel last summer) _and_ a good deal of soft and diplomatic power still rests in a nations ability to project hard power where and when required (Canada's reemergence on the world stage corresponds to our increased share of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan).

However much PM Harper believes in this traditional IR theory and no matter how much the goals of General Hillier's transformation correspond to his own, the man is a skilled and dedicated politician in the truest sense of the word.  He will I think continue to downplay defence as a priority in the public eye while guiding and nurturing it's continued growth below the radar of Joe and Jill Canadian.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is an interesting rumour dressed up as a news story:

 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/canada/story.html?id=d8fffa44-b4c5-4057-917a-0cb71bb74c88


> PM's trusted aides may move on
> *Lynch, Brodie 'have their fingers in everything'*
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...



If I had to guess I would guess that Brodie goes for the reasons Ivison suggests: he’s overwhelmingly overqualified to be an ‘operational’ kind of guy in the PMO.  When Chrétien was PM the Chief of Staff was more powerful because Chrétien’s Clerks (Bourgon, Cappe, and Himmelfarb) were all second or even (Bourgon) third rate – he did not want, would not tolerate a ‘proper’ Clerk.  (Don’t get me wrong – Jocelyne Bourgon, Mel Cappe and Alex Himmelfarb are bright, hard working people – worth a six or even seven figure salary in the private sector - but none were anywhere near being the ‘best’ available choices for Clerk.)  Being Chief of Staff in a PMO which must deal with Lynch’s PCO doesn’t give Brodie the kind of power or influence that Jean Pelletier enjoyed.

I would also guess that Lynch may well not be ready to move.  He might feel compelled – I believe he has a very strong sense of duty – to move IF he thinks there are no really good choice for the Governor’s job, but I think there are a few good choices out there, willing and able to serve.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Depoliticize the RCMP
> National Post
> Published: Tuesday, April 03, 2007



An excellent idea except for one major problem - the top RCMP boys like having control of all that power and you'll need a pretty big political crowbar to pry them out of provincial and departmental policing.


----------



## Osotogari (1 Jul 2007)

One thing that that was mentioned that I do agree with is that DND has morphed into a hugely bureaucratic and inefficient machine.  I'd like to see that change, and if a few people get downsized so that training funds and procurement funding can be freed up I'd be happy.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (2 Jul 2007)

I'm actually torn on a couple of issues.

Everything I had heard about Lynch was that he is a brilliant man and economist.

What confuses me therefore is the ham-handed fashion in which a number of key economic policy issues have been handled:
1)  Income Trusts - I agree with the fact they needed to be taxed just like corporations.  Having the entire economy shift to an income trust model which prioritizes cash distribution over growth (which is what provides for employment growth) would've been a long-term nightmare.  That being said, what they needed to do was put a moratorium on new trust filings until public consultations could be held, then ensure there was lots of time for people to "read the winds" in order to get diversified before dropping the hammer.  Right policy.  God-awful roll-out which hurt a lot of people for no good reason.
2)  The 2007 Budget in general.  Politically driven, not economically driven.  Spending increases where there should've been none and not enough debt elimination.  
3)  The foreign interest deductibility rule revision.  Again, a roll-out with significant tax implications that Flaherty has now had to completely back-track on the move.

Bottom Line:  Considering Lynch's key role at the time of all these decisions, either Harper locked him out for not falling inline, or he presided over some serious screwing of the dog.  I guess history will eventually let us know which one of the two was accurate.


Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm actually torn on a couple of issues.
> 
> Everything I had heard about Lynch was that he is a brilliant man and economist.
> ...
> Bottom Line:  Considering Lynch's key role at the time of all these decisions, either Harper locked him out for not falling inline, or he presided over some serious screwing of the dog.  I guess history will eventually let us know which one of the two was accurate.



It is important to remember that the Clerk’s *responsibility* is for the ‘machinery of government.’  (S)he ensures – as, by law, (s)he is bound to do – that the decisions taken or policies announced by any minister or department are consistent with the agreements made in cabinet.

