As we approach the mid-point of the current government’s mandate, we’re seeing a few pieces about how terribly underperforming the cabinet is, and the problem with hiring rookies for the sake of diversity is that they’re basically all incompetent. Given the two pieces we saw over the weekend, from John Geddes and John Ivision respectively, I have to say that I’m a little disappointed in the shallowness of the analysis of both.

Part of the problem is that we don’t often elect a group of subject matter experts and can expect to slot them into cabinet slots and let them thrive. Electoral politics doesn’t really work that way, and this isn’t a technocracy. This isn’t America, and Cabinet posts are as much a question of political management than they are about anything else, and sometimes when you try to slot in someone you think is a subject-matter expert, you wind up with problems. It’s fairly rare that we have health ministers who are doctors, sometimes for good reason, but this government managed to find a good fit with Dr. Jane Philpott, who has managed to deal with some pretty hefty files from the day she was appointed. Appointing a former soldier like Sajjan, however, can be really problematic for the defence portfolio because it creates some awkward expectations, particularly with regard for expectations around the minister’s loyalties (not to mention that it makes a hash of the line we draw in our system between civil-military relations). But that doesn’t mean that putting a young and dynamic go-getter into a cabinet portfolio despite a lack of subject-matter expertise is a no-go. Sometimes a government has limited options when they win power.

I also think that some of Geddes’ analysis was heavy-handed. I doubt that Sajjan will carry this Operation Meduda baggage with him for very long, and I have said time and again that Maryam Monsef was not demoted – she went from a make-work portfolio with a handful of PCO staff to assist her, to a line department with an ambitious mandate. That’s fairly significant. Yes, this government has spent a lot of time consulting, but that has a lot to do with the way the previous government operated, and they came in on a promise of being different. Have things been slow to roll out? Great gods on Olympus yes, have they ever. Does that really amount to a pile of broken promises? No, and I think we can still afford to be patient on a number of files. But I also don’t think that Ivison’s call for prorogation, a complete reset of the agenda and a vast cabinet shuffle are the answer either. I think it’s a vast overreaction to a problem of perception and inflated expectations. Governing is difficult business, and things take time to get right. Just because previous governments rammed things through in haste doesn’t mean that every government needs to, particularly when they have an eye on long-term change.

Good reads:

• The headquarters for the new Infrastructure Investment Bank was selected for Toronto, much to the chagrin of Calgary and Montreal.
• Some senators (mostly Conservatives) are looking to amend the government’s safe injection site legislation.
• Grumbling about the slow pace of appointments continues apace, this time with the Military Grievances External Review Committee.
• The Senate’s National Security and Defence Committee tabled a report calling for an ambitious ramping up of military procurement.
• Turkish diplomats are trying to pressure Somali-Canadians, and immigration minister Ahmed Hussen is getting caught up in it.
• Here is a look at some of the costs of trying to secure a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
• The legal fight over the contract for new search-and-rescue planes shows that they would take two days to reach the North Pole for operations.
• Senator Elaine McCoy, who leads the Independent Senators Group, is joining the call to oust Senator Don Meredith.
• There are concerns that the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women is going off the rails, and it hasn’t even gotten started yet.
• Maclean’s talks to Navdeep Bains about the government’s planned “innovation superclusters.”
• Outrage as senior bureaucrats with government agencies are charging for Rideau Club memberships.
• Scott Gilmore updates his musings on his “new conservative” dinners after his stop in Winnipeg, with some thoughts on the perspective outside of Ottawa.
• Paul Wells looks at the field of Conservative candidates fleeing from their former leader’s positions, and makes the case for optimism in the party.
• Kevin Carmichael looks at the state of the Canadian dollar.
• Andrew Coyne laments the promise of the Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the political interference already manifest in its design.
• John Ivison cites government insiders as saying that it was the White House who asked Trudeau to call Donald Trump and convince him not to tear up NAFTA.

Odds and ends:

Kady O’Malley dissects the problems with the Conservatives’ next planned Supply Day motion on PMQs.