Kevin Lynch
This one comes in two parts. First, here are the talking points Conservative MPs and staffers have been given in case any pesky reporter calls around.
Media inquiries should be referred to Dimitri Soudas in the Prime Ministers Office.
The following information is provided as background:
The Prime Minister thanked Mr. Lynch for his tireless service and dedication to Canada. In recognition of his exceptional public service, Mr. Lynch will be sworn in as a member of the Queens Privy Council for Canada.
Mr. Wouters joined the federal public service in 1982 and is presently Secretary of the Treasury Board. His knowledge and experience will serve him well in the challenging role of Clerk of the Privy Council. Mr. Wouters was born in Edam, Saskatchewan.
The Government will continue to pursue its agenda, to fulfill its campaign commitments and to implement the Economic Action Plan.
Upon his retirement, Mr. Lynch will have served as Clerk for three years, four months. Since 1979, the average length of service for a Clerk has been three years, four months.
Now here’s how the deputy ministers’ morning meeting, chaired by Kevin Lynch at Langevin Block, went today.
I’m told it was an “absolutely routine” meeting until its last minutes. Deputy ministers from each department gave reports on the goings-on in their shops. There was a slide show on the Public Service Employee Survey. Lynch gave no hint that this would be an unusual meeting. Wayne Wouters was there, “sphinx-like, unreadable,” my source says in retrospect — there had been nothing unusual in his appearance or action either.
Then Lynch told his colleagues he had had a conversation with the prime minister, there had “been a decision,” and he wanted them to be the first to know. He was leaving in June. He felt the time was right — perhaps a surprising statement, because there has been much speculation in the civil service that he wanted out, but the rough consensus was that he wouldn’t leave in the middle of an economic crisis — and he assured the deputies they would be “in good hands.” No mention was made of Wouters as the replacement.
How much did politics play a role in this? The early opinions I’ve received are divided. My source on this morning’s meeting says “the PM was always very good about leaving the public service stuff to the public service,” and it’s certainly true that some clerks haven’t lasted as long as Lynch. (Among recent clerks, Paul Tellier was the longevity champ at 7 years, Jocelyne Bourgon second at five years.) Another veteran public-service observer says Wouters is “a nice guy” but that his appointment proves the PMO will be in charge. But as Lynch himself would have argued, theoretically the PMO should be in charge.
I met Lynch once, briefly, before he became Clerk. After the last election I called his office asking for a lunch; he sent a gracious note through his assistant, declining the request. He already had a formidable reputation as a driving force behind the knowledge-economy push of the Chrétien government after 1997. He is said to be hard-driving and tough on subordinates. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly and he has a broad definition of who qualifies as a fool. When he and Harper were in the same room, there would not have been much room for a third ego. I believe his hand has been visible in a few initiatives, largely at Industry, generally without fanfare (more knowledge-economy stuff). Deciphering what he’s been up to in Langevin has been a favourite Ottawa party game for three years. His departure won’t slow that speculation down.
Print
Comment
hm! I Wonder how much input Secretary Lynch had to the infamous Fall Economic statement? Whether the hot items that precipitated the Coalition and premature proroguing were bounced off him or not – prior to being presented to Parliament?
I’m wondering how to pronounce Wouters?
Woo-ters? or Wow-ters? or Wuh-ters?
That’d be Door Two, Wow-ters, Monty.
I know some Wouters, and they are Woo-ters.
Woo!
Woot!
Wells might have leakers among the top levels of the managerial classes, but he does not know how Wouters pronounces his own surname.
Don’t imagine a luncheon invitation will be accepted by this person nor anyone else in government after this blog entry.
It’s pronounced “waters”
Interesting. Kevin Lynch was certainly a proponent of the science and technology research strategy that has received considerable public flak over the past few months (my bet is that he played a substantial role in the genesis of the Vanier and CERC programs). He took interest in infrastructure as well as the knowledge economy. He is probably on the side of evolution too… Ah, well that’s it then.
Kevin Lynched? What a shame as he, along with Mark Carney, was the Main perpetrator of Harper’s fraudulent tax leakage hoax involving income trusts.
Do you keep some kind of list of all those who were responsible? Harper, Flaherty, Carney, Lynch? Who else is on it?
The decision was made by six persons. The four you mentioned, of which 2 are elected (Harper and Flaherty) and four were not. The two you didn’t mention were Ian Brodie, at the time Harper’s Chief of Staff and Rob Wright, Deputy Minister of Finance.
