Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'More focus and purpose; less process and cost'

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 5:08pm - 20 Comments

The Liberals and NDP are both taking issue with the size of Mr. Harper’s cabinet and ministry (though previously two separate things, Mr. Harper doesn’t make any distinction). As noted below, it is once more one of the largest in this nation’s history—including the Prime Minister, the government House leader, the leader of the government in the Senate, 24 ministers and 11 ministers of state.

When Mr. Harper unveiled a ministry of 32 in February 2006, he said “the structure is designed to promote accountable, efficient and effective government—more focus and purpose; less process and cost.”

In an interview with the Toronto Star at the time, Derek Burney, chief of Mr. Harper’s transition team, projected the reduction from Paul Martin’s set-up—cabinet of 33, ministry of 39—would save between $15 and $20-million per year. The Star’s report after the jump.

Cabinet ranks reduced to 27; Shakeup aims to cut process, costs Harper to chair key committee

The Toronto Star
Tue Feb 7 2006
Byline: Graham Fraser

OTTAWA Prime Minister Stephen Harper has organized his government for efficiency, ensuring there will be no formal hierarchy in his cabinet and no overlapping responsibilities, the architect of the transition said yesterday.

“The character of the new government is one that is streamlined in numbers and in structure,” said Derek Burney, a former chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney and a former CEO with Bell Canada International.

“Its objective is results,” he said, pointing out the cabinet had one-third fewer members than Paul Martin’s – 27 as compared to 39.

“That in itself will represent savings of between $15 and $20 million a year – and that’s for cabinet alone. We would expect to see other savings to follow.”

The number of cabinet committees was reduced to six from 10.

“This was all intended to provide greater focus, more purpose, less process, less cost,” Burney told reporters, describing the cabinet as having “a flat line of equivalence” since there is no deputy prime minister and no junior ministers.

“It’s a cabinet that’s built for work, not for show.

“More clarity will give us more discipline in terms of results,” he said, pointing out the Conservative government has restored some of the departments that were divided by the Martin regime.

Thus, Human Resources and Social Development were reunited.

“The objective is to enable ministers in the cabinet to do what they promised to do within the constraints of a minority government,” Burney said.

“The most precious commodity for any government is the Prime Minister’s time,” Burney said, adding the aim of a smaller cabinet is to create a system that “encourages informed discussion and clear decisions and discourages procrastination.”

In some ways, it seems as if the Harper government took notes on the Martin regime’s performance, and decided to do the opposite a small cabinet rather than a large one, a flat structure rather than a hierarchical one, no overlaps in responsibilities, and no swearing in parliamentary secretaries to the Privy Council Office.

In addition, Burney announced the creation of two crucial cabinet committees “planning and priorities” for strategic planning, and “operations” for the day-to-day management of legislation promised in the election, and business in the House of Commons.

Harper will chair the priorities and planning committee himself, with Lawrence Cannon as the vice-chair. Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice will chair the operations committee and House Leader Robert Nicholson will be the vice-chair.

Bookmark and Share
  • CAPS

    Aaron, can you or one of the prcedural geeks amongst the commenters please explain the exact difference between Cabinet and Ministry.

    I did notice when Harper was first sworn in that he used Ministry and I had never heard it before. I think this is just one more example of Harper being mealy-mouthed and playing with words so he can always claim something that is contrary to what everybody feels when they see a larger number of CABINET MINISTERS.

    • AaronWherry

      My understanding is that the ministry included ministers of state and secretaries of state, while cabinet was restricted to ministers. Chretien and Martin made the distinction and Harper did at first. Harper now includes everyone in cabinet, which is mostly how it worked in the past.

      • CAPS

        Thanks Aaron.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    The Liberals are right to take issue with the size of Harper's cabinet and ministry, which is dangerously close to Paul Martin levels.

    • Emily

      Except Harper promised smaller govt.

      Since then he's pushed an elected senate, hired more civil servants, and installed more cabinet ministers.

      • hollinm

        That's how he keeps the unemployment level below 8% :-) You guys are really desperate for something to talk about.

        • Emily

          Actually he doesn't….unemployment is bad, and it's about to get worse.

          Stop trying to shush people holinm…it doesn't work.

          • hollinm

            I am not trying to hush anybody. The fact is when we have to talk about the size of the cabinet, long form census and a prorogation that happened a year ago then the country must be in pretty good shape. We could have rioting in the streets, unemployment at 10-17% like Europe.
            Unlike you Emily I believe everybody is entitled to their opinion. Anybody who disagrees with you is considered a conbot or whatever derogatory name you want to attach. So who is trying to hush who my dear.

          • Emily

            LOL of course you are.

            I know you think those things are trifles, but they're not….and I know you believe that Europe is worse, which it isn't…but then you are a victim of Harper-wash, and don't notice that we are talking about democracy and knowledge…2 vital topics.

          • hollinm

            Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Emily

            AT LAST….A VOCABULARY THAT SUITS YOU!!!

      • sourstud

        Except that his cabinet is still smaller than Paul Martin's, so that doesn't really count as "more", does it?

        • tedbetts

          I thought Martin's cabinet was only 32 or 33 compared to Harper's 38 and Mulroney's 38.

    • tedbetts

      Isn't it 6-7 ministers larger than Martin's already?

  • tedbetts

    "More focus and purpose; less process and cost"

    “It’s a cabinet that’s built for work, not for show."

    “The objective is to enable ministers in the cabinet to do what they promised to do within the constraints of a minority government”

    And this beauty:

    "The aim of a smaller cabinet is to create a system that “encourages informed discussion and clear decisions and discourages procrastination.”

    A larger, fatter cabinet, of course, being just the opposite of all of that.

  • libby21

    Too bad Harper couldn't have shuffled himself right out of the government. Out of the country.

    • sourstud

      I believe that one is known as "The Iggy Shuffle"

  • Mike T.

    This is one of those "it was ever thus" things.

  • tobyornotoby

    All show no go. There are only a few ministers who actually do anything, the rest await their marching orders from the PMO.

  • PeteTong

    Aaron I believe you have made an error. I think that Harper unveiled a Cabinet of 27 on February 6, 2006 but that the addition of 5 "Secretaries of State" occured on January 4, 2007, bringing the ministry size to 32.

    … I suppose technically it was 6 "Secretaries of State" but one of those was Marjory LeBreton (and was already in Cabinet by default of being government leader in the Senate)…

From Macleans