Check out what the Pope's doing this week!

Scholas consults hundreds of students from Madrid on how to revolutioniz...

4in1 Ronald Reagan: A Time For Choosing Rex and Trudeau

This is a 4 in one shot.
First hear Ronald (please bring him back) Regan..

Then move down to   Rex Murphy | Trudeau's Refugee Promise

Then on to Rex' s accurate analysis of electioneering WE(notme) got had like FOOLed like for the nex 4 years... and yes we are all in this together...like it or not.



    Rex Murphy | Trudeau's Refugee Promise    http://parliamentarianobserver.blogspot.ca/2016/01/rex-murphy-trudeaus-refugee-promise.html

                     click on link above

 

Rex Murphy | Justin Trudeau's Promises
  http://parliamentarianobserver.blogspot.ca/2016/01/rex-murphy-justin-trudeaus-promises_21.html

Click on the link above


and for the cherry on the cake ou do not want to miss this one

 We Must Fight - President Reagan  click on link
  http://parliamentarianobserver.blogspot.ca/2016/01/us-armed-forces-we-must-fight-president.html

 

 

Rex Murphy | Justin Trudeau's Promises

Rex Murphy | Trudeau's Refugee Promise

★ U.S. Armed Forces - We Must Fight - President Reagan (HD) 2015 ★

Le cabinet Trudeau à l'école des choix

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/politique/2016/01/16/003-trudeau-gouverner-livraisonlogie-barber-choix-promesses.shtml

Mise à jour il y a 19 minutes

 Photo :  cbc.ca

Un des hôtels « les plus luxueux et légendaires » du pays presque vide. Un village de bord de mer isolé du Nouveau-Brunswick. Un premier ministre, ses trente ministres et une cinquantaine de conseillers stratégiques. Les médias invités, mais maintenus relativement à l'écart. La retraite du cabinet Trudeau qui prend son envol dimanche après-midi est plus qu'un coup de relations publiques. C'est un exercice quasi pédagogique. 

Une texte d'Emmanuelle Latraverse

Justin Trudeau et ses ministres sont à « l'école des choix efficaces ». Ils sont là pour apprendre comment gouverner à la hauteur de leurs ambitions. 

« Entre l'idée et la réalité
   Entre la notion et l'acte
   Tombe l'ombre » — T.S. Eliot, cité dans « How to run a Government » de Michael Barber

 

Justin Trudeau a promis aux Canadiens un gouvernement ouvert, efficace; un gouvernement qui saura créer de la croissance économique au Canada, tout en contrant les inégalités sociales.
Il a promis un gouvernement qui saurait enfin réaliser une réconciliation concrète avec les peuples autochtones, leur redonner une place digne et active dans la société et 
l'économie d'aujourd'hui. 

Il a promis de légaliser la marijuana de manière sécuritaire, de négocier un nouveau pacte sur la santé avec les provinces et ainsi répondre au problème du vieillissement de la population.
Il a promis une réforme du scrutin et un Sénat digne de respect. Il a promis un système d'immigration plus juste, l'intégration de milliers de réfugiés. C'est tout juste s'il n'a pas promis l'honneur et l'enthousiasme. 


L'euphorie de la victoire passée, ses ministres enfin au fait de leurs dossiers, l'heure est venue de gouverner, de passer de la parole aux actes. 

Avec sa majorité et ses voies ensoleillées vient l'obligation des résultats. 

Le « Deliverology » ou la science de la mise en œuvre
 
À l'heure des choix, qui s'annoncent difficiles, du ralentissement économique de plus en plus inquiétant, Justin Trudeau et ses ministres doivent prioriser, agir, gouverner. 

La question demeure : comment s'assurer que l'immense machine gouvernementale ne soit pas un frein à la mise en oeuvre efficace des réformes promises, mais devienne un levier important et efficace? 

C'est ici qu'entre en scène Michael Barber et sa science du « deliverology », ou de la « livraisonlogie ». Ce n'est ni une secte, si une lubie ésotérique. 

La « livraisonlogie » se veut l'art de livrer la marchandise en politique. 

« Le processus de mise en oeuvre est important en politique, puisque la démocratie est menacée si les politiciens font des promesses à répétition sans réussir à les réaliser. » — Michael Barber, « How to run a government »

 

Michael Barber est devenu l'un des hauts fonctionnaires les plus influents en Grande-Bretagne lors du second mandat de Tony Blair et est depuis devenu un expert mondial dans l'art ou la science de « livrer la marchandise ». 

Au fil des ans, il a développé tout un cadre pour enseigner aux gouvernements et ministres comment passer de la vision politique aux réformes concrètes. D'ailleurs, le titre de son livre dit tout : Comment diriger un gouvernement au bénéfice des citoyens et pour ne pas rendre les contribuables fous! (« How to Run a Government : So That Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don't Go Crazy ») 

Il n'est pas surprenant que les conseillers de Justin Trudeau l'aient invité à modérer certaines des discussions lors de la retraite du cabinet à St. Andrews. Gerald Butts, son conseiller principal, avait fait appel à ses services au début du gouvernement de Dalton McGuinty en Ontario. 

Déjà certains de ses principes semblent avoir été mis en oeuvre.
Justin Trudeau s'est doté d'un « comité du cabinet chargé du programme gouvernemental et des résultats » dont la responsabilité est justement d'établir le programme du gouvernement et assurer le suivi des progrès tangibles dans les dossiers prioritaires. 

Cette semaine, il a créé le poste de sous-secrétaire du Cabinet (Résultats et livraison) au sein du Conseil privé. Et ce nouveau haut fonctionnaire, qui sera justement responsable de s'assurer que les promesses électorales se traduiront en actions concrètes mises en oeuvre d'ici les prochaines élections?

 C'est Matthew Mendelsohn, un autre « ex » du gouvernement McGuinty, au sein duquel il a travaillé comme sous-ministre lors des grandes réformes. Disons qu'il est bien au fait de la « livraisonlogie ». 

Les fondations sont jetées, il s'agit ici d'apprendre comment ériger le reste de la maison. 

Gouverner au conseil des ministres
 
Le défi est d'autant plus important pour le gouvernement Trudeau que sa vision repose sur des changements complexes dans le mode d'opération du gouvernement. Non seulement la fonction publique doit-elle réapprendre à faire preuve d'initiative après le contrôle de la décennie Harper, mais les réformes envisagées sont souvent pluridisciplinaires. 

Dès son assermentation, Justin Trudeau a donné le signal que toutes les décisions ne seraient plus prises au bureau du premier ministre. Les grandes décisions se prendront au conseil des ministres, la gouvernance par cabinet. 

La mise en oeuvre des grandes priorités du gouvernement exige que plusieurs ministres travaillent de concert sur les mêmes dossiers. 

 Des infrastructures à la subvention canadienne pour enfants, de l'innovation à l'éducation, des changements climatiques aux Autochtones, dans tous les cas, pour arriver à ses fins, le gouvernement sait qu'il devra aller au-delà des idées reçues qui animent la machine gouvernementale. 

Le défi est d'autant plus imposant que plusieurs des ministres qui ont hérité des dossiers névralgiques du gouvernement sont des néophytes. 

Comme le dit si bien Michael Barber dans son livre : se faire élire est bien plus facile que de gouverner à la hauteur de ses ambitions. C'est là tout le défi de Justin Trudeau et son jeune gouvernement.

The Supreme guide to electoral reform

The Supreme guide to electoral reform
       
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/01/the-supreme-guide-to-electoral-reform/

By: Jason VandenBeukel on January 12, 2016 |

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Liberal government’s controversial commitment to replace the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system with a more representative voting system is that they actually seem committed to following it through.

Many political parties, both in Canada and around the world, have campaigned on promises of electoral reform, only to quietly shelve the issue once they managed to win government through the distorting powers of FPTP. After all, why change the system which gave you 100 percent of the power with just 39 percent of the vote?


But Liberal House Leader Dominic Leblanc told CTV on December 28 that the new government is determined to deliver on their election promise. What’s more, he pretty well ruled out a referendum on it, which is one of the strongest possible indicators that the Liberals really do intend to bring an end to FPTP in Canada.

Recent efforts at electoral reform in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and British Columbia were all quashed when the question was put directly to voters. Whatever its flaws, most Canadians seem quite fond of the current voting system, which means a referendum would likely torpedo the Liberals’ plan.


The Conservatives certainly seem to think so, judging from their strenuous opposition to the Liberals’ vow to change the electoral system through Parliament. The Tories are well aware that they generally do much better under FPTP, which punishes the divided political left and rewards the united right, than they would under any other system. Supporting a referendum which dooms electoral reform to failure, therefore, is obviously in their best interest.

 Even so, the Conservatives’ main argument is hard to ignore: if FPTP is too undemocratic to elect our House of Commons, then how can a government elected through FPTP claim it has the democratic legitimacy to change the electoral system?


What is missing from all the arguments over electoral reform, and a referendum on electoral reform, is any notice of the fact that our Supreme Court dealt with a very similar question less than two years ago. When the Harper government asked if it would be constitutionally acceptable to introduce Senate elections and term limits to the upper house, the Court ruled that “elections for the nominations of Senators would change our Constitution’s architecture, by endowing Senators with a popular mandate which is inconsistent with the Senate’s fundamental nature and role as a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought.”

In other words, any reform that would significantly change the way in which Senators are selected can only be made by amending the Constitution, which effectively meant that there could be no such change.


The same constitutional logic could and should be applied to the House of Commons. The Senate, despite the beating its reputation has taken over the last few years, is so important in the eyes of the Supreme Court that any major changes to its composition require the approval of all the provinces.

 If that is the case, then surely the way we select the House of Commons, the elected chamber which provides us with the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the government, deserves at least as high a level of democratic ratification.


Everyone agrees that electoral reform will fundamentally change the way our government works. One-party governments will almost certainly be replaced by coalitions, and elections will likely be more frequent and more widely contested.

And while the Constitution explicitly gives the federal Parliament the power to change the way in which the House of Commons is elected, the logic underpinning the Supreme Court’s direction on Senate reform cannot be ignored. This isn’t just about tinkering on the edges of the democratic process; electoral reform will completely reshape our political system.

 The argument which the Supreme Court justices made in their decision on Senate reform, in which they developed an all too brief respect for the intent of the people who wrote our Constitution in the first place, is quite clear: changing the rules of the political game in such a significant way is much too big a responsibility for one government or one party.


Some Senate reformers would argue that Harper’s proposed changes were constitutionally valid and the Court invented an argument against them.

 There may be truth in that, but the Court’s underlying message was that our core democratic institutions should not be changed by Parliament alone. So it is with the electoral system. A change of this importance and magnitude needs to be made in a manner consistent with its far-reaching effects.

Electoral reform that is simply pushed through Parliament by the Liberals and over the objections of the opposition is itself more undemocratic than FPTP could ever be.

There is only one democratically legitimate way to change the system: let the people decide.
~
Jason VandenBeukel is currently working on a PhD in Canadian Politics at the University of Toronto. He also holds an MA in Political Science and a BA in History from Brock University. He has previously contributed a number of articles to The Prince Arthur Herald.

The electoral treachery of Justin Trudeau

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/06/the-electoral-treachery-of-justin-trudeau                                                            3470

OTTAWA – As the year unfolds, it would appear the Trudeau Liberals will be stubbornly sticking to their slapdash plan to celebrate 150 years of Confederation next year by ripping apart our democracy’s very foundation.

This is not spin; this is fact.

Despite outcry from the opposition, threats of a Senate blockade, and constitutional experts and editorialists urging them to reboot their thought process, the Liberals will change our electoral system essentially by coup, using their majority as a truncheon and locking out the public as if inconsequential to the outcome of their unilateral treachery.

This is inherently dictatorial.

Now, even the most progressive of progressives will surely have to admit that Canada’s first-past-the-post system of plurality voting has served them particularly well.

The Liberal Party of Canada, after all, did not simply stumble upon the nickname of “Canada’s natural governing party,” but achieved it through an electoral dominance that saw the moniker achieve adhesion.

Most recently, they wanted the Harperites gone and, on Oct. 19, the public voted them out to a Halleluiah chorus.

But the selfish always want more.

The Liberals of Justin Trudeau have made it abundantly clear – repeatedly -- that they have absolutely no intention of holding a referendum to ask the public directly if it wants to abandon the voting system that has elected its governments since the days of John A. Macdonald.

They are just going to do it on their own.

This arrogance, in fact, was reflected when Trudeau asked a CTV interviewer if a government was supposed to hold a referendum on everything that matters to the future of our country, as if tearing apart our electoral system was no more important than, say, having a trade deal with Mongolia.

“You have to make choices at some point,” he said.
So out the window goes first-past-the-post and, in its place, the Liberals alone will decide whether the next federal election is a ranked ballot or proportional representation.

During the election campaign, Trudeau admitted to preferring a ranked ballot but, as Mandy Rice-Davies famously said long ago during Britain’s Profumo sex scandal, “Well (giggle) he would, wouldn’t he?”

After all, it would rig the game in the Liberals’ favour.

According to Abacus Data, a ranked ballot would have given the Trudeau Liberals, who achieved their October majority with only 39.47% of the popular vote, approximately 40 more seats in the House of Commons, while a proportional representational ballot would have knocked them out of enough ridings to reduce them to a minority.

Between 2005 and 2009, three provincial referendums – in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, and British Columbia – turned down electoral reform proposals and, in 2011, so did Great Britain, the birthplace of Canada’s Westminster model.

Yet Trudeau still thinks the system is broken or, at the very least, still not kind enough to the Liberals that they occasionally find themselves losing an election.

What chuffs Trudeau in this episode of the pot calling the kettle black is that the Harper Conservatives won 54% of the seats in the Commons in the previous election with just 39.62% of the popular vote, and that declining voter turnout is the direct result of dissatisfaction with a system where the candidate who gets the most votes gets to go to Ottawa and the loser, even if only by a single vote, gets to sit at home watching Question Period on CPAC and cursing the neighbour who voted against him.

It ain’t fair, but it’s fairer than anything else.

Justin Trudeau touts parliamentary, electoral reform

For his first two years as Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau offered few specific policies and Canadians were largely left guessing what he would do on most policy files. Trudeau repeatedly stated he would liberalize Canada’s marijuana laws and in 2014 he issued a diktat that under his leadership no one who was pro-life could even run for a Liberal Party nomination.

He talked a lot about the middle class, but could not define who, precisely, he was talking about. In the past few months, he began rolling out policies on a myriad of issues, including on June 15 his plan for “Real Change,” a laundry list of 32 ways of reforming government. Promises included broadening the input for senate and Supreme Court appointments, encouraging the youth vote, having gender-based analysis for all government policies, and “respecting” scientists.

Trudeau also promised parliamentary and electoral reform. Trudeau’s promise for more free votes garnered plenty of positive coverage, although many party leaders have made such promises in the past and haven’t followed through. But under the heading “More free votes,” Trudeau said “Liberal caucus members in a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau will only be required to vote with the cabinet on three different measures”: confidence measures such as the budget or Throne speech, fulfilling the Liberal electoral platform, and “those that address the shared values embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

There is a lot to unpack there. First, he specifically says Liberals MPs will have these free votes under a Liberal government, so this promise of allowing free votes does not apply if the Liberals are still in opposition. It also says caucus members who are not part of cabinet have free votes, suggesting that members of the cabinet do not.

 While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has often pressured his caucus and cabinet, on several life and family votes the cabinet was divided, indicating that cabinet members were free to vote their conscience – and against the government. Which brings us to the way in which Trudeau is most limiting his caucus: matters of conscience.

By parliamentary tradition, MPs are allowed to vote their conscience or to represent their constituents on moral issues. Trudeau has redefined moral issues as Charter issues – what he calls “shared values” – and requires that MPs toe the party line. While Trudeau promises “more free votes,” he is effectively delivering fewer free votes.