Cabinet government, in our Westminster style system, is a collegial enterprise.  Once a policy or course of action is agreed all ministers are required, by *Constitutional custom* (a hugely powerful force) to support the government or resign forthwith.  While all the power, statutory and prerogative, rests, eventually, with the Prime Minister, it is impossible for him to direct like an 18th century Prussian drill master.  The PM works much more like a 21st century infantry battalion CO: exercising his undoubted authority through a ‘regimental staff’ which, in his case, means the PMO (for politics) and the PCO (for policy and machinery of government) – rather like the way the battalion CO uses the Ops O, adjutant and RSM to _manage_ the day-to-day affairs, major and minor, of the unit.

Policy coherence is one of the Clerk’s key concerns.  This has two aspects:

1.	Long term – between governments; and

2.	Short term – within this government.

Sometimes the two aspects can clash.

Every government has priorities.  One hopes most Canadians heard about them during the election campaign – as part of the winning party’s platform.  The country also has priorities – matters of concern, even threats, which may (sometimes, as with, _intelligence_, *should*) have been way beyond the ken of working politicians during an election campaign.  It is the Clerk’s duty and *’right’*, as the nation’s top civil servant, to present these concerns to the government – essentially the PM and cabinet, and to insist (that’s pretty close to the right word) that these ‘official’ concerns influence the government’s programme.  Consider, for example, my comment, of a few days ago.  I didn’t see too much attention to aboriginal affairs in the 2006 Conservative Platform but I’m willing to bet that very, very early on in the transition (before hard cabinet appointments were made)  Alex Himmelfarb (the Clerk) briefed the PM, personally, and Ian Brodie and put several issues – including aboriginal _problems_ ‘on the agenda,’ no matter what the Platform said or failed to say.

This, transition of government, is a key moment for the Clerk.  (S)he, alone, links the last ministry with the new one.  Deputy Ministers and senior officials in departments have their own, long term, responsibilities to keep some things moving while governments change but only the Clerk has the _position_ and the knowledge to advise an incoming PM about which policies of his predecessor need to be continued – renamed or reshaped, perhaps, but continued all the same.  The Clerk can, and should, tell a new PM about policies which are not working.

The short term policy coordination is getting closer to the question at hand.  I’m fairly sure the Clerk and the DM at Finance both argued against the income trusts promise from day 1.  But, it was, clearly, an important *political* matter, see page 32 of the Platform, and, therefore, within the PM’s _power_ to keep in place, at least until it threatened the *national* fiscal position as, arguably, the Telecomm company _musings_ did.  Then the Clerk and the Deputy at Finance were able, indeed duty bound, to stand up to politicians and say, “Now, ladies and gentlemen, you must, finally, admit that your programme is wrong and you must reverse course, publicly and immediately, and face the consequences.”  There was *never* a good time for the Conservatives to reverse their income trusts position – not from the day they made it.  It was a fiscally unsound promise – made, solely, to score cheap political points against the Liberals – which a responsible political machine should not have made.  (So, yes young critics, I’m calling Harper irresponsible, too.)

The budget is the same – it is a highly *political* documents, one which many bureaucrats consider _amendable_, through policy, if it is carefully enough written.  (I guess the 1942 budget was pretty _apolitical_ but, from 1943 onwards even wartime budgets were as much about Liberal Party fortunes as they were about winning the war or exploiting the peace.)  The Clerk gives the best possible *policy* advice but (s)he also has finely tuned political antennae and, as (s)he has a duty to support the government-pf-the-day, the *policy* advice offered must not put the government at a disadvantageous *political* position.

*I think* the main problem with income trusts and the budget lies within the PMO – specifically with a flawed and failing communications strategy.  Maybe Harper (like Diefenbaker and Mulroney before him) mistrusts a civil service which he sees as ‘Liberal.’  In a few places, e.g. DFAIT and Health, the civil service is weak, inept and partisan but, in my opinion at the *centre*, PMO and Finance, where it matters, the service is strong, professional and loyally apolitical.  Harper needs a Derek Burney – an Ottawa _insider_ who can fix the real problems (there are some) and help the PM learn to trust officials who want to help him succeed.  It’s a hard course: Diefenbaker never managed, Mulroney did – Harper might, but he reminds me of The Chief in a few respects, especially in his stubbornness.

