Politics in 2013

[Edward Campbell]

Andrew Coyne, who is no great fan of the current CPC government, gives some advice to the CPC, which is going into its annual policy convention which is scheduled for Calgary in just five days ...

Have just learned that the CPC Policy Convention, scheduled to begin on 27 Jun 13 in Calgary has been postponed ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

A retired RCMP officer, Garry Clement offers some sinsights into what the RCMP might do in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Deaing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Hill Times:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/06/24/proof-of-duffy-wright-cheque-won%E2%80%99t-spare-pmo-from-rcmp-probe/35120

Proof of Duffy-Wright cheque won’t spare PMO from RCMP probe
Former RCMP national director says a thorough investigation required to get to the bottom of Senate expense scandal.

By CHRIS PLECASH

Published: Monday, 06/24/2013

The opposition has spent weeks pressing the federal government to produce a copy of the $90,000 cheque from former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright to disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, but former RCMP national director Garry Clement says that it’s now the Mounties’ job to figure out where the money came from.

Mr. Clement said he expects that investigators will focus on where the transferred funds originated in the ongoing criminal investigation into the transaction between Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) former chief of staff Nigel Wright and Senator Mike Duffy.

Mr. Clement told The Hill Times that investigators would look at whether or not Mr. Wright had received a $90,000 transfer from a third-party account around the time that the government claims Mr. Wright gifted Sen. Duffy $90,172.24 to cover ineligible living expense claims that the Senator had made since joining the Upper Chamber in 2009.

“They’re going to want details on that account—where it came from, was there money transferred in from the special account that all the parties have,” said Mr. Clement, who served 30 years in the RCMP before becoming a private consultant on white collar crime and fraud investigations.

“If it comes out of an account that is controlled by the Conservatives, they may have to answer some questions with regards to whether they are part and parcel of the breach of trust,” said Mr. Clement.

According to the Senate Internal Economy Committee, Sen. Duffy reimbursed the receiver general for $90,172.24 on April 19, but in May it was revealed that Mr. Wright had given the Senator the funds as a “personal gift.”

Within days of the payment being made public, Mr. Wright resigned on May 19.

The government has maintained that the transfer was a personal transaction between Mr. Wright and Sen. Duffy, but in June the CBC published a story alleging that since 2006 successive PMO chiefs of staff have overseen a “secret fund” for political operations that includes taxpayer and donor funds. The government has strongly denied that taxpayer and donor funds were used to bail out Sen. Duffy, who was ousted from the Conservative caucus on May 16 and now sits as an Independent.

Mr. Clement said that RCMP investigators will also make an effort to determine the intent behind the payment, and whether any conditions were established around how the funds were to be used. He said it was “doubtful” that Mr. Wright had paid Sen. Duffy without conditions in place.

“Not even from an investigator’s point of view — it’s extremely hard for Canadians to swallow that somebody writes a $90,000 cheque with no strings attached,” Mr. Clement said. “I think everyone believes that there is more to this story than has come out publicly. Anybody would be naive not to believe that.”

The transaction could be in violation of sections 120 or 122 of the Criminal Code. Sec. 120 states that bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison. Sect. 122 states that a breach of trust by a public officer is also punishable by up to five years in prison.

Mr. Wright, who served as Mr. Harper’s chief of staff since the beginning of 2011, is described as “a genius” in Tory circles. The Bay Street lawyer and executive is a graduate of University of Toronto and Harvard law schools, and served as managing director of Onex private equity firm before becoming Mr. Harper’s right-hand man.

Sen. Duffy was appointed to the Senate on Mr. Harper’s advice in 2009 after a lengthy career in Ottawa’s press gallery. The former CBC and CTV journalist played a major role in raising money and campaigning for the Conservatives in the 2011 federal election campaign.

The opposition has had a field day with the scandal, demanding that the Prime Minister’s Office produce a copy of the cheque that Mr. Wright allegedly gifted to Sen. Duffy. Mr. Clement said that with a criminal investigation already underway, producing a copy of the cheque would not accomplish anything.

Keith Beardsley, a former adviser and deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper, said that the PMO wasn’t in the position to produce a copy of the cheque or force Mr. Wright to do so, but he admitted that it was “a good tactic” for the opposition to demand proof of the transfer.

“From the opposition’s view point, it’s a wonderful attack line because the government really has no offence or defence,” observed Mr. Beardsley, who directed Conservative Party research while the party was still in opposition. “Personally, it’d be pretty well impossible for [the government] to have it if it was a personal cheque. The only people who have copies of that would either be Duffy or Wright.”

The Hill Times contacted the Office of the Receiver General of Canada to confirm Sen. Duffy’s repayment, but the Public Works division was unable to confirm that it received a payment of $90,172.24 from the Senator. The agency referred questions surrounding the Senator’s repayment back to the Senate.

