Tory Cabinet Shuffle

[GAP]

Should the MND be changed also?

PM sets up meetings amid talk of cabinet shuffle
JANE TABER  From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper is wasting no time getting back to work, scheduling a series of meetings with senior ministers beginning Tuesday amid rumours of a pre-election cabinet shuffle.

Alberta MP and Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, one of the Prime Minister's must trusted and top performing ministers, was scheduled to fly back to Ottawa Monday.

He is one of the ministers scheduled to meet with Mr. Harper, according to a senior Tory source.

“. . . [The meetings] suggest at a bare minimum a focused government carefully planning its way forward, whether or not a shuffle is in the cards. Though it seems more likely than not,” the source said about the individual meetings.

It has been widely rumoured that Mr. Prentice would be moved to the critical Environment portfolio, taking over from Alberta colleague Rona Ambrose.

Ms. Ambrose has not been a strong minister in her portfolio, putting out a confused message as to the importance and significance of the government's new Clean Air Act.

The act was widely criticized by the opposition, who had threatened to kill it the first chance they had. But it has now gone into a special all-party committee for study after pressure by NDP Leader Jack Layton.

It is on the strength of this poor sales job and confusion at a recent committee meeting that the speculation has grown about shuffling Ms. Ambrose to a new portfolio.

She is competent and a young woman in a cabinet sorely lacking in female talent. It is likely that she would remain in a Harper cabinet in a portfolio such as Intergovernmental Affairs.

She had worked in that area before running for office.
More on link

 

[gaspasser]

IMHO, a great big NO.
What? Just so we get some politcial croney who hasn't got a clue about Army, Navy and Air Force issues?  Remember the cabinet shuffles of the best where the CF barely knew who was the boss?? The MND changed on a monthly basis depending on how long it took the new one to step on his ****. 
Mr. O'Connor is doing better than any other MND in the past, especially during an armed conflict / War.  He's not so much political as much a soldier's / member's minister.  He and Gen. Hillier make a fantastic team in the eyes of the troops.  And telling thier political highers where they can shove it.  Making darn sure that the low guy on the totem pole gets the proper kit to do the job right. 
Then again, how many years have we gone thru minimizing/downsizing and low GAFF's?  Young people are wanting to join up and do thier part for Queen and Country. 
Not sure if Mr. O'Connor would make a descent PM.

 

[Cloud Cover]

There are 2 kinds of defence ministers- one who is good for the CF and one who is good for the ruling party.

O'Connor is okay, IMO, but not great. He certainly doesn't get excited by events but he can be influenced or even intimidated by the opposition, but the real problem with O'Connor is the media expect him to be an expert on all things because of his military career - they tend to distract him by playing the lazy game of "gotcha" style tripwire journalism with him. This has made him more cautious and secretive defence minister, which only creates more discontent with the media and subsequently plays quite nicely into the hands of the opposition parties. I'm on the fence as whether he is good for the CF or the party, we'll see how things go when the big shipping contracts are awarded. 

I liked Bill Graham, who seemed to be the quietly influential professional the CF so desperately needed at the time.  I would say Bill Graham was better for the CF then he was for the party when he was defence minister, all the more so when he stood up in favour of continuing the version of the Afghan mission last spring when his own party wanted to disrupt it. That doesn't mean he is not a skillful politician when he needs to be, but he certainly has more sense than most of his colleagues.

The real stabilizing influences for both ministers have been 2 superb individuals- Rick Hillier and Ward Elcock.   

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was not impressed with Gordon O’Connor when he was defence critic a year plus ago.  I remain unimpressed.

I disagree with the notion that former military men make good defence ministers.  History,* which includes O’Connor, indicates that the best defence ministers are those who can manage a large, complex department of government.  Disastrous defence ministers, like Sir Sam Hughes, were soldiers or, at least, pretended to be.

The primary role of government is to defend the realm; no country means no need for any government or any government policies.  The whole government is charged with the defence of the realm – the defence minister is, simply, the minister with the responsibility for, inter alia defence facilities, armed forces, defence research, military procurement, etc.  His (her) job is important but, arguably, no more important – to national defence – than the jobs of the ministers of industry and foreign affairs and, especially, the minister of finance.

