Friday morning in Ottawa, long-Liberal-wooed Mark Carney was finally sworn in as prime minister. Before the ceremony began, his X account posted: “Today, we’re building a government that meets the moment. Canadians expect action — and that’s what this team will deliver. A smaller, experienced cabinet that moves faster, secures our economy, and protects Canada’s future.”
Carney’s cabinet is, indeed, smaller, reduced from 37 to 24, including Carney, with several ministers taking on multiple files.
In terms of management. It may be easier to manage a smaller cabinet. Harvard Business Review points out that if your team is 30 people, you wouldn’t be able to manage them all directly.
Keeping a smaller cabinet will, no doubt, be more effective from a management role, but will a smaller cabinet persist after an election, or is it temporary, and as some have suggested, a slimmed-down “wartime” cabinet? More importantly, what is the message that these appointments communicate to Canadians about a Canadian government under now Prime Minister Mark Carney?
Canadian cabinets have ranged in size from 13 to 40 members.
Smaller cabinets cut direct costs. Last year, cabinet minister salaries rose to $299,900 — every bit helps when reducing a taxpayer-funded bloated Parliament. (Regular MPs earn about $200,000.)
Indirectly, a larger cabinet often means more bureaucracy, more departments, more staff to run those departments, and potentially less effective oversight.
There are historical examples and an argument to be made that a smaller cabinet would be advantageous in a crisis. Mackenzie King held a smaller cabinet during the Second World War. But ever since, cabinets have ballooned.
Carney says his new smaller cabinet will be focused on action and the trade crisis.
But what does this mean when it comes to power in the Prime Minister’s Office?
Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government taught us that there is no necessary relationship between the number of cabinet ministers and the diffusion of power within government. One can have a larger, or smaller, cabinet with power controlled from the top.
For decades, and particularly since Pierre Trudeau’s government, power has increasingly centralized in the PMO, with unelected staffers often giving marching orders to cabinet ministers. Trudeau’s Chief of Staff Katie Telford had, in reality, much more power than your typical minister.
Former public safety minister Marc Mendicino is the new Katie Telford.
Will his tenure as chief of staff mirror Telford’s reportedly all-encompassing role? Or, will Mendicino be a more passive yes man to Carney?
As for today’s appointments, a few were notable.
Mélanie Joly, who kept her role as foreign affairs minister, was also given the international development portfolio. Interesting choice to keep Joly on, given her record, particularly on Israel. She’s said Israel has “the right to defend itself” but seems to have done everything she could up until now to ensure Canada has not been supporting the Jewish state since October 7. She has embargoed any military related supplies, including those exported to the United States that could be sent to Israel. She’s received a thank you from a Palestinian terror leader for how she has handled the issue. By keeping her on, Carney is endorsing this approach.
The decision whether or not to keep a minister on, switch their file, and/or reward them with new ones before they began in Carney’s cabinet was, no doubt, carefully considered.
Steven Guilbeault is no longer going to be environment minister, to be replaced by Winnipeg MP Terry Duguid. But this doesn’t appear to be a demotion of Guilbeault, who picked up three files: minister of Canadian culture and identity, Parks Canada and Quebec lieutenant. This switch is likely less a sign that Carney doesn’t appreciate Guilbeault’s climate efforts to date, than it is a strategic move to remove him from direct control of this file, as his anti-industry climate change obstinacy had been a detriment to the Trudeau government.
Freeland is still at the table, even after the very public tantrum she threw, supposedly over Trudeau wanting to replace her as finance minister with Carney himself. Notably, Freeland resigned in December, opting not to deliver the fall economic statement, which revealed that Canada’s deficit was $20 billion higher than earlier projected. Freeland ran against Carney for the leadership after all of this — kinda — it all seemed very friendly. Now, he’s given her two files, internal trade minister and transport minister. Notably, Carney dissolved Freeland’s deputy prime minister role, though it may or may not have had any power, anyway.
Canadians would be wise not to assume a slimmed-down government is automatically more efficient or less bureaucratic. As to whether it will move faster, secure our economy, and protect Canada’s future, as Carney has claimed, seems unlikely given its made up of the same Trudeau Liberals, and some have more work now than they did before.
The most important questions to Carney’s tweeted promise to “move faster” for “Canada’s future” are: move faster on what? How? And who’s ideal future? Carney’s or Canadians? If his behaviour towards the media up until this point is any indication, good luck getting an answer from him.
X: @TLNewmanMTL