A few thoughts on this (it’s a long thread though)

1) I’m not going to jump on the train calling Mona Fortier unqualified/incompetent etc. That’s premature. It is also somewhat unfair (which I will address in a bit). https://twitter.com/globeandmail/status/1198025633495801857

2) I’ve noticed that under Trudeau, “new” ministries or those that have unclear mandates/large challenges to address, the initial appointee is usually female (Fortier here and Monsef in Democratic Institutions, for example).

Perhaps he wants to show that he has faith in giving women large responsibilities and believes in their competence. On the surface (and while I question JT’s “feminist” claim), this is good, because qualified women should be trusted with taking on important roles.

3) The criticism that Fortier doesn’t know how to define middle class is somewhat unfair. There is no government-wise definition of middle class.

When I worked on the Hill, the office I worked in submitted a request to the Finance Min’s office asking how they define middle class, and how many people have joined/left the middle class since Trudeau’s election in 2015.

Then-Finance Parl. Sec. Joel Lightbound signed off on the response that essentially said there was no government-wide definition of middle class. He indicated that it was more of a feeling of belonging.

I originally found this laughable in the same way many have viewed Fortier’s response when asked the same question.

Except “middle class” has always been a contentious term used in policy-making.

Here’s some stories to check out:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/who-are-the-middle-class-anyway-how-politicians-risk-missing-themark/article26431270/

https://torontosun.com/2015/08/25/trudeau-cant-define-middle-class/wcm/c8fe3f72-54e6-4b74-8d6f-ab2c11d8c86a

https://globalnews.ca/news/6010322/who-is-canadas-middle-class-and-why-some-experts-hate-the-term/

When politicians talk about supporting “average people,” it’s commonly not numerically defined, because the “average” exists in many different contexts and shifts over time with different economic conditions.

4) The lack of this definition isn’t unique to Canada. The US government also doesn’t have such a definition.

But policy researchers have to operationalize the term “middle class” because it’s important for their analysis. https://www.thebalance.com/definition-of-middle-class-income-4126870

5) I’m confident that deputy ministers and bureaucrats do have an operationalized definition of the middle class, because it’s essential to policy-making. However, such a definition might change year to year.

Whether a gov-wide definition should be adopted is a matter of policy and economics. I would personally like to see a definition that is empirical and non-ideological, but that’s just me.

However, Canadians do want to know how the government is defining “middle class” because they want to know if they’re included in the group that will be impacted by these policies, such as those coming from the new Ministry of Middle Class Prosperity.

I think this is why Fortier used the hockey term—because she thought it was something all Canadians could relate to. But it clearly backfired. Not all Canadians play hockey (I wanted to, but mom put me in ballet & piano instead). Which brings me to my next point ...

6) When someone is appointed to a “new” ministry, it’s imperative that they be provided with an explanation as to what that ministry does. “I’m waiting for my mandate letter” doesn’t play well with Canadians.

After all, Canadians’ tax dollars are going to paying for this Ministry—the Minister, the staff, the office, the bureaucrats ... They deserve to know what those dollars will be used for.

When Monsef was Min. of Dem. Institutions, many thought she bit off more than she could chew with electoral reform. As a result, many questioned her competence. I’m not her biggest fan, but the reality is, that file was botched because of uncertainty from the PMO.

I see the same thing starting to happen here with Fortier and this new ministry.

When the mandate of the MO isn’t clearly defined, Canadians question its necessity and thus question the necessity of the Minister.

When that Minister is female, I have noticed an added layer of scrutiny and questions of competence (see: “Climate Barbie”).

Sure, there are other large files that have been mishandled and those Ministers drew justified criticism (i.e., Vet. Affairs, Natural Resources, etc.). But these files have a historic and robust bureaucracy that gave these Ministers (who have mostly all men under JT) a leg up.

But political science research (see some by @MelaneeLThomas) has shown that women are often put into leadership positions when there’s uncertainty.

They’re entrusted with substantial responsibility, and if they fail, they receive profound criticism. There is often an extra layer of sexism to these criticisms (again, ask any female politician and they’ll have stories to tell you, I’m sure).

This isn’t to say that female Ministers can’t mess up or that they should be immune from criticism.

But when these files are not clearly defined and supported by the PMO, that Minister is predisposed to failure.

In sum, I feel the PMO has yet to outline the need for the Min. of Middle Class Prosperity. In doