a few notes on the cabinet.
- putting marco mendicino in the immigration file is an interesting signal, considering that they took ahmed hussen out of it. one would assume that ahmed hussen at least had grandparents that identified as muslim. marco mendicino's primary claim to fame is his work in prosecuting the toronto 18, which was an entrapment operation on an "islamic terrorist cell". we'll see if the policy approach is different or not, but this could signal a move towards a more restrictive immigration policy, which would be the party listening to public opinion.
- jonathan wilkinson is an interesting choice for the environment. the right-wing press is describing him as "pro-business", while the pseudo-left is describing him as a "clean technology executive". his actual history is in working for companies that sell technology to make fossil fuels less polluting; his industry would profit from greater regulatory enforcement. so, it's suggesting that the party is going to try and salvage this orwellian pr strategy about not being able to separate the environment and the economy by putting somebody that can do more than repeat talking points in charge of the file. he has already worked in the department, as well. on it's face, this would suggest that the policies will be pro-extraction, but that there may be some effort to pass legislation to try to clean the sands up (and thereby benefit the interests that wilkinson represents). if so, that would be something kind of along the lines of what i might hope for in a liberal government. this is the bankers' party, after all. they're all about profit. but, it's because they're the bankers' party that they have a history of passing legislation that is well-informed by actual research, rather than by ideology or populism. actual, real bankers don't watch fox news. they're usually actually pretty smart. so, when i see that they've put an executive with strong ties to an industry that profits from regulating emissions in charge of the environmental file, it makes sense to presume that this is because he will have significant business opportunities in the sector, which will benefit the banks' investment in it. if we want to shut these pipelines down, we're going to have to do it in court - everybody's known that for years. but, there is grounds for a cautious optimism, here, in the only feasible ways that you could actually expect from this party. environmentalists generally argue against ccs-type proposals, but what if you put the ccs industry in charge of the ministry? it's worth a shot, if it's actually in good faith. so, we'll see if it works or not, but i like this pick, and hope it's a good way to project how the government thinks throughout the remnants of it's existing mandate - that green energy is big business, it just needs some corporate welfare to get going. let them build it, we can nationalize it later....
- putting seamus o'regan at natural resources seems to suggest that the pmo is centralizing the file.
- likewise, i don't actually think that putting chrystia freeland at intergovernmental affairs is a promotion, at all. this is a centralized file, so he's essentially giving her a job in katie telford's office. you could argue that bringing her into the pmo is a promotion, i guess, but she's going to essentially be losing cabinet status, and, with it, a lot of independence and power. while i think it's mistake to give it to her, the role of "deputy prime minister" is not constitutionally defined, and should not be thought of as being similar to "vice president", even if what trudeau's doing probably actually has everything to do with julia louis dreyfus. this would appear to be a pr ploy to make justin look very feminist. we'll see how she's actually deployed to fight against "wexit", but i would expect it to be as an extension of the pmo, rather than independently of it - and perhaps often in contradiction to her own suggestions. they're keeping an eye on her, as much as they're bringing her in...
- as was the case with wilkinson, the actual promotion of francois-phillipe champagne to foreign affairs is about as good a pick as you can hope for from this government. in 2015, this post was awarded to stephane dion, who was considered a protege of jean chretien, and was at one time his hand-appointed successor. there was hope that he would undo much of the mess that harper created at foreign affairs, but was quickly scuttled out after the election of donald trump, under fears that the republicans would hate him. freeland seemed more keen on carrying on with harper's policies than reversing them. but, the new minister is another chretien protege, so there is some hope that he will return to a more historically normal canadian foreign policy. the first thing he appears to have done is reverse harper's policies on illegal israeli settlements in the west bank, which has hurt our international standing over the past 15 years. i like this pick, as well, and hope that's a good sign of things to come.
- karina gould has some history working in international aid, which is perhaps a positive sign. often, people end up with "international development" as a kind of throwaway ministry that's just used as a stepping-stone. maybe putting somebody with some interest in the topic in charge of the ministry could help spark some much needed reform within it. i am an advocate of the idea that better spending on foreign aid could help reduce unwanted types of immigration.
- patty hajdu is again an interesting choice at health, and there is some cautious optimism that it may signal a shift to a focus on creating better funding models. she has a history of working with vulnerable people.
there are things i don't like, but not many of them are new things that i don't like. in terms of the actual changes that occurred here, this is almost entirely positive. but, i do have one concerning thing to take note of.
- there is no minister of science at this point. the file has been folded into the title "minister of innovation, science and industry". this would seem to suggest that this government has the view that science is only important when it helps industry maximize profit. again: this is the bankers' party. but, smart bankers should understand the importance of doing basic research. this is a progression that occurred, rather than something that happened all at once. if the implication is that basic science is being phased out in favour of letting industry take control of the resources, that is an extremely concerning continuation of the underlying harperism of this government, and needs to be mobilized against.
broadly speaking, though, they seem to be moving in the right direction, if you can get over the kind of meaningless symbolism that defines so much of their messaging.