“Although payments are made payable to the Receiver General for Canada, they are remitted directly to the appropriate institution, in this case the Senate and subsequently deposited by that institution into the Government’s bank account. The Receiver General is not in possession of this information,” Public Works communications adviser Lucie Brosseau responded in an email to The Hill Times.

Requests for the details of repayment were also rebuffed by the Senate’s communications department, which has been handling all media requests since the Senate expense claims scandal begin to gain momentum early in 2013.

“We don’t disclose sensitive private information contained in personal cheques,” Senate communications officer Annie Joannette said. She referred questions of repayment to Senator Duffy’s office.

So far, the only public documents related to the RCMP investigation are regarding the expense claims by Senators Duffy and Mac Harb, who are both accused of claiming tens of thousands of dollars in living allowances despite being long-time residents of the National Capital Region.

PMO press secretary Carl Vallée declined to comment on the ongoing RCMP investigation. He restated comments made by Prime Minister Harper in June 18 press conference.

“Mr. Wright has been very clear that he will answer questions from authorities, and he will be held accountable for his actions, and I think that’s the appropriate course of events, and this matter is between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy and the authorities,” Mr. Vallée replied.

Mr. Beardsley said it was unlikely the investigation would disrupt PMO operations. If the transaction between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy involved more people, he guessed that a few other individuals may be expecting interviews with the Mounties.

“The office is somewhere in excess of 100 people. Except for maybe a small core group, none of those people would be involved in the issue,” Mr. Beardsley said. “If there’s a core group of three or four people who may have been involved in the decision making process — not necessarily with Wright and Duffy, but maybe they were made aware of it later — they might be wondering ‘Okay, when are they going to come in and see me.’”

Sen. Patrick Brazeau is also accused of making ineligible expense claims. Court documents obtained by The Ottawa Citizen show that investigators are now looking at payments made to Sen. Duffy by 12 different Conservative campaigns in the last election.

The RCMP confirmed that it was investigating allegations swirling around the expense claims scandal earlier this month, and is currently in the midst of its own challenges. The force faces multiple lawsuits from former officers alleging that they were subjected to sexual harassment and intimidation throughout their careers.

The government recently passed legislation intended to enhance accountability and oversight to address misconduct within the RCMP.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that meetings between Parliamentarians and Mounties require the approval of RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson or Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.).

NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.) said that he’s assuming the RCMP will not face political interference during its investigation, but suggested that it wasn’t beyond Mr. Toews to get involved.

“The record of the Public Safety minister in terms of his own directives regarding the RCMP talking to outsiders suggests that he doesn’t exactly know what the lines are. Let me just say that I trust he will keep his nose out of it,” Mr. Scott told The Hill Times.

But Mr. Clement said that he had the “utmost confidence” that investigators from the RCMP’s newly-constituted National Division would conduct an independent investigation. The division will be able to draw on resources and expertise from other policing agencies and RCMP divisions across the country in conducting sensitive and international investigations.

“The spotlight is not only on the Office of Prime Minister and Senators in this investigation—it’s also on the RCMP to do an objective investigation,” Mr. Clement said. “The only way the RCMP can come out looking like they did their job successfully is to do an investigation, present the facts to the attorney general, and have the attorney general decide whether there’s sufficient evidence to go forward with charges.”

Mr. Beardsley warned that any attempts to interfere with the investigation would be extremely risky.

“I just can’t see political interference taking place because you expose yourself if you’re a political staffer or politician,” he said. “If the RCMP came out with emails from a staffer telling them to lay off, the risk would be astronomical. I just can’t see anyone wanting to put themselves at risk for interfering with an investigation.”

cplecash@hilltimes.com

Twitter: @chrisplecash

The Hill Times

 

[ModlrMike]

...but in June the CBC published a story alleging...

hmmmm...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Have just learned that the CPC Policy Convention, scheduled to begin on 27 Jun 13 in Calgary has been postponed ...

And postponing might be an advantage says John Ibbitson in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright ct from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/cancelled-convention-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-harper-co/article12792940/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/

Cancelled convention a blessing in disguise for Harper & Co.

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jun. 25 2013

The cancellation of this week’s Conservative policy convention in Calgary because of the flood is a quiet blessing for this troubled government.

Yes, there was a great deal riding on the event, especially Stephen Harper’s Thursday speech. But in fact there was too much riding on that speech. The whole thing was best deferred.

The convention was intended to be the first tranche of a fabled “reset” on the government’s agenda, an exercise aimed at re-energizing the political base of the Conservative Party. These faithful followers are troubled by allegations of Senate sleaze, failing trade talks, rebellious backbenchers and the increasing absence of any clear governing agenda, much less a conservative one.

So yes, there is danger that the cancellation could reinforce the sense of drift and disillusion–another blow to a government that just can’t seem to win for losing, these days.

But there is another way to look at it.

For one thing, this fabled “reset” has reached dangerous levels of expectations. The Gettysburg Address couldn’t do the job that Mr. Harper’s speech needed to do: turn the page on the scandals; silence the dissenters; show the way forward to the next election. It was almost bound to disappoint.