I’m not trying to whitewash Lynch but I think we have to understand that there is a major division of  responsibilities between the PMO (politics) and the PCO (policy).  I suggest that most, not all, of the blunders Harper has made can be traced back to his 2006 campaign team and his current PMO.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2008)

This post quotes *rumours* about a _*possible*_ role of the bureaucracy, maybe even the top levels of the bureaucracy, in the downfall of Maxime Bernier.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2008)

This column by Lawrence Martin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyrigt Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting bit about the political *centre*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081113.COMARTIN13/TPStory/TPComment/?query=


> Pulling back the cloak from our powerful Clerk
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




At an individual level, I think Don Savoie is right: Lynch is apolitical but he is *loyal* to the government of the day and he will work incredibly hard to implement its programme. That is how it should be.

There is some _overestimation_ of the changes made since Pitfield. The clerk has always had considerable behind the scenes power and influence by the simple fact that (s)he has always coordinated the implementation of the decisions made by cabinet. Mao Zedong said, somewhere – I cannot put my fingers on the reference right now, that _secretaries_ are usually more important than presidents because they coordinate and implement decisions. In and after the Pitfield era we simply formalized powers that have existed, to a greater or lesser degree, since the days of the great secretaries/clerks: the Cecils, father and son – William Cecil, Lord Burghley and Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.

But, Martin is right: the Clerk is immensely powerful and we pay far too little attention to him and his actions. That being said, our _system_ requires the clerk to have the advantage of relative anonymity – he doesn’t run for office and we must always hope that elected office holders will carefully judge those to whom they plan to delegate great power, as this PM does to this Clerk.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an editorial expressing the _“Good Grey Globe’s”_ admiration for retiring Clerk of the Privy Council, Kevin Lynch:
----------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090508.wELynch09/BNStory/specialComment/home

 A great public servant

Globe and Mail

May 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM EDT

Few Canadians have heard of Kevin Lynch, which is as it should be with a member of Canada's permanent public service. But for more than three decades, this Cape Breton native served successive governments and, through them, the people of Canada, with the greatest distinction. 

Mr. Lynch helped shape tax policies, and in the 1990s was a champion of reinvesting in university research, to help prepare Canada to compete in a knowledge economy. For over three years, from the Harper government's early days until his resignation this week, he served in a critical job, as the Clerk of the Privy Council. The role entails advising the prime minister, managing the needs of cabinet and leading the public service. It is a difficult, often thankless job, especially with a rookie government facing a minority parliament.

In reality, so-called faceless bureaucrats have personalities. Mr. Lynch's family was said to know the difference between weekdays and the weekend because on the weekend he didn't wear a tie to the office. He has always been a driven, ambitious man who has held himself to the high standards he expects of others.

Nobody can be certain why Mr. Lynch is leaving the public service now, whether he was pushed or jumped. But he was clearly caught in a vicious power struggle – one for which a public servant, even one as savvy as Mr. Lynch, can never be properly armed.

The relationship between the public service – which, in Canada as in Britain, stays in place as governments change – and Stephen Harper's Conservatives is not an easy one. This government has shown little propensity to respect its professionalism and expertise, and often seems uninterested in the advice of public servants; it prefers them to simply carry out political orders, playing the role of mechanics. 

For most of the Conservatives' first mandate, Mr. Lynch had some success in bridging this divide. Mr. Harper evidently respected him, or at least his ability to help his young government navigate its way through Byzantine policy processes, and Mr. Lynch enjoyed a co-operative relationship with Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff. But Guy Giorno, who succeeded Mr. Brodie last year, appears to have found the room crowded with Mr. Lynch in it.

