Roundup: Mandate letters a good step

Posted on by

Within a few days, we’re going to see another first on the federal scene – the mandate letter sent to every cabinet minister are going to be made public. We’ve seen this in a few provinces before, but not federally, and when Trudeau talks about this being a step in open, transparent and accountable government, he’s right. These letters, personalised to each minister, lay out responsibilities and expectations, and perhaps even timelines, when it comes to what they have on their plate. So why make them public? Because it’s a way of showing what was expected of them so that they can be held to account based on those particular metrics. It also gives the civil service an idea of where the government is going so that they can tailor their efforts accordingly. It does set the more open and transparent tone that Trudeau has been looking to set for his government, and changes the kinds of black boxes that we’re normally used to seeing. Not that there aren’t reasons for some of those closed-doors – cabinet meetings in particular, the caucus room as well – because there do need to be spaces for closed-door discussions in order for consensus to be achieved or for positions to be hashed out without fear of the press making a big deal about divisions that may or may not exist. But even with cabinet secrecy being a good and important thing, I’m having a hard time seeing how mandate letters could be justified under that rubric. It’s not about the discussion leading up to a decision – it’s about setting the government’s direction, and that is something that should generally be out in the open. It’s a move we should applaud, and hopefully it will continue to be an indication of the direction this government is taking in terms of its commitment to actual transparency.

Good reads:

  • The government has struck a cabinet committee to deal with the Syrian refugee issue, while Canadian Forces says they’re ready to house 12,000 refugees.
  • The Liberals are going to look at reforming prostitution laws to better protect sex workers.
  • Here’s a look at reimbursements coming to candidates from the last election (thought I’m not a fan of the framing as it being a taxpayer imposition).
  • Global Affairs Canada removed the Queen’s portrait from their lobby and replaced it with the Pellan paintings that were there before. (I’ll have more to say on this later).
  • The pace of our airstrikes in Iraq has picked up, while the new defence minister say that he’s more focused on refugees than ending the mission right now.
  • Meanwhile, one of our military transports in Iraq is having a paperwork issue over weapons they’re carrying.
  • Catherine McKenna said that the Conservatives’ GHG targets will be the new “floor,” and she hopes we can make targets that are even tougher.
  • Kellie Leitch campaigned with nearly 70 different Conservatives in the last election, which may be part of building her leadership profile.
  • Stephen Gordon looks at the differences between economists and successful business people, and why the latter don’t necessarily make good politicians.
  • Jen Gerson wonders if that display at Foreign Affairs on Friday made the Conservative paranoia about bureaucrats justified.

Odds and ends:

Stephen Harper got one last Challenger jet ride home.

One Montreal borough is now without a mayor because he won a federal seat for the Liberals.

3 thoughts on “Roundup: Mandate letters a good step”

  1. Dale: Why do you not think the reimbursement of election expenses out of the public treasury is a “taxpayer imposition?” Given that up to three-quarters of funds raised by the parties generate a tax credit to the donor (which is a cost to taxpayers) and sixty per cent of the parties’ actual election expenditures are paid out of tax dollars, it sure looks like a taxpayer imposition to me. If the argument is that its a worthwhile imposition, that’s a discussion worth having but it’s still an imposition.

    • It’s not an imposition because we don’t want wealth to be a barrier to entering politics. This is one way to ensure that.

      • As I suggested earlier, it may be considered a good imposition but it is an imposition, nevertheless. For example, it takes money out of taxpayers’ pockets to buy the infamous attack ads that we all claim we abhor. If fairness and equity is really the issue, I think it’s instructive to reflect on the fact that Harper eliminated the only equitable form of taxpayer subsidy to parties, which was the per-vote subsidy.

Comments are closed.