Besides, if the mood of the base is as bad as everyone says it is, then now is hardly the time to put 3,000 core supporters in one room and ply them with drinks. Things are bound to look better in September. They could hardly look worse.

Beyond that, with Parliament recessed and the convention cancelled, federal politics may disappear from the national agenda for a few weeks. That downtime could give the Conservatives a chance to monitor the public mood. Will the Senate expenses scandal start to fade from public consciousness during the summer doldrums? How permanent is the hit that the government has taken over the imbroglio?

Internal polling and reports from MPs in their constituencies will give the Conservative Party a sense of its standing among Canadians.

Freed from daily damage control, the Prime Minister and his advisers will be able to spend the summer on concluding the negotiations over the free trade agreement with Europe, and nailing down the July cabinet shuffle.

If the trade talks fail, a major priority for the government will be accounting for that failure and limiting the political damage–though it will be severe, regardless. The shuffle will offer substantial, rather than merely rhetorical, evidence of Mr. Harper’s governing intentions. Who goes where will tell us something about what happens next.

If the Conservatives are able to hold their convention in September–though that is by no means certain because of reconstruction and other demands on facilities–then that convention will act as a curtain raiser for the return of Parliament and a new throne speech. There are worse ways to reset an agenda.

In the meantime, the Alberta floods have everyone’s attention. Co-ordinating the federal response to the disaster has been a major priority; putting together a relief package will be a major priority going forward.

But more than anything else, what the Conservatives need in the short term is quiet. The cancelled convention will offer that. Of all the things that have happened to them, lately, this is hardly the worst.

Earlier I mentioned that:

... It is time for a fresh, mid-term, start: a new parliament, a new throne speech, and a new programme over which all parties can contest.

John Ibbitson picks up on that when he says: "[the] convention will act as a curtain raiser for the return of Parliament and a new throne speech. There are worse ways to reset an agenda."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some fuel for the cabinet shuffle fire in this article 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/many-mps-may-rush-to-retire-before-pension-changes-kick-in/article12859169/#dashboard/follows/

MPs may rush to retire before pension changes kick in

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Gloria Galloway
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jun. 27 2013

The face of the federal Parliament could be dramatically altered after the next election as sitting MPs rush to make their exit before changes to their pensions prevent them from collecting the full benefit of their lucrative plans until they are 65 years old.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that that there are 146 MPs, representing of all stripes, who must be weighing their options – asking themselves if they are prepared to stick with the job for another decade, fighting multiple elections and paying tens of thousands of dollars more each year to get their post-politics pay.

Right now, any Member of Parliament with at least six years of service can retire at the age of 55 and collect pension benefits calculated according to their tenure. For instance, Bob Rae, the former interim leader of the federal Liberals, was able to collect $55,819 in annual pension benefits immediately after retiring earlier this month at the age of 64 with nine cumulative years as an MP.

Even if he had been 55, Mr. Rae would have been able to get that kind of payout as long as he had put in the time on the Hill.

But changes introduced by the Conservative government last September mean federal politicians will have to wait until they are 65 years old for their full pension cheques.

There is a twist, however, that will give many politicians reason to consider an early fade into the sunset: The changes apply only to MPs who are elected or re-elected in the national vote that is scheduled for 2015. Any who bow out before the ballots are counted will get the whole enchilada.

The Taxpayers Federation offers the example of Treasury Board President Tony Clement. In 2014, Mr. Clement will be 54 years old. If he retired, he would be eligible for his pension of 24 per cent of salary on his 55th birthday in 2016. But he if was re-elected in 2015, then retired immediately after, he would have to wait until his 65th birthday in 2026.

An MP can still retire after 2015 and begin collecting a pension between the ages of 55 and 65 but they will lose a percentage of their pension indefinitely for each year they begin collecting early.

So, if an MP who is his or her early ‘50s runs again and wins in 2015 but then loses when a minority government falls two years, they are in a bit of a quandary. They could start collecting a pension at the age of 55 but it would be forever reduced. Or they could wait until 65 but lose all those years of benefits.

“MPs find themselves in a funny position heading into the 2015 election. If they stay after 2015, MPs who retire early will have their pension entitlements reduced anywhere from 1 to 10 per cent, corresponding to the number of years of extra retirement they take ahead of their 65th birthday,” said Gregory Thomas, the executive director of the Taxpayers Federation.

“Also, their payroll deduction for pension benefits is going to jump from roughly $12,000 to $38,000,” said Mr. Thomas. “So unless they can sneak a big raise for themselves past a suspicious electorate, their take home pay will be lower after the election. For some, it might make more financial sense to leave.”

It is a decision that will greatly effect anyone under the age of 65 who is eligible for a pension regardless of whether it is a small pension or not.

Even those MPs who are now in their late 40s might think it’s better to quit now in the knowledge that they have a full-pension bird in their hands when they are 55.

And there are a lot of them in that situation - 102 Tories, 23 New Democrats, and 21 Liberals which is nearly two-thirds of that caucus.

