Newly sworn in prime minister Mark Carney had his work cut out for him in appointing a cabinet. To begin with he had to address three major concerns of the moment – (1) cementing voter support in the face of wildly fluctuating public opinion on the eve of a federal election, (2) ensuring those he selected were well equipped to handle the issues raised by the country’s existential crisis with the United States and (3) retaining the support of left-leaning Liberals after his overwhelming win as a centre right business Liberal.
Several observers commented that the first two considerations seemed to be mutually exclusive. At one and the same time Carney would need to make major changes in the composition of the cabinet to demonstrate a real shift from the Trudeau era, while also maintaining the status quo by keeping a number of veteran ministers in place to handle the American crisis. Carney’s situation also required him to navigate these pressing considerations on top of the pre-existing set of constraints imposed on all federal leaders these days when forging a cabinet, an even more daunting challenge.
The pre-existing constraints were plainly evident back in August 2023 when prime minister Justin Trudeau shuffled his cabinet. Keep in mind that many thought this might be the last iteration of a Trudeau cabinet before the next federal election, at least until fate and Chrystia Freeland put paid to that idea. Nevertheless this 2023 shuffle was Trudeau’s last major reorganization of portfolios, and as such it revealed a great deal about the politics of federal cabinet making in the 21st century.
For those not familiar with these constraints there were undoubtedly surprises in that shuffle, including the departure of well-regarded individuals such as Justice Minister David Lametti and the introduction to cabinet of backbench unknowns such as Jenna Sudds and Rechie Valdez. However those with a good understanding of the basics of Canadian cabinet formation were not surprised. Because the individuals selected were likely to be the cabinet that Trudeau would take with him into the 2025 federal election, it was seen as imperative that he shore up support for the party among various minority communities and in potential swing or marginal ridings, all the while maintaining his commitment to gender and linguistic balance and regional representation. Quite a tall order.
The need for gender parity and diversity – fairly recent considerations now adopted by almost all western liberal democracies, and emphatically prioritized by Trudeau – could easily be seen to have played a large part in the behind the scenes deliberations in 2023. But they also had to be factored in on top of other longstanding traditional concerns with representation in cabinet such as bilingualism and regional representation.
Regional representation in particular complicates the Canadian federal cabinet selection process. The belief that all regions of Canada should have a seat at the cabinet table was well-entrenched by the middle of the last century, and since then has expanded rapidly to mean not just representation from the four regions, but from every province.[i] Both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments were so committed to this concept that they often appointed senators from Alberta and Quebec respectively to fill gaps in their cabinet representation, if they failed to elect any MPs from those provinces. In 1979 newly elected prime minister Joe Clark initially crafted a cabinet with many more western MPs than ever, but was still roundly criticized because it did not contain a representative from BC, (a “mistake” he quickly rectified).
Why is this regional factor so important in Canada and much less so elsewhere among western democracies? First and foremost, this is something that affects federations, and not many of our western allies have a federal system of government. In addition Canada is the second largest country in the world, making geographic distance and topography far more important here than elsewhere. Even in the United States, which actually is a federation and, like Canada, has a large land mass, the situation is still very different. Simply put, the Americans, with 50 states, have far too many units to worry about that sort of representation. (Of course unlike Canada’s parliamentary system the American cabinet is chosen from outside of a party caucus, which also makes the options far more fluid.) At the end of the day, however, no one cares if there is a cabinet member from Iowa, Delaware or Tennessee.