Also contemplate this:
In Canada, we don’t do “transparent” or “rigorous”. We do manufacture and manipulate
Stress Test: It’s Time for Transparency
Seeking Alpha/New York Times
May 7, 2009
“But it will also require transparent, rigorous analysis; candor with the public and investors; and a recognition that lots of debt heaped upon a pile of dubious assets has created a financial nightmare — it’s no more complicated than that.”
In Canada, we don’t do Transparent or Rigorous. We are force fed M&M’s by the media and our paid elected members of Parliament…. manufacture and manipulate…..and their patent lies about tax leakage.
See: http://caiti-online-media.blogspot.com/2007/04/to-finance-minister-flaherty-your-tax.html
The one-man income-trust protest organization is back!
Wouters is pronounced waters.
I swear this type of trivial knowledge will get me far someday.
Canada’s next ambassador to the United States?
“Mr. Wouters joined the federal public service in 1982 and is presently Secretary of the Treasury Board.”
I, for one, am disappointed to see that the Conservative talking points misuse the adverb “presently” which, as Kory Teneckye knows perfectly well, does not mean (at least in English) “at present” but rather either “shortly” / “in the immediate future” (“I will be with you presently”) or “soon afterwards” (“Presently, Arthur Currie came in”).
Surely Mr. Wouters’ tenure at Treasury Board deserves more than this feeble, ungrammatical effort.
Jack Mitchell – nothing worse than a pedant who doesn’t check his facts. Look up “presently” in the OED. Then correct your feeble posting.
I don’t acknowledge the authority of the OED, “Scott in Ottawa.” They catalogue every use and misuse; in this case likely a throwback to when it was newly arrived from French. “Presently” means what I said and you look like an oaf if you use it to mean “présentement.” Anyway, not all of us have online access to the OED through out government-supplied subscription, so post the definition if you want to tangle.
You’ve inspired me to look it up, however, I’ll give you that. From Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary:
Present (1), near at hand. (F.-L. O.F. present. = L. praesent-, stem of praesens, i.e. being in front or near. = L. prae, in front; -sens, for *es-ens, being, from root ES, to be. Cf. Absent. Der. present-ly; presence, sb., O.F. presence, L. praesentia.
So, you see, the key element is prae-, “in front of,” i.e. in front of you in time or narrative, not in front of your nose in the here-and-now. But feel free to offer your reasoned opinion, Scott in Ottawa.
What’s your position on impact as a verb and impacted as an adjective – other than for wisdom teeth?
JM is right.
With changing language even JM will admit that it might some day in the future be possible for the prae- beginning to allow a word to refer to something that is happening right now. We do not, however, live in the airy-fairy future, but the here-and-now of the present. We can therefore be quite certain that words from the stem of praesens never, ever refer to anything but that which is happening later.
Sorry, Jack. Words take on the meaning that people use them in, and that other people understand them in. The whole point of language is to be understood in communication – to share meaning. If no one understands your use of the word presently or anything else then its not very useful is it? If your view of language were maintained then new words would not get invented, usage would never change, and English would be as dead as Latin.
The OED is the best standard in dictionary’s exactly because it tracks every verifiable past and present usage.
You are perfectly welcome to attempt to claim the use of one word or another is improper – perhaps you will be successful in convincing people you are right. But if your only argument is to stuffily argue that it once meant something else you aren’t going to be successful.
Sorry, Matthew, but the OED is not a normative dictionary. It does not tell you whether it is right to use a word one way or another, merely how people have used it in the past. Consequently it appeals to our Anglo-American culture, in which all bets are off on language: slang is equated with Shakespeare, up is down if you care to use it thus, and if the other guy doesn’t get your meaning then it’s his fault. I find this symptomatic of a general decay in morality in our culture. But feel free to join in, your position is that of a million other relativists.
R Keller: “What’s your position on impact as a verb and impacted as an adjective – other than for wisdom teeth?”
As in, “his retirement impacted Harper’s plans”? I’m not against it; I like neologisms as long as they don’t pervert old words (cf. “presently”) and are clearly intelligible. “Impact” is from impingere, which gave us “to impinge,” but maybe (as used) that’s not quite the same as “to impact” these days, so “to impact” fills a void. (I have nothing against using nouns as verbs in English, it’s what we do best.) “Impacted” seems less elegant to me but I guess if you have the verb you need the past participle. Maybe it’s a sore point, as it were, with me, as a couple of my wisdom teeth . . . impacted.