Oh, and here is a final bit of fun. All of the senators who were among those first appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper - including Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau - will become eligible for their pension in 2015 and can safely retire before the pension age eligibility moves up. That’s pretty convenient for them, says the Taxpayers Federation, and it might give them a reason to stick it out just a year and half longer.

Explore the list of MPs and their pensions here.

Take a good look at some of the names on that list. Consider, for example, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, aged 47; if he retires before the 2015 general election his pension will kick in in eight year and be worth $117K per year. If he runs again might forgo a HUGE amount of money. MacKay says that "rumours of his political demise are greatly exaggerated," but he is newly married with a young family and politics provides an uncertain future. He is a respected public figure and can earn big money in the private sector.

Gordon O'Connor, whose pension is worth over $100K/year, is already 74 and I'm guessing that he will retire anyway.

Ron Nicholson, the Justice Minister is 61 but his pension is worth $140K+/year.

Peter VanLoan, often mentioned as a "must move" in cabinet shuffle rumours, is only 50 but his pension is worth $75K+/year. He is a potential Justice Minister if Nicholson retires.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The cabinet shuffle rumours are flying about, thick and fast; the Globe and Mail's Stephen Chase cites some "sources" as saying that

    1. "... the Prime Minister’s Office is telling some Conservative MPs and ministers to stay within 24 hours’ travel time of Ottawa in early July:" but

    2. Given that the PM and many Alberta MPs MUST be in Calgary next week for the Stampede, Stephen Chase hedges his bets by also reporting that, "One senior Conservative suggested that rather than
        announce a shuffle in the second week of July, Mr. Harper may use that time to talk to MPs and ministers about possible moves."

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is an immediate term political price to be paid for l'affaire Duffy according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/trudeaus-liberals-hit-historic-highs-as-senate-scandal-has-drastic-effect-on-tories-poll/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
My emphasis added

...
More than four in 10 Canadians, 44%, said they would vote Liberal in the next federal election, according to latest Forum Poll for the National Post, compared to 27% support for the ruling Conservatives and 20% for the opposition NDP.

The Liberals would claim 192 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons with that support, leaving the Tories with 77 and dropping the NDP all the way back to 37...

First: we are, at least, two full years from a general election - it is scheduled for the fall of 2015 but, as discussed before,  a spring 2015 election is also possible.

Second: it is instructive to look at where M. Trudeau appears to have not scored all that well: middle class suburbanites in Ontario and the West.

But, as always, a week is a long time in politics and a month is an eternity and thing change ... "events, dear boy, events" and all that ... and so do polls and prospects according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/shine-has-come-off-the-trudeau-express-liberal-support-dropping-as-tories-make-up-ground/

‘Shine has come off the Trudeau Express’: Liberal support dropping as Tories make up ground

Allison Cross

13/06/28

Support slipped for the Federal Liberals and surged for the Conservatives this month as new poll data shows Justin Trudeau’s party would win a minority government if an election were held today.

Thirty-eight per cent of Canadians polled said they would vote Liberal, a dip from last month’s all-time high of 44%, according to a Forum Poll for the National Post.

Support for the Conservative party grew three percentage points compared to last month, with 30% of those polled saying they’d cast a vote for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Tories.

“It appears a bit of the shine has come off the Trudeau Express since last month,” said Lorne Bozinoff, Forum Research president.

“Whether it’s a temporary blip or the new normal remains to be seen.”

Support for the NDP remained stable at 20% while 6% said they would vote for the Bloc Quebecois and 4% for the Green Party.

The new slump in electoral support for the Liberals means they’d win a minority government of 150 seats, compared to last month’s majority government of 192 seats.

The Tories would win 113 seats, a boost from 77 last month. The NDP would win 39 seats, up from 37 last month. Green Party leader would retain her single seat and the Bloc would take five seats, up from a single seat.

Thirty-three per cent of Canadians polled approve of the job Harper is doing, up from 29% last month. Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians also think it’s time for Harper to retire.

The majority of Canadians — 61% — believe it’s time for a change in Ottawa, while 31% do not and 8% are unsure.

If Harper did retire, the poll says 9% of Canadians would choose Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall to replace him as the leader of the Conservatives over the others on a list of possible candidates.

That list included: Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird (6%) Tony Clement (6%), Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (4%), Jim Prentice (4%), Parliamentary Secretary Michelle Rempel (3%) and Heritage Minister James Moore (2%).

Thirty-eight percent of those polled said they didn’t have an opinion on Harper’s replacement, while 29% said no one on the list would make a good leader.

The poll results are based on the results of an interactive voice response phone survey on June 18 of 1,525 Canadian adults selected at random. The results are considered accurate +/- 2%, 19 times out of 20.

A major Conservative cabinet shuffle is all but certain sometime this summer. Harper has asked his ministers whether they plan to run in the next election as he prepares for the shuffle in advance of a run to 2015.