Trudeau also promises that if the Liberals win in October, the 2015 federal election will be the last one conducted under the first-past-the-post system. Pundits wonder whether Trudeau’s embrace of radical electoral reform represents a genuine change of position on the efficacy and fairness of the current versus alternative systems of electing MPs, or whether it is a cynical ploy to prevent Conservatives from being elected to power again; most studies of electoral reform suggest a permanent Liberal-NDP alliance governing Canada, if MPs were chosen by proportional representation or ranked ballots.

 More problematic, however, is that Trudeau is running on electoral change without letting voters know which change he would introduce. The Liberal leader has said his preference is a ranked ballot and voted against proportional representation last December, but is promising (under the rubric “Make every vote count”) to ensure various electoral reforms are “fully and fairly studied and considered … by a special all-party committee,” which will make recommendations upon which a Liberal government would act within 18 months of being elected.

That means voters will not know which electoral reform a Liberal government will embrace and foist upon the country, until it is passed. Because the NDP is committed to electoral reform, the Liberals could pass such legislation, even if it governs with a minority. Indeed, this promise seems tailored specifically to win over NDP support, in the event that no party wins a majority and the two left-of-center parties can cooperate to form a new government.

Trudeau’s proposals should give Canadians pause. They would radically remake the political landscape by tightening the leader’s control of the Liberal Party and placing Parliament firmly within the control of some parties and out of reach for others. -

See more at:
http://www.theinterim.com/features/justin-trudeau-touts-parliamentary-electoral-reform/#sthash.uRQZIfu1.5gZYXiTu.dpuf

Electoral reform: What is the problem we are trying to solve?

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/06/electoral-reform-what-is-the-problem-we-are-trying-to-solve/#.Vo4Ge3lIgqR

Federal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc created quite a stir last week when he said that the government had no plans for a referendum on electoral reform. Pundits from coast to coast took to their pens to argue about the legitimacy of such a move.

 The Conservatives threatened to block any bill not based on a referendum while a representative of Fair Vote Canada told the Globe and Mail that he was fine with no referendum as long as the government implemented proportional representation.

Isn’t it time somebody yelled “STOP!”? We don’t even have a proposal on the table and already a discussion on electoral reform is in danger of being transformed into a debate on referendums.
Of course, process is important and I appreciate the irony of a government not holding a vote on how we hold votes.

 I also recognize that Parliament has made some pretty monumental decisions in the past without holding referendums.

But nobody is going to win the hearts and minds of Canadians by framing this as a discussion about referendums. Most Canadians don’t give much thought to how they elect their Member of Parliament. They care about things like our fragile economy, climate change, terrorism, poverty, the plight of our Indigenous Peoples or maybe a pressing community issue.

The challenge for those wanting to talk about electoral reform is to demonstrate to ordinary Canadians that the measure they are advocating will help future governments deal more effectively with these issues.

That’s a tall order, and it involves a discussion that is much more complicated than a debate about referendums. But let me make a few suggestions on how to frame the discussion.

Our challenges are serious. We need governments that are able to make tough choices and rally their citizens. Can a majority government that received less than 40% of the popular vote do the job as effectively as one that has the blessing of a majority of voters?

For those advocating some type of ranked balloting system, the answer is clearly no. They could argue that their system ensures that every Member of Parliament receives a majority of votes either directly or, in some circumstances, because they were the second or even third choice of certain voters.

But proponents would have to answer those critics who argue that, under this system, people who vote for the least popular candidates effectively get to vote two or even three times.

Ranked balloting would also likely mean the continuing election of mainstream political parties. If we want to solve Canada’s thorny issues, isn’t it time we allow new and different voices into the House of Commons? If that’s one of the goals, advocates of electoral reform would have to explain how exactly smaller parties would be involved in decision-making.

Many might highlight the role of minority governments, or even coalitions, in forcing different parties to work together. They will need to explain, however, how future minority governments would work differently than the recent ones elected in both Ottawa and at Queen’s Park. Rather than becoming bastions of co-operation and compromise, the House of Commons and the Ontario legislature became dens of acrimonious bickering and partisan game playing, unable to deal with pressing issues (I was the government house leader during the Ontario experience).

Canada is less familiar with coalition governments. But here again, those proponents will have to explain how such arrangements would function. Would several parties working together within a single government really do a better job at addressing our nation’s challenges?