Defence policy is, exclusively, the domain of the government’s central agencies – the PCO, mainly.  The civilian bureaucrats in the Department of National Defence are charged with developing and recommending defence policies which, after cabinet and the centre have massaged them, those same civilians will be charged with implementing.  I have seen precious little in the way of foreign and defence policy reviews from this government. – 1 for MND Gordon O’Connor.

One aspect of defence policy is the defence budget – this is the primary tool available to the Minister of National Defence; almost everything the MND does is limited by the amount of money the Minister of Finance doles out.  There are increases in defence spending on the way.  +1 for MND O’Connor. 

Another key policy matters is defence procurement.  This is, in Canada, a horribly mangled and complex system which ill serves the defence system.  A good, even a half decent minister would have taken drastic action to reform that system – it is, totally and completely under the control of the MND and his cabinet colleagues.  That we have not had any serious defence procurement reform indicates, to me, that MND O’Connor has either too little interest, based on too little knowledge of large, complex systems, or too little political weight in cabinet.  -1 for MND O’Connor.

One major component of the defence portfolio is to ensure that Canadians understand why their sons and daughters are fighting and dying.  In my (not at all humble) opinion the whole Government of Canada but especially the MND have done a piss-poor job of explaining Afghanistan to Canadians.  More than just O’Connor are to blame but he gets another -1.

The conduct of military operations is none of the MND’s business.  Once the government of the day decides on a course of action and cries havoc and lets slip the dogs of war then it is up to the professional soldiers, Gen. Hillier and his minions, to do the government’s bidding using the resources the government provides, in accordance with the laws of the land.  The MND is a conduit from the CDS to the ministers of e.g. finance, industry and foreign affairs who must regulate the prosecution of the war.  +1, at most, for MND O’Connor.

On balance I give MND O’Connor a -1.  A really good MND would have got +5 but, in fairness, O’Connor is better than Hughes or David Collenette.


----------
* America, British and Canadian

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I was not impressed with Gordon O’Connor when he was defence critic a year plus ago.  I remain unimpressed.

I disagree with the notion that former military men make good defence ministers.

+1, Edward.  I was - and remain - very critical of elements of the Conservative defence platform, concocted almost entirely by O'Connor before the election.  The CF is now scrambling to put into place useless "territorial defence" battalions and is busily fending off some of the even dumber ideas.  I believe that - in this case - O'Connor's stale-dated service has been more of a liability than an asset.

O'Connor has not been media savvy, has not adequately stepped up to articulate the reasons for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, continues to press for some of his more hare-brained strategic ideas and has been utterly ineffective in dealing with the Opposition.  Ironically, many of the reforms that O'Connor's supporters will trot out as examples of his effectiveness were approved and initiated on Bill Graham's watch - including the appointment of the current CDS.

 

[Infanteer]

Hey, that's a pretty neat report card system Edward - let's grade past ministers with it as well; how does Graham make the cut?

 

[GO!!!]

In my eyes, O'Connor scuttled his own ship as the opposition critic when he was busy keeping himself in the news accusing the JTF of violating the Ottawa accord by using the Mk 19.

He had lots to say when he was waiting in the wings, but is conspicuously silent now.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

He had lots to say when he was waiting in the wings, but is conspicuously silent now.

As a civilian outsider with just the *cough* media to guide me, this is a plus from me. When he WAS talking even those of us long gone could see he was, at best, "not suited" for the job.

See, I was kinda hoping that now that he was there, he would listen to TODAYS professionals......

 

[The Bread Guy]

There are 2 kinds of defence ministers- one who is good for the CF and one who is good for the ruling party.

Hate to be harsh, but given this choice, what do you think a politician's (PM included) priority is?  The latter, not the former.  Yes, you can have ministers who are good for the CF as well as being good for the party, but if it comes down to choosing one, I think the elected officials will focus on getting re-elected, or (in this case) getting elected with a majority.