Peter MacKay is already widely expected to be moved from his post as minister of defence, a portfolio he has filled since 2007 and reportedly enjoys, and some believe it would make sense for the minister to decide now is the time to step aside.

Rumours are also circulating of the planned resignation of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

It’s expected that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will be shuffled from finance against his wishes due to questions about his health and likelihood of running in the next election.

Baird, Kenney and Moore are also expected to be moved as Harper attempts to put a new face on his government for 2015.

National Post, with files from Postmedia News

I wouldn't bet on Jim Flaherty being moved without his agreement which will come if he is actually ill.

 

[Edward Campbell]

First: we are, at least, two full years from a general election - it is scheduled for the fall of 2015 but, as discussed before,  a spring 2015 election is also possible.

Second: it is instructive to look at where M. Trudeau appears to have not scored all that well: middle class suburbanites in Ontario and the West.


But, as always, a week is a long time in politics and a month is an eternity and thing change ... "events, dear boy, events" and all that ... and so do polls and prospects according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/shine-has-come-off-the-trudeau-express-liberal-support-dropping-as-tories-make-up-ground/

I wouldn't bet on Jim Flaherty being moved without his agreement which will come if he is actually ill.

Although I never factored him into the leadership sweepstakes, it is still a bit of a surprise, to me, to learn that Ted Menzies will not run again in 2015.

Ted Menzies is Minister of State for Finance and might, in my mind, have been in line for the Finance job IF Jim Flaherty moves on. Maybe his resignation signals that Flaherty will not move.

John Ibbitson thinks it would be counterproductive to move Jim Flaherty and he explains why in this article 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/replacing-finance-minister-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-and-harper-knows-that/article12944795/#dashboard/follows/

Replacing finance minister is a recipe for disaster, and Harper knows that

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jul. 03 2013

To borrow a phrase, when it comes to cabinet shuffles, those who know aren’t talking and those who are talking don’t know. That is nowhere more evident than in the debate over whether Stephen Harper will replace Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister.

But while we don’t know what the Prime Minister is thinking, we do know that Mr. Harper is a keen student of history. And history tells us that he would be wise to leave Mr. Flaherty where he is.

There are two arguments for replacing Mr. Flaherty: one sound and one facile. The sound argument centres on his health. The Finance Minister is battling a difficult skin condition. Mr. Harper will need to be convinced that Mr. Flaherty is able to give 100 per cent for the next two years. Otherwise he has not only a right but a duty to replace him.

The facile argument involves cosmetics. The Conservatives, according to this argument, need to kick-start a moribund administration with a cabinet shuffle that sends a clear message of renewal. Replacing the finance minister, according to this reasoning, would signal that renewal. But experience tells us that this reasoning is flawed.

Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin performed effectively as a team, until personal animosity and ambition caused a rupture that forced Mr. Martin out and, eventually, Mr. Chrétien to retire. The damage to the Liberal Party from that civil war contributed to Mr. Martin’s short tenure as Mr. Chrétien’s successor.

John Turner’s star ascended during his years as Pierre Trudeau’s finance minister. But Mr. Turner, who had his own ambitions to become prime minister, resigned in 1976 over a policy dispute, which contributed to the Liberal defeat in 1979 and, ultimately, damaged his own future prospects.

And then there was the case of Walter Gordon. He and Lester B. Pearson were friends, and Pearson made Gordon his finance minister when the Liberals won in 1963. But Gordon’s first, strongly nationalist, budget created an enormous backlash, including within the cabinet itself. Mr. Pearson ordered the budget’s most contentious aspects watered down or removed.

Not only did the fiasco end the friendship between the two men, but Stephen Azzi believes it robbed Pearson of a majority government in the next election.

“Pearson had come to power promising to restore competence,” observes Mr. Azzi, a political scientist at Ottawa’s Carleton University who wrote a book on Walter Gordon. “And to have this disaster in the first 60 days of the government showed the Liberals weren’t particularly competent either.”

Three finance ministers left their job under unpleasant circumstances. In every case, the government of the day paid a price.

The historical parallels are hardly exact. There is no daylight between Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty on policy, and Mr. Flaherty has no ambition to become prime minister.

But precedent teaches us that a breach between a prime minister and a finance minister, whatever the reason for that breach, bodes ill for the government’s future. And replacing Mr. Flaherty against his will would certainly create such a breach.

Prof. Azzi’s advice to Mr. Harper: “If you agree with [Mr. Flaherty] on economic issues, keep him in place.”

History offers the very same advice. And Stephen Harper knows his history.

The relationships between finance ministers and PMs are often contentious; in additon to Ibbitson's examples consider Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson in the 1980s, and, more recnetly, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Jim Flaherty is at the very least a competent and maybe even good finance minister; there is no indication of much "space" between Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty; Mr. Flaherty's medical problems seem not to be an insurmountable political problem; thus there is no good reason to ask him to move on.

My guess is: Flaherty stays until after the 2015 budget. He will be 65 when the next federal election rolls around; he's been a working politician for 18 years now; so, in 2015, he may be ready to move.