Or would we see one or two small, regional or single-issue parties hold the government of the day hostage?

And what about local representation?

Those arguing for reform need to explain how any new system would preserve the important role that current MPs play in advocating for local concerns.

These are all tough questions. They require us to think about government decision-making, the role of individual members of Parliament, and how politics functions in 21^st-century Canada. It may also involve us broadening the discussion to include other aspects of our political system and culture. Not the simple stuff of a good, old-fashioned, debate about process.

It’s not surprising that so many critics of how the government is trying to consult on this issue have scrupulously avoided trying to address any of them.

Despite the fact I was elected three times under the first-past-the-post system, I remain open to the prospect of electoral reform. But I also remember Ontario’s attempts to change the system in 2007, with the help of a referendum. It failed dismally for several reasons. The primary one, however, was because nobody ever bothered to explain to voters what exactly the problem was that we were trying to solve.

John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the Co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University’s Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo’s Master of Public Service Program. John can be reached at: jmilloy@wlu.ca or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.

Trudeau @ DAVOS ? / ?

VIEW those links to understand the implication:
World Economic Forum in Davos
This year’s theme at Davos is “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” apparently a reference to automation in manufacturing, distribution and consumption.

The Prime Minister’s Office won’t confirm it, but there’s speculation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been invited to give the opening address at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. 

The opener is seen as the most-coveted spot at Davos, where world leaders and assorted billionaires gather to contemplate the eternal verities and work towards the modest goal of “improving the state of the world.”  Some have dubbed the conference “Burning Man for the 1 per cent.”

If Trudeau were tapped to give the kickoff speech, it would put him in rare and elite company.  In recent years, the honour has gone to French president Nicolas Sarkozy, German chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, and Australian prime minister Tony Abbott.  

Former prime minister Stephen Harper spoke at Davos in 2012, infamously using the Alpine venue to tip coming changes to Canada’s Old Age Security system.

And former finance minister Jim Flaherty made headlines from the resort, when he blamed his bizarre, slurring interview with Bloomberg TV at the forum on fatigue and medication he was taking for a skin condition.

The initial schedule of this year’s forum already includes a Canadian component. On January 21, delegates will hear an address titled, “A New Chapter for Canada,” starring as-yet-unspecified Liberal cabinet minister(s):

What are the global, regional and industry agendas of Canada’s new government?

  Meet representatives of Canada’s Liberal government for an in-depth discussion of the country’s future and its role in the world.

This year’s theme at Davos is “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” apparently a reference to automation in manufacturing, distribution and consumption.
Kate Purchase, a spokesperson in the Prime Minister’s Office, would not confirm Trudeau had been invited to speak. 

Justin Trudeau's 'freewheeling' style of cabinet management not without risks PM's pledge to allow ministers more freedom to speak out already on display

Analysis    PM's pledge to allow ministers more freedom to speak out already on display

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cabinet-ministers-1.3382912 

 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged to allow his cabinet ministers more freedom to speak on issues. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
 When Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan recently mused that the F­-35s may not be excluded from the competition to replace Canada's fleet of fighter jets, his comments were significant on two fronts.
Substantively, it seemed to contradict what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had said on the campaign trail, that the controversial jets were off the table.

Politically, however, it may have been a sign that Canadians are witnessing what had been a political rarity during the Harper years —  ­ a cabinet minister freelancing an opinion. 

• Justin Trudeau begins his bold experiment in 'government by cabinet'
• Trudeau signals new style of governing
• Sajjan refuses to rule out F-35 from fighter jet replacement competition

It's no secret that former prime minister Stephen Harper ran a top-­down government, keeping his cabinet on a tight leash in terms of what they could say publicly about government policy.

By contrast, Trudeau has vowed to loosen the reins and run what he's called "government by cabinet," meaning less­ PMO control over what individual ministers can do with their own files.

"This is going to be a period of slight adjustment in the political world in Canada, because government by cabinet is back," he said following the swearing-in ceremony.

Harper's strict message discipline, says Ian Brodie, a former chief of staff to Harper, came after 13 years of Liberal governments under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, where caucus, and sometimes cabinet, conversations were routinely leaked.