One major component of the defence portfolio is to ensure that Canadians understand why their sons and daughters are fighting and dying.  In my (not at all humble) opinion the whole Government of Canada but especially the MND have done a piss-poor job of explaining Afghanistan to Canadians.  More than just O’Connor are to blame but he gets another -1.

+100 on this

In my eyes, O'Connor scuttled his own ship as the opposition critic when he was busy keeping himself in the news accusing the JTF of violating the Ottawa accord by using the Mk 19.  He had lots to say when he was waiting in the wings, but is conspicuously silent now.

Not entirely surprising, given it's the opposition's "job" to poke holes in the ruling party's arguement.  It is a government minister's "job" to stay on message, which is detemined by the political centre (PM/Cabinet).

Bottom line - PM's the coach of the team, his main goal is to have the team win (again, or with a majority), so that's what his front sight is aligned on. 

 

[geo]

+1 Edward!!

 

[ArmyRick]

I remember the nonsense in the media about o'connor agaisnt Mk19. It made very little sense when he compared that weapon to UXO and mines.  ???

 

[Old Sweat]

There have been good and (very) bad MNDs who have had military service, with probably more in the latter than the former category. About all one can say with any assurance about having a minister with miltary service is that he probably understands the concept of the personal weapon. During my early years most of the MNDs were veterans - Ralston, McNaughton, Claxton, Pearkes, Harkness, Churchill, Hellyer, Danson and Lamontagne, but O'Connor is the only one in recent years.

Only Ralston (sending conscripts overseas) and Harkness (accepting nucllear weapons) had the guts to take difficult, career-ending positions that was opposite to that of the PM of the day and did so. Both were decorated combat veterans, Ralston had a DSO and Harkness had a George Medal. That in itself was no indication of political courage, as Pearkes had been awared the VC, DSO and MC while Lamontagne had a DFC.

 

[GO!!!]

Not entirely surprising, given it's the opposition's "job" to poke holes in the ruling party's arguement.  It is a government minister's "job" to stay on message, which is detemined by the political centre (PM/Cabinet).

The problem was, that there was no "argument". The weapon in question is already used in it's single shot variant (M-203), and we have dozens of other dud - producing munitions that are being used daily in A-stan right now.

His vendetta against the Mk 19 was based on scoring cheap points with his constituents, who happen to share some real estate with the DHTC, and were unhappy about recent land acquisitions/expropriations. He wanted to be seen as criticising the unit in question, so he picked a cause du jour (AP land mines) and ran with it publicly.

Notably, he stopped criticising the Mk 19 and use of it by a certain unit once he was the MND. Also, he neglected to kill the CASW acquisition project (thankfully) once he had the power to do so. This tells me it was a hollow, cheap publicity stunt by the opposition, rather than a well thought out argument for change.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

How close is the CASW project on being implemented?

 

[GO!!!]

How close is the CASW project on being implemented?

The last person I spoke to about it who I would consider "in the know" said it's a done deal, we're waiting on delivery from the supplier (H&K) - it was even vetted and approved by DLR!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The last person I spoke to about it who I would consider "in the know" said it's a done deal, we're waiting on delivery from the supplier (H&K) - it was even vetted and approved by DLR!

Really? I thought it was one of those projects on the back burner at best. Glad to see needed new kit is in the pipeline.

 

[GO!!!]

Really? I thought it was one of those projects on the back burner at best. Glad to see needed new kit is in the pipeline.

Perhaps you'll be able to wrangle a Naval variant.

 

[dapaterson]

The Defence Policy Statement (or whatever it's called today) is still caught up in wordsmithing / politics... I suspect it may see the light of day just prior to the election, as a key plank in the Tory platform.  Lots of good motherhood statements, coupled with the promise of investment (oddly enough, with dollars flowing to swing ridings - who'd have thought?) and a few items included to promote a bit of low-key controversy to keep the issue in the papers for a while...  and then, like all white papers, consigned to the dustbin of history.

The real problem (from a DND/CF perspective) is that the uncertainty is slowing down needed change - few are willing to push forward anything right now, "lest the new Minister disapprove".  It seems that in Ottawa, it's better to do no thing than the wrong thing...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Perhaps you'll be able to wrangle a Naval variant.