 

[GAP]

And...according to the numbers quoted earlier about people not running in 2015 because of pension issues....none of that touches Jim Flaherty.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And now CTV's Bob Fife is reporting that Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs) will also not run again in 2015. Once again, while I did not factor her into to my leadership equation she has been far more asset than liability to the CPC and to Prime Minister Harper.

And David Akin, Sun Media's National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And David Akin, Sun Media's National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.

And, in a Globe and Mail report: "Marjory LeBreton is stepping down as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s right hand in the Red Chamber ... Ms. LeBreton, who turned 73 on Thursday, was appointed to the Senate in 1993 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney after serving at Mr. Mulroney’s deputy chief of staff and appointments director ... She also worked for John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark."

 

[Old Sweat]

As noted, Senator LeBreton just turned 73, and thus would retired from the Senate in two years. That probably is not a good time for a change in a key appointment with a Federal election on the books for 2015.

And in another gee whizz theory, maybe the evil gnomes in the PMO fired her for not keeping a grip on the tory senators. I am surprised this one has not hit the airwaves yet.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As noted, Senator LeBreton just turned 73, and thus would retired from the Senate in two years. That probably is not a good time for a change in a key appointment with a Federal election on the books for 2015.

And in another gee whizz theory, maybe the evil gnomes in the PMO fired her for not keeping a grip on the tory senators. I am surprised this one has not hit the airwaves yet.

But there are rumours that Prime Minister Harper will not appoint the next Government Leader in the Senate to the cabinet.

I believe he should appoint one of the three elected senators - Doug Black, Scott Tannis or Betty Unger, all from Alberta - to a minister of state position in one of the portfolios (like Health or Natural Resources) where the national government intrudes into areas of (Constitutional) provincial responsibility.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Opposition Leader Thomas Mulciar strikes what I think is just about the right tone in this video clip from the Globe and Mail website.

I think that both Prime Minister Harper and M. Trudeau have to, at least, equal this performance ~ and make no mistake: this weekend and next week, in Calgary, is all about "performance." The national media - which has, in my guesstimation, about equal sympathy for the Liberals and the NDP and much less for the Conservatives - will be parsing each statement, looking to award "advantage" to one leader or the other. Of course, Mr. Harper has control of the public purse so he can "do" while the others can only cajole but he will be advised, by his most senior mandarins, to "do" as little as possible and to wait as long as possible before doing even that in order to make sure that Alberta has used up every penny it can find and to avoid setting an over-generous precedent. He will need to balance politics (which will argue for quick action and generosity) against policy (which will argue for fiscal prudence).

 

[Edward Campbell]

And David Akin, Sun Media's National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.

And the CBC's Greg Weston reports that"As Stephen Harper prepares for what is shaping up to be a major remake of the federal cabinet, sources tell CBC News they expect Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will announce Friday that he is retiring from politics."

Public Safety is a significant portfolio and someone who needs to be moved - say, Peter Van Loan who is rumoured to be a toxic Government House Leader, toxic to members of his own party, and who has been Public Safety Minister before (2008-2010)  - could be put back there again or he could be involved in some sort of three way shuffle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And now Mercedes Stevenson is reporting that Environment Minister Peter Kent is signalling that, while he intends to run again in 2015, he would not mind serving as a backbencher. There is some speculation that Kent has been told he is on the way out and is trying to make his exit graceful, voluntary.

Edit to add:

And here is Peter Kent's press release:

http://www.peterkent.ca/view/pressrelease/54

Press Release
Statement by the Honourable Peter Kent PC MP

Posted: July 05, 2013 | 0 comment(s)

It has been an honour, since 2008, to proudly represent the GTA constituency of Thornhill in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Harper amplified that honour when he appointed me to his Cabinet, first as the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) and, since January 2011, as Minister of the Environment.

Given increasing speculation regarding the coming Cabinet shuffle, statements from a number of esteemed colleagues that they will not run in the 2015 election and should not be considered for cabinet, and, in response to concerns expressed by Thornhill constituents, I wish to clarify a number of issues.

Whatever the outcome of the impending changes to Cabinet, I firmly intend to stand for re-election in 2015.

While it has been a great honour to have served in cabinet, political service does not begin or end in that revered body.

Our Conservative caucus has an abundance of talented MPs and it is only appropriate that other, younger men and women should take a turn in cabinet. I will fully support the PM's eventual decisions.

If, in the fullness of time and the eventual shuffle, I do find myself a backbench Parliamentarian, I will enthusiastically embrace what will be, for me, exciting new challenges.

Although still officially hypothetical, I would be able to better devote myself to my Thornhill constituents, to their issues, and to the issues of the Greater Toronto Area.

Most important among those issues; growing the economy, helping job creation, protecting our environment, AND, working to ensure the re-election of a strong, stable, majority Conservative government.