"It was a mess, and a disservice both to caucus and to cabinet colleagues," Brodie said.

"Mr. Harper wanted to run a very disciplined government where people didn't get out ahead of themselves in public," he went on. "And Trudeau's going to run a much more freewheeling government."

'Totally viable way to run a cabinet'

More of that freelancing was on display recently when Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion told reporters that Canada's bombing mission in Iraq and Syria will end in "a matter of weeks, not months," while Sajjan, in an interview with SiriusXM, suggested no timetable had been set.

Having cabinet ministers contradict one another in public is a "totally viable way to run a cabinet," Brodie says. But it does come with some inherent risks.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's recent musings about the F-35s may have been a sign of Justin Trudeau's vow to run a more open cabinet. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

"The crunch will come when decisions start to get made and some minister will find they've put their foot one step ahead of where the decision is going to be, and they feel embarrassed they said something in public their cabinet colleague didn't see the same way."

Brodie said he sees nothing wrong with ministers going out and publicly floating ideas to see if there would be some give and take around the cabinet table.

"When you start going around, talking about things that are going to happen that are going to cost money, but which there has been no definitive decision, that's more worrisome," he said.

The practice also means that when a Liberal minister comments on an issue, it may not carry the same weight as it would have during the Harper years. When a Harper cabinet minister did offer an opinion on an issue, "you could take it to the bank," Brodie said.
Now, a minister's comments may raise questions about whether it's the final word on a subject or even a guide post for what decision is going to be.

Statements 'not that weighty'

As for the contrast with Harper, former high-ranking political aides also noted that for much of his time as prime minister, the former Conservative leader was running a minority government, with the fear that it could fall at any moment.

"You had this ongoing 24/7 permanent campaign overlay and in that dynamic, message discipline is king," said David McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney. "You can't exist and succeed in a permanent campaign dynamic unless you have absolute message discipline."

Former prime minister Stephen Harper invoked strict discipline among his cabinet ministers. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

At the same time, McLaughlin praised Trudeau's new open style, saying it should be the default position of any government.
"You can be open and transparent with information, open with what you're trying to accomplish and still be disciplined and focussed in your messaging.

 I don't see them as an absolute contradiction." 
"So kudos to him for saying that's the way I want to run the government and that's the operating principle," he said.

His cautionary note, though, was that ministers should stick to their portfolios. Problems arise when ministers start commenting on broader political policies and strategies, and these can lead to mixed messages being sent out.

"There will be a sense with voters of confusion, a lack of professionalism in the way they do stuff. [That they are] uncertain, indecisive," McLaughlin said.

"I think they're ways away from that" though, he added. "No imminent danger of it at this moment."

Tim Murphy, the former chief of staff to Paul Martin, said it can be good for the public to see ministers debate and recognize there's not a single point of view among them.

"I don't think it's a bad thing for people to see how the sausage is made. I think it's important, frankly, for democracy, for attracting good candidates, that people actually get the opportunity to say some things that aren't drafted by the PMO," he said.

"At some point a policy decision will be made and people will have to deal with the consequences. But the process of getting to the policy and seeing it's not just one view, I don't see it as a bad thing. Not saying anything until something has been decided, I think that weakens democracy."

Advisers urge Justin Trudeau to be innovative in era of dramatic change

By The Canadian Press — Jan 4 2016

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/04/advisers-urge-justin-trudeau-to-be-innovative-in-era-of-dramatic-change-2/#.Vor1Ar-nHZl

OTTAWA — Federal advisers have told Justin Trudeau he must adopt more innovative approaches to successfully govern in the modern era.
Internal briefing memos prepared for the prime minister say the new landscape is being shaped by policy complexity, rapid technological change, limited finances and increasing expectations of citizen involvement.
The notes say people increasingly expect the government to include them early and often in the design of policy and programming choices that affect them.
At the same time, however, government is often bogged down by red tape, the need for signoffs from various layers of management, and barriers to effectively spending money and assigning people to tasks.
The briefing memos to Trudeau were obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act. 
The notes say the federal public service is responding by trying to support innovation across government and highlighting successful pilot projects.
Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter
The Canadian Press