One of the consequences of this regional imperative in Canadian cabinet-making, when added to the concerns about diversity and gender balance, is the size of a federal cabinet. If all of these factors are to be accommodated, (in addition to the underlying need for competence and/or experience which sometimes seems to be taken for granted), a Canadian cabinet will almost inevitably be far larger than the norm elsewhere. President Biden’s last cabinet totaled 15, while French President Emmanuel Macron appointed a new cabinet of 18 last year and the current Australian cabinet, perhaps the closest to us in many ways, weighs in at 20. By contrast, the 2023 iteration of the Trudeau cabinet contained 37 ministers, up from 30 in 2015, and only slightly below the high of 40 reached under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Which brings us to the cabinet of Mr. Carney. To say that he was trying to square the circle is an understatement. And with so many constraints to consider in the construction of his cabinet, his decision to also limit its numbers to a mere 24 ministers is nothing short of breathtaking.[i] It is also an obvious attempt to satisfy Concern #1 above, demonstrating a new, leaner look to government as opposed to that of Mr. Trudeau. (All told, Carney dropped 18 Trudeau-era ministers from cabinet, although it must be noted that some had indicated they would not stand again for office.) Note that this much smaller total number of ministers also means that any comparisons with earlier cabinets must be based on proportionality rather than simple numbers.
To see just how embedded the concept of regional representation is, one need look no further than the initial comments of CBC reporter and Newfoundland expat David Cochrane after Carney’s cabinet was sworn in. Cochrane immediately noted that PEI had no seat at the table. And this was despite the fact that there are four ministers from Atlantic Canada in the cabinet, representing three of the four provinces! Not surprisingly, perhaps, some criticism also emerged quite quickly about the lack of Alberta representation in the cabinet, given that there are actually two Liberal MPs in the province who could have been selected. However most commentators pointed out that both MPs – Randy Boissenault (Edmonton-Centre) and Ray Chahal (Calgary-Skyview) were not in contention because of various scandals that had engulfed them over the past few years. [ii]
With no MPs from Saskatchewan, Carney was therefore obliged to choose from Manitoba (Terry Duguid, Minister of Environment and Climate Change) and BC (Jonathan Wilkinson, Energy and Natural Resources.) Perhaps a case could have been made for more representation from BC, which currently has 11 Liberal MPs, but interestingly the presence of only one cabinet minister from the province – down from 4 under Mr. Trudeau, of whom 3 are not seeking re-election– did not seem to occasion any concern from that province.
In the end, the regional representation of Carney’s new cabinet breaks down into 4 Atlantic, 6 Quebec, 2 West and 11 Ontario. In terms of recent cabinets, the only significant difference is the larger than usual proportion of Ontario ministers, a fact which can be easily explained in political terms by the need for the Liberals to take as many seats as possible in that province in the upcoming election if they hope to return to power. (See concern #1 above.)
Similarly, Quebec has one quarter of the seats in the new cabinet, and most of them are among the most senior. These Quebec ministers also have very high profiles in the province. With Melanie Joly remaining at Foreign Affairs, Francois-Philippe Champagne shifted to Minister of Finance, and Stephen Guilbeault now responsible for Canadian Identity as well as serving as Carney’s Quebec lieutenant, the new prime minister has evidently gone to considerable lengths to shore up his party’s vital support in that province. (Again, see concern #1.)
Asked whether Quebec had “won or lost” in the new cabinet iteration, professor Daniel Beland of McGill concluded, ““Quebec is doing very well. Yes, there are fewer Quebecers in the cabinet, but the table itself is smaller. And when you have a finance minister from Quebec, that’s a promotion.”[iii]
Meanwhile in terms of gender parity this new cabinet clearly meets the benchmark set by Justin Trudeau, with 12 men and 11 women. In terms of diversity, roughly one-third of the new cabinet represents minority communities and recent immigrants. While this is somewhat lower than the proportion in Mr. Trudeau’s cabinets, there can be little question that diversity concerns have also been respected.
Nor can there be any doubt that Carney has paid close attention to concern #2. By retaining the three key top advisers on the Trump crisis from within the Trudeau cabinet – Dominic Leblanc, Melanie Jolie and Philippe Champagne – as well as adding Chrystia Freeland – it would appear that the Carney cabinet can easily manage the ongoing crisis even if they find themselves in the middle of an imminent federal election. Note that all three of the Trudeau ministers he has kept in place represent extremely safe Liberal seats, meaning they will not likely be torn between campaigning and negotiating. This is also true of Freeland, who has won her seat handily in all three past elections. And this ministerial support is, of course, in addition to the outstanding credentials that Carney himself brings to this task.