-Peter Kent PC MP

 

[Edward Campbell]

I found these three predictions by the Good Grey Globe's John Ibbittson interesting:

1. The unbiased panel will decide that the F-35 is the best aircraft available because, as Ibbitton says, the others are just as expensive and the F-35 gives us better interoperability with the US;

2. BC wil have a NDP government in 2013 and Northern Gateway will be a dead duck, at least for a few years; and

3. Justin Trudeau will be Liberal leader and he will displace Thomas Mulcair in the polls ... for a while; by end of 2013 Mulcair will, once again, be No. 2 in popularity and the Trudeau Liberals will slip back into third place.

At the mid point (plus a wee bit) John Ibbitson's predictions, which started this thread, are:

    1. Still in limbo;

    2. False ~ and, along with the Alberta election, making us rethink polling; and

    3. Partially true (M. Trudeau is Liberal leader and he has displaced Mr Mulcair in the polls) but we have half a year to go until year's end.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Despite disasters, natural and man-made, the political media remains fascinated by the cabinet shuffle. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail and Star Phoenix respectively are two articles ~ one quite useful one from a political insider explaining "cabinet making in Canada" and one "prescriptive" one from a pundit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-will-weigh-his-cabinet-timber-carefully/article13041903/#dashboard/follows/

Harper will weigh his cabinet timber carefully

DAVID MCLAUGHLIN
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jul. 08 2013

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper contemplates a major cabinet shuffle, he is no doubt reminding himself of what our first prime minister is said to have declaimed: “Give me better timber and I will make you a better cabinet.” The same dilemma has bedevilled all other prime ministers since. In Sir John A.’s tradition, they are all “cabinet makers.”

With Canada being geographically large, regionally motivated and linguistically constituted, Mr. Harper’s choices and conversations will be governed more by constraints than by opportunities. For his MPs, it will be a lottery of being from the right place at the right time.

Start with the timber. Mr. Harper needs to see the forest, not just the trees. He is blessed with young saplings – to carry the metaphor – but some old oaks, too. Those oaks are well-rooted and impervious to the political elements, the old-growth forest of his first governments. The saplings may bend with the wind and struggle for the light, but they offer regeneration. He needs to mix the two, keeping an eye on the forest floor past while planting and pruning for the future of his government and his party.

The iron calculus of cabinet making remains constant: Size matters. The more seats you have, the more ministers you get. That’s why New Brunswick, with eight Conservative seats, will get two ministers and Nova Scotia, with four, will only get one. And Alberta will get four.

And, since all politics is local, where ministers hail from counts. All regions and provinces get a cabinet seat. The Conservatives have seats almost everywhere, but those seats are unevenly located. Mr. Harper will need to balance representation with location, ensuring no province or region is slighted.

The subtext in every province, however, is region – including keeping an eye on urban-rural balance. Not every minister can come from Calgary or southern Alberta. Inevitably, someone deserving will be left out in order to put in someone else, from somewhere else.

Matching location with portfolio is usually obvious, but it can be tricky. The fisheries minister will never come from Saskatchewan but the agriculture minister can come from Prince Edward Island. Every region needs at least one top-tier portfolio tied to their interests to show it still has clout in Ottawa. In the “salad days of pork and patronage,” having a minister whose portfolio mattered locally or regionally (think of Trudeau-era fisheries minister Roméo LeBlanc, from New Brunswick) meant their political influence went well beyond the nameplate on the departmental door.

Next comes language. Not just bilingual ministers, but francophone ministers and Quebec ministers. Moreover, they have a call on at least a number of the top-tier portfolios. This is messier for Mr. Harper, since he has just five seats in Quebec. Their odds of making it into cabinet will always be high. But the risks of mismatching the individual with the portfolio is equally high, as seen with Maxime Bernier’s flameout at Foreign Affairs.

Performance counts, too. While not a meritocracy, good performers typically wind up with the most important portfolios in a given cabinet. Think Jim Flaherty at Finance or Jason Kenney at Immigration. But portfolio importance rises and falls with political and economic tides. Arguably, the opportune time to shuffle your finance minister is when the economy is, as we are told, doing well. But that opens the door to a domino effect, as replacing one minister inevitably starts knocking over others. Before too long, you’ve remade your government and, to the opposition’s delight, essentially voted non-confidence in yourself and your own policies. But with time ticking on this government’s mandate, it’s crucial to match high performers to politically important portfolios (and, conversely, to shuffle out underperformers).

Then, there’s gender. the Prime Minister has fewer choices than desired but more than in the past, giving him room. Finding matches for senior portfolios to avoid tokenism is the real challenge.

There are many audiences for a cabinet shuffle, voters and the media being obvious ones. But caucus – the ones left out – may matter most now, especially in the final shuffle prior to an election. Shuffling when you’re down in the polls and caucus is restive is a task unto itself. Mr. Harper will have to convince more than a few that for the good of the party, the government and the country, their talents were not needed.

Tough, yes, but every prime minister has to know when to lay down his friends for his life.