Mr. Lynch had reason to be put off by the government's increasingly overt partisanship, exemplified by last fall's disastrous fiscal update (in which Mr. Giorno had a strong hand). And Mr. Giorno, who had a rocky relationship with the Ontario public service when he worked for Mike Harris, apparently considered Mr. Lynch an obstacle to the fast-tracking of the stimulus measures in the January budget – failing, unlike Mr. Brodie, to recognize that it is the job of a good public servant to pay attention to detail. (Ironically, the Conservatives have privately complained that bureaucrats fail to watch their backs – the very thing Mr. Giorno's impatience may have prevented Mr. Lynch from doing.) 

The recruitment by Michael Ignatieff's Liberals of Kevin Chan, who had worked closely beside Mr. Lynch in the Privy Council Office, likely contributed to suspicions of the public service inside the hyper-partisan Prime Minister's Office. The end result was that Mr. Lynch and Mr. Giorno were reportedly barely on speaking terms in recent months, an untenable relationship between the government's most senior public servant and its top political staffer.

The government has graciously announced that, in recognition of his service, Mr. Lynch will be sworn in as a member of the Privy Council – an unusual distinction for those not in cabinet. But Mr. Harper could best honour him by affording his successor, Wayne Wouters, the same respect that his office showed Mr. Lynch in his earlier days on the job. The diligence that Mr. Lynch displayed should be sought out, not discouraged.
-------------------------


_Caveat lector_: I know Mr. Lynch, slightly, and had the pleasure, many years ago, to brief him of several matters that were of mutual concern to DND and Industry Canada. I became one of his (many) admirers – I was mightily impressed by his capacity to absorb, sort, filter, analyze and use new and often _foreign_ information.

Mr. Lynch was no great friend of DND. That was (is) not because he doesn’t understand the roles and functions and challenges of national defence; rather, I think, it is because he considers DND to be poorly, even ineptly, led and managed.  I suspect many Deputy Ministers of national Defence and Chiefs of the Defence Staff felt his quite withering disdain over the years when they failed to make their department’s case to ministers and the PCO. I think he was dismayed when senior military officers would puff up their chests and cry “rust out” and then, suddenly, find a way to conduct this, that or the other operation which had, just weeks before, been declared beyond the CF’s capability. I believe that he believed knew that these sorts of reversals are seen, in the cabinet room, as indications of indecisiveness and a lack of understanding of the CF’s real capabilities and limitations.

To the degree that we, Canadians, have any _natural_, or historic “view” on national defence it is one of mistrust. We inherited some of this from Britain and some was home-grown in Canada – especially in the middle and late 19th century. In the upper ranks of the public service and in the political realm the military and national defence in general is regarded as an expensive, indeed wasteful, encumbrance. Only rarely has DND been seen as a well organized and well managed organization – most Canadians, including most politicians and many, many senior civil servants are accustomed to, even expect to see a DND with horses on the payroll and ship refit scandals.

In my opinion DND and the CF were only the “apple of the government’s eye” once – in the 1950s when Prime Minister St Laurent wanted to use military power to advance Canada’s strategic interests. He retained and appointed powerful politicians with excellent leadership and management skills to lead DND (Claxton and Campney) – something that has rarely happened since (Bud Drury, Barney Danson, Erik Neilson, David Pratt and Bill Graham being the five exceptions (out of 30 since Campney) that prove the rule). DND and the CF cannot _prosper_ unless and until he Prime Minister of Canada decides that their value exceeds their cost. M. St Laurent did so; John Diefenbaker, Mike Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not; Stephen Harper does not.

My _guesstimate_ is that Mr. Wouters will, from DND’s perspective, be a clone of Mr. Lynch. There is no point in crying about that; it is a well established national custom. Only the PM an change that old custom and I see no indication that Mr. Harper is interested in so doing.


----------



## GAP (9 May 2009)

> it is because he considers DND to be poorly, even ineptly, led and managed.



I suspect your comment overall, is fairly accurate.....big bureaucracies tend to be, and DND & the CF has a long convoluted history of making some illogical decisions as well as working hard towards feathering their own nest....