This brings us to the issue of internal Liberal party politics and the traditional social vs business Liberal divide. (See concern #3 above.) It is here that the current situation facing the party, and Mark Carney, becomes most significant. Traditionally, both “wings” of the party have been viewed as important, and the party has never been successful if one or the other is reduced to insignificance. As former Liberal senator Keith Davey famously said, Liberals should run from the left but govern from the centre or, at most, the centre-left, if they hope to win. Both Trudeau pere and fils could be considered the prime examples of a centre-left Liberal government, while Jean Chretien’s tenure, while left of centre on occasion, was closer to the true centre in many respects. Nevertheless it was Chretien who pointed out that social Liberal leaders have always been far more successful at winning elections, specifically citing the failed electoral efforts of both John Turner and Paul Martin as prime examples of business Liberals. More recently one could easily add the disastrous tenure of Michael Ignatieff as leader, especially when contrasted with the far more left-wing credentials of his successor, Justin Trudeau.
So what is the problem? It is the fact that the social Liberal wing of the party has been almost completely eclipsed in importance by the emergence of the existential crisis posed by Donald Trump. Stunning evidence of this imbalance can be found in the leadership vote numbers themselves. With Mark Carney receiving roughly 87% of the vote on the first ballot, both Chrystia Freeland, a quasi-social Liberal but also a senior cabinet minister, and Karina Gould, the standard bearer for social Liberals, (one of whose very few supporters was none other than consummate social Liberal Sheila Copps), were reduced to 7% and 3% of the vote respectively.
In any normal Liberal universe this should have been impossible. But, as virtually everyone now knows, these are far from normal times. Many previously important considerations had already been abandoned (evidence the death of the carbon tax) in the name of the existential Trump crisis. From the leadership vote it is clear that many many social Liberals have had to recognize the new reality, some perhaps while holding their noses, to vote for the only candidate who appeared to meet the requirements of this crisis in terms of public opinion.
And, with such minimal support in the party, neither Freeland nor Gould could realistically expect that they would be included in the new cabinet, any more than outsider Frank Bayliss, who actually impressed many observers with his performance during the leadership race. Nevertheless Mr. Carney did decide to include Chrystia Freeland, no doubt as much for her skills related to concern #2 as for her moderately social liberal credentials.
Many in the party privately consider Freeland’s inclusion a political error that will lend credence to Pierre Poilievre’s claim that this cabinet is simply a same-old Trudeau gang scenario, given her extremely high visibility and name recognition. Those same Liberals are concerned that Karina Gould – and the social Liberal wing — have been completely sidelined. For them, it is Gould who should have rated a cabinet post, as a symbol of that wing’s importance, and also because she has been seen as the spokesperson for the youth wing of the party and of Canadian society.
The question that remains is whether this decision to exclude her will cause any difficulty for Carney during an election campaign, where Liberal volunteers are the backbone of any successful endeavour. Will there be a significant number who are sufficiently unhappy that they will sit on their hands? At present, with the Liberals continuing to rise in the polls and public opinion squarely focused on the existential crisis, it appears that Carney’s decision will have been a reasonable, calculated gamble that pays off. This is especially the case since Liberals are also well known for their ability to pull together behind a leader for the good of the party, regardless of their personal views. (Unlike, historically, the Conservative Party.)
However it is also true that this in many respects is a caretaker cabinet. The real test of Mr. Carney’s understanding of the Liberal Party and the importance of its two wings will only come after the federal election, and even then only if the party pulls off the comeback of the century and the Liberals are returned to power. Social Liberals will be watching.
[i] Note that all numbers in the following section will add up to 23, as Carney himself has been excluded. Newspaper accounts, however, routinely refer to the Carney cabinet as having 24 members.
[ii] https://globalnews.ca/news/11083146/no-alberta-representation-in-prime-minister-mark-carneys-new-cabinet/
[iii] https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/provincial-news/article816632.html