David McLaughlin has been chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney, New Brunswick premier Bernard Lord and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Cabinet+shuffle+chance+change+tone/8628756/story.html

Cabinet shuffle a chance to change tone

BY MICHAEL DEN TANDT
THE STARPHOENIX

JULY 8, 2013

In the lead-up to the cabinet shuffle expected any day, every pundit in Ottawa has weighed in, so much so that the narrative has become a cliché: new blood, fresh faces, more women, fewer grizzled warhorses and gaffeprone troglodytes. That's not how a Conservative partisan might word it but few would quibble with the gist, or that such a refresh is long overdue.

In the past week several mid-level veterans, including Ted Menzies and Diane Ablonczy, have said they won't run in 2015, meaning they've disqualified themselves from cabinet. Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, who is fighting cancer, had earlier asked to be excused. Environment Minister Peter Kent has indicated that he's backbench bound, though he intends to run again. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is reportedly retiring, and there has been much speculation about the intentions of Defence Minister Peter MacKay. However it shakes out, a winnowing is underway. It is believed to be clearing a path for up-and-comers such as Michelle Rempel, Candice Bergen, Shelly Glover, James Rajotte, Greg Rickford and Chris Alexander, among others.

At the pinnacle of the cabinet pecking order are the government's acknowledged four stars: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Heritage Minister James Moore, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. The smart money says Flaherty and Baird stay put, if only because they want to, while Moore and Kenney move to more senior posts. There is a desire in caucus for a new House Leader, to replace Peter Van Loan - someone of Rajotte's stature, or possibly even Michael Chong, whose proposed reforms of question period have earned him bipartisan respect. The reality, though, is that nobody knows, until the day of.

The greater question is whether any of it matters. It makes little difference if it's a Bergen or a Rempel reciting the PMO-generated talking point, if it's the same old line. Moreover, several of those deemed to be on deck for cabinet, including Bergen and Rempel, are already familiar to Canadians, by virtue of their frequent media turns as spokespeople for the government. So, how much image "freshening" can there really be? That view underestimates Harper's capacity to turn on a dime when he deems it necessary, it seems to me. There are plentiful examples - all from the minority period, mind you - of his blunting opposition attacks by deftly thieving their material. The most obvious was his purloining of "Quebec as a nation" from Michael Ignatieff 's Liberal leadership campaign in 2006. Nor should we forget the 2009 budget, a Liberal blueprint in all but name, designed to stave off a no-confidence vote. Both

nationally and internally, nothing could hurt Harper more, now, than to trot out a shiny new cabinet, whose members utter the same old blather.

What policy shifts might underpin a change in tone? There are two areas that could make a material difference in 2015. One is the environment; the other is accountability.

On the environment, Minister Peter Kent walked softly and carried a small stick. For two years in a row the government has failed to meet its own deadline for issuance of greenhouse-gas emissions regulations in the oil and gas sector. Given Washington's new interest in being perceived to be taking strong action to reduce carbon emissions, this is arguably not a matter of choice, any longer. Canada must adopt a more vigorous environmental posture, if only to prevent climate from being used as a wedge to stop pipeline expansion. I would expect language modelled on that of Alberta Premier Alison Redford, or former Harper minister Jim Prentice, or for that matter conservative patriarch Preston Manning. Either way, the cretinous "$21.5-billion carbon tax" talking point must go.

Second, accountability: There is no way for Harper to avoid this being a driving issue in 2015, for two reasons; his government's terrible track record in this respect, and the likelihood that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau will make it the spine of his campaign. To retake some initiative here - a steep uphill climb, given the unfolding Duffy mess and other scandals - Harper would have to outflank Trudeau.

That would mean, for starters, posting of itemized expenses by Tory MPs, beginning this fall; a rebalancing of the power of MPs vis-a-vis the party whip; defanging the hyper-partisans in the PMO; and a much more inclusive, constructive and respectful tone from the government, all around.

Will any of that come to pass? Anyone who has watched Harper work since May 2011 would say, probably not. Anyone who'd watched him previously would say, likely yes. It will come down to how much pressure his caucus can bring to bear, how supple he can still be - and how badly he wants to win. The articulation of the shuffle, and the six months that follow, will tell the tale.

© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mercedes Stephenson (CTV News) is reporting that: "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will resign at 11am EST.  He will resign as a Minister and MP effective tomorrow."

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mercedes Stephenson (CTV News) is reporting that: "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will resign at 11am EST.  He will resign as a Minister and MP effective tomorrow."

Now official....

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has announced he is resigning as a minister and Member of Parliament effective Tuesday.

Toews said in a statement that he is leaving public life in order to focus on his family and to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

The resignation, which had been expected, is the latest development that foreshadows an anticipated major cabinet shuffle by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“The time has come to step aside and begin the next chapter of my life,” Toews said in lengthy statement on Monday. “I am leaving public life in order to focus on my family and to pursue opportunities in the private sector.” ....

Edited to add link to text of Toews' statement here