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2009)

While I am pretty sure we are likely to see much more of Mr. Lynch in _public life_ it is most likely, in my view that we will see less and less of him when we look at defence policy and military matters. This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, then is something of an _envoi_ of sorts for a man who had a huge impact on DND:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Celebrating+passion+public+service/2030944/story.html


> Celebrating a 'passion for public service'
> *Politicians, CEOs and academics filled a sold-out dinner for a chance to hail former top bureaucrat Kevin Lynch for his courage in tumultuous times. Kathryn May writes.*
> 
> By Kathryn May, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...




During his tenure as Deputy Minister of Industry (John Manley was minister for much of that period) he was a great friend to DND – _inter alia_, promoting defence R&D and production.

During his time as Deputy Minister of Finance he presided over the continuance of deep, damaging cuts to DND’s budget.

As clerk, during the recent financial crisis, he appears to have protected DND’s budget.

Sound policy, in the public interest, was his watchword. I think he had little interest in national defence, _per se_, seeing it as a necessary, important but not central function of government: “central” to the *state*, Yes; “central” to the business of government,  No. He was neither “our” friend nor "our" enemy, but he was a constant, and clear eyed, _critic_, in the proper sense of the word, of our management.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

John Ivison, in today's _National Post_ suggests that tere will soon be a change in Clerk of the Privy Council.

He names two top candidates:






   and    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Yaprak Baltacıoğlu,                       Janice Charette, 
currently DM of                             currently Associate Secretary 
Transport Canada                        to the Cabinet and Deputy Minister
                                                    (Intergovernmental Affairs), Privy Council Office

Either will be interested in the management of DND and its budget.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ivison, in today's _National Post_ suggests that tere will soon be a change in Clerk of the Privy Council.
> 
> He names two top candidates:
> 
> ...



One is already fairly well plugged in to the defence bureaucracy (no pun intended).

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/88100.0


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

I wonder if that connection is why there are rumours (albeit only a couple that I've heard) about Mr. Fonberg's imminent retirement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ivison, in today's _National Post_ suggests that tere will soon be a change in Clerk of the Privy Council.
> 
> He names two top candidates:
> 
> ...


With only one having somewhat more.... private? .... access to DND's current DM  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2012)

Given that he's 57(ish), with a long public service career, and has been DM at DND for the last 5 years, retirement would not be out of the question - or possibly sliding into an "eminence gris" position at the school of the public service (which would also keep the conflict of interest police at bay).

I expect him to be leaving as well - DND burns out DMs at the best of times.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ivison, in today's _National Post_ suggests that tere will soon be a change in Clerk of the Privy Council.
> 
> He names two top candidates:
> 
> ...




More rumours from the _Twitterverse_:

Clerk Wayne Wouters is likely to stay on long enough to oversee the _beauty pageant_ which will select his successor. The front-runners are:

Yaprak Baltacıoğlu (pictured above); Janice Charette (pictured above); Morris Rosenberg; and John Knubley.






                     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Morris Rosenberg                               John Knubley
Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs         Deputy Minister, Industry Canada


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Oct 2012)

To an outsider the four candidates all seem to have one thing in combination - they are not from social policy or redistribution of income ministries as opposed to more, I'm searching for a word here, traditional peace, order and good government organizations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> To an outsider the four candidates all seem to have one thing in combination - they are not from social policy or redistribution of income ministries as opposed to more, I'm searching for a word here, traditional peace, order and good government organizations.




I think you're right; notwithstanding what former Clerk Kevin Lynch said he wanted by way of _civil service renewal_, these, less Rosenberg, are the people he promoted and they are clones of him. Rosenberg is, for me, a bit of an _outlier_; I think he is more of an idealist than the others, but, so far as I know, his career is, like the others, broadly based and to the degree that he has any _specialty_ it is in government operations/machinery of government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

John Knubley did his MA at _Oxford_ in PP&E (Philosophy, Politics (Political Science) and Economics), the courses designed for the political/public service classes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_, *"Yaprak Baltacioğlu, currently DM of Transport Canada, becomes Secretary of the Treasury Board,"* so that leaves three of those named by the rumour mill in the running for Clerk: Charette, Knubley and Rosenberg.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Oct 2012)

That's got to be one of the most difficult names to pronounce that I've ever seen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's got to be one of the most difficult names to pronounce that I've ever seen.




