Stephen Harper has done what all prime ministers do when their governments are in trouble: rearrange faces. Historically, cabinet shuffles are more style than substance, and here the prime minister honours a venerable tradition.
For all the breathless claims 鈥� the biggest realignment of ministers in recent years, the infusion of youth, the ascent of women 鈥� the new cabinet is about the messengers, not the message.
Had Harper wanted to signal a shift on reducing the deficit, he would have dropped Jim Flaherty, an able public servant. Had he wanted a shift in foreign policy 鈥� less harsh rhetoric, less megaphone diplomacy 鈥� he would have dropped John Baird.
But Harper isn鈥檛 interested in change. He thinks the problem is packaging.
So he tries to put a cheerful, youthful and feminine face on his government. Gone are those troublesome old men like the hapless Vic Toews and the crusty Gordon O鈥機onnor, a former soldier with the charm of a drill sergeant.
Both will not be missed. But Peter Kent, the congenial minister of the environment, will. His bad luck was to be chief salesman of an unsustainable policy on global warming. He was more skeptical of the climate-deniers than he let on, and was a supporter of national parks.
With many of yesterday鈥檚 folks gone, the youth corps arrives. Behold, the new face of the Conservatives: Chris Alexander (immigration), Shelly Glover (heritage), Michelle Rempel (western development), Kellie Leitch (labour and status of women), Candice Bergen (social development), Kerry-Lynne Findlay (national revenue).
They will join Rona Ambrose (health) and Leona Aglukkaq (environment), who have been promoted. It鈥檚 unlikely that either will make a difference; neither is an engine of imagination or champion of women鈥檚 rights.
Will Aglukkaq, who was impassive as health minister, become an activist as environment minister?
Is Alexander, the thrusting former diplomat who comes with a strong resum茅 and a high sense of self-regard, going to outshine his predecessor at immigration, Jason Kenney? What explains such appointments is loyalty and geography, not independence of thought. As a parliamentary secretary, Alexander was ready to defend the government, particularly on the F-35 jet fighter purchase and more recently on the payments to Senator Mike Duffy, even when he was baldly contradicted.
If it鈥檚 hard to see change here, the reason is that Harper has always had one-man government, extraordinary, if not unprecedented, in our history. The PM is the sun and the moon; in his universe, there鈥檚 no room for vaulting successors or regional barons, which is why this cabinet has almost no stars.
The one politician with national stature is Jason Kenney, perhaps Canada鈥檚 most successful minister of immigration. Rare in this crowd, he has his own views and a sense of humour. Curiously, he may well be less effective, if not visible, as minister of employment and social development.
At the end of the day, the challenge for this flagging government is not its cabinet, but its prime minister. He can surround himself with happy faces, but he will allow them no authority or latitude. That isn鈥檛 his way. Harper remains a brilliant strategist but a dour and aloof politician, without the charm of his predecessors. He remains an emblem of the politics of resentment who can win again, and may, if he can continue to demonize and divide the opposition.
So the story today isn鈥檛 about Alexander, Ambrose and Aglukkaq. They are bit players in summer repertory theatre. The fortunes of the Conservatives will rise or fall with Stephen Harper. As always, it鈥檚 about him.
听
Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University.