Fish and chips?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's official - Minister O'Connor stays in place....

Prime Minister Harper Strengthens Ministerial Team, Pledges Active Agenda for Second Year in Office
News Release, 4 Jan 07

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today presented a strengthened ministerial team to lead Canada’s New Government during its second year in office.

“Over the past year, we have been delivering change by getting things done for families and taxpayers,” said the Prime Minister. “Our new ministerial team will continue to deliver on the Government’s commitments to Canadians.”

Prime Minister Harper said the Government will pursue a focused and active agenda for 2007 that will include:

• Presentation of a budget that controls spending, lowers taxes and offers the provinces a fair deal to restore fiscal and jurisdictional balance in Canada;
• Continued efforts to make our streets and communities safer;
• Making Canada’s institutions more democratic and more accountable;
• Standing up for Canada’s interests and values on the world stage; and
• More action to protect the environment and the health of Canadians.

Canada’s New Government’s environmental agenda will be bolstered by the creation of a new Cabinet Committee on the environment and energy security. The Committee will pursue practical, results-oriented solutions to decrease Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution and improve the health and well-being of Canadians.

“These changes represent a strengthening of our ministerial team,” concluded Prime Minister Harper. “Together we will make Canada a stronger, safer and better country for all of us.”

* * * * *

BACKGROUNDER:

PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO THE MINISTRY

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the following changes to the Ministry:

• the Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson becomes Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada;

• the Honourable Marjory LeBreton takes on additional duties as Secretary of State (Seniors), in addition to her responsibilities as Leader of the Government in the Senate;

• the Honourable Monte Solberg becomes Minister of Human Resources and Social Development;

• the Honourable Vic Toews becomes President of the Treasury Board;

• the Honourable Rona Ambrose becomes President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification;

• the Honourable Diane Finley becomes Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

• the Honourable John Baird becomes Minister of the Environment; and

• the Honourable Peter Van Loan becomes Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform.

In addition, the Prime Minister announced the appointment to the Ministry of six new Secretaries of State, including the cross-appointment of Minister LeBreton as Secretary of State (Seniors):

• the Honourable Jay D. Hill is appointed Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip;

• the Honourable Jason Kenney has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Council and is appointed Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity);

• the Honourable Gerry Ritz has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Council and is appointed Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism);

• the Honourable Helena Guergis has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Council and is appointed Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport); and

• the Honourable Christian Paradis has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Council and is appointed Secretary of State (Agriculture).

The newly appointed Secretaries of State will be members of the Ministry and will be bound by Cabinet solidarity, but will not be members of Cabinet (Senator LeBreton will remain a full Cabinet Minister). Each will attend the meetings of the appropriate Cabinet Committee, in light of his or her responsibilities.

* * * * *

BACKGROUNDER:

SECRETARIES OF STATE

Six Secretaries of State have been appointed to play an important part in the Ministry.

Each of the Secretaries of State has been given a specific area of responsibility, in order to assist one or more Ministers consistent with previous Canadian practice and the practice in other Westminster governments. Secretaries of State will discharge this role in a number of ways, including:
• representing their Minister, or the Government, at events;
• meeting with stakeholders and other groups;
• demonstrating policy leadership on one or more specific initiatives relating to their assignment, and at the direction of the responsible Minister; and
• appearing on behalf of their Minister in Parliament and before its committees as may be required.

The Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip has been made a member of the Ministry in order to reflect the critical role of the Chief Government Whip in advancing the Government’s legislative and House agenda. This reflects the practice of some previous Canadian Ministries, as well as similar long-standing practice in the U.K.

Unlike Ministers, who will remain full members of the Cabinet, Secretaries of State will not be members of the Cabinet. (Senator LeBreton will remain a full Cabinet Minister). However, each Secretary of State will attend meetings of a Cabinet Committee, in keeping with his or her specific areas of responsibility.

As members of the Ministry, Secretaries of State have been sworn to the Privy Council. They will be bound by Cabinet solidarity, and will be bound to respect Cabinet confidences. Ministers will remain fully accountable for the powers vested by statute, and for the direction of government departments and agencies within their respective portfolios.