Do you suppose we could call her Mrs Fonberg?  :


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Do you suppose we could call her Mrs Fonberg?  :




No.  She's now Secretary of the TB.  If we know what's good for us, we''ll call the DND DM Mr. Baltacioğlu.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  She's now Secretary of the TB.  If we know what's good for us, we''ll call the DND DM Mr. Baltacioğlu.




 :goodpost:  &   :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  She's now Secretary of the TB.  If we know what's good for us, we''ll call the DND DM Mr. Baltacioğlu.


Milpoints inbound!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Oct 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's got to be one of the most difficult names to pronounce that I've ever seen.



I would take a WAG and say its Turkish.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2012)

This may not be the correct thread, but it seems appropriate in terms of who is actually in charge here:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/15/john-ivison-stepehn-harper-yes-minister/



> *John Ivison: Harper’s civil service shuffle an attempt to make ‘Yes, Minister’ actually mean something*
> 
> John Ivison | Oct 15, 2012 6:50 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 15, 2012 6:51 PM ET
> More from John Ivison
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ivison, in today's _National Post_ suggests that tere will soon be a change in Clerk of the Privy Council.
> 
> He names two top candidates:
> 
> ...




Well, the change that was rumoured nearly two years ago has finally happened. The _Ottawa Citizen reports__ that Janice Charette, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, will be the new Clerk in about six weeks time.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is her bio, as released by the PMO:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/background-janice-charette-canadas-next-clerk-of-the-privy-council








Who is Janice Charette? Meet Canada's next Clerk of the Privy Council

OTTAWA CITIZEN

Published on: August 20, 2014





Janice Charette                                                                                                                                                                                       Caroline Phillips / Ottawa Citizen

Janice Charette has been named the new Clerk of the Privy Council, replacing Wayne Wouters, who announced his retirement on Wednesday. Here’s her background:

*Education*

Carleton University— Bachelor of Commerce (Honours)

*Professional Experience*

Since November 2010 — Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet
2006 – 2010— Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
2004 – 2006— Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2003 – 2004— Associate Deputy Minister, Health
2002 – 2003— Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and Consultation), Privy Council Office
2000 – 2002— Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Priorities and Planning, Privy Council Office
1999 – 2000— Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Justice
1998 – 1999— Director, Transition Team, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
1997 – 1998–  Chief of Staff, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
1996 – 1997— Principal, Public Sector/Strategy Practice, Ernst and Young Management Consultants
1994 – 1996— Co-ordinator, Base Closures Task Force, then Director of Operations, Program Review Secretariat, and Executive Director, Strategic Projects Unit, Privy Council Office
1992 – 1993— Senior Departmental Assistant, Office of the Minister of Finance, then Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
1991 – 1992— Senior Policy Adviser, Federal-Provincial Relations Office
1989 – 1991— Senior Departmental Assistant, Office of the Minister of Finance
1988 – 1989— Policy Analyst, Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs
1984 – 1988— Officer, Department of Finance

– Source: Prime Minister’s Office, Citizen files.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2015)

There is, for me, anyway, some reassuring news in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/senior-civil-servants-have-the-new-pms-ear-so-far/article27446912/


> Senior civil servants have the new PM’s ear – so far
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I have fairly low expectations for this new, Liberal government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a couple of excellent ministers and a few good, solid ones, too, but he also has a lot of untried rookies and few "flakes" to go with them. Fortunately we, Canadians, have an excellent public service that offers the prime minister and the cabinet first class advice.

I will not be surprised if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decides he wants a Clerk who is more closely aligned to him but, equally, I will not be surprised if he exercises good judgment and keeps Mme Charette in her office.

There are better voices, in Ottawa, just down the hall from the PMO, than either former Prime Minister Chrétien or Ontario Premier Wynne.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

Well, after only 18 months there is, the _Ottawa Citizen reports__, another new Clerk: Michael Wernick






The article says:

    "Wernick spent eight years as deputy minister at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, considered one of the toughest portfolios in government with its many statutory obligations, historical grievances, endless legal challenges
      and personal relationships to be managed. It also has province-like responsibilities, providing social, health and education services for indigenous people.

      As deputy, Wernick stickhandled the federal government’s attempts to reform First Nations education, which the Conservatives abandoned after the country’s aboriginal chiefs disagreed on the necessary reforms.

      Wernick joined the public service in 1981 as a social policy analyst at Finance and began climbing the ranks."
_


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jan 2016)

Why does the last sentence of the story not fill me with a rush of confidence in the government's approach to national security?


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Why does the last sentence of the story not fill me with a rush of confidence in the government's approach to national security?


Most Canadians have absolutely no clue how important the Clerk of the Privy Council is.  There's absolutely nothing in that vacuous article or Mr Wernick's background that sparks confidence in this government.

         :not-again:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Most Canadians have absolutely no clue _how important the Clerk of the Privy Council is_.  There's absolutely nothing in that vacuous article or Mr Wernick's background that sparks confidence in this government.
> 
> :not-again:




My views, from almost 10 years ago, on the first page of this thread are unchanged. Mr Wernick has *more influence* over defence policy and procurement than Minister Harjit Sajjan and Gen Jon Vance *combined*, and that, in our tradition, is how it should be.

A lot of people don't like that situation but that only betrays an abysmally shallow knowledge of English political history and theory.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Why does the last sentence of the story not fill me with a rush of confidence in the government's approach to national security?


He's been at PCO since July 2014, and has been Deputy Clerk since fall 2014 (just after the outgoing clerk was appointed - she appears to have done similar tours of duty @ PCO as Wernick before becoming Clerk), so I'm going to guess he's picked up _something_ about national security issues, no?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> He's been at PCO since July 2014, and has been Deputy Clerk since fall 2014 (just after the outgoing clerk was appointed - she appears to have done similar tours of duty @ PCO as Wernick before becoming Clerk), so I'm going to guess he's picked up _something_ about national security issues, no?




Of course he does. It's important to remember than in our tradition of parliamentary democracy, an _apoltical_ and *powerful* civil service is a key "check" on government. In a majority situation, such as we have now, the civil service is the real opposition. (There is a "Yes, Minister"* quote about that, I'm sure); the civil service has its own, coherent, coordinated _strategy_; it does not (cannot) always "push" its own positions but it can and does "check" the government. Anyone reaching the deputy minister level understands finance and national security and immigration and health care policy and, and, and ... and, above all, politics.

_____
* Always remember than "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, not a sitcom.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Why does the last sentence of the story not fill me with a rush of confidence in the government's approach to national security?




You're not alone ...

An article in the _Globe and Mail_ headlined: "*Liberals should shrink defence spending, analysts urge*," says that "Retired colonel George Petrolekas, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and senior analyst David Perry are offering the defence minister tips to achieve the “leaner, more agile, better-equipped military” the Trudeau government promised in its December Speech from the Throne."

The article adds that: "The way forward could include a smaller military. “You also inherited a military funded for 68,000 regular troops and 27,000 reservists. Shrinking the military to liberate funds for capital spending should be investigated, so long as key personnel skills are retained and any capability reductions carefully considered.”

The biggest problem ahead is the massive shipbuilding effort to renew the Royal Canadian Navy."

 :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Why does the last sentence of the story not fill me with a rush of confidence in the government's approach to national security?



There is a reason I sometimes have a hard time getting excited about going to work in the morning.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Most Canadians have absolutely no clue how important the Clerk of the Privy Council is.  There's absolutely nothing in that vacuous article or Mr Wernick's background that sparks confidence in this government.
> 
> :not-again:


Lucky he's only helping pick the next one, then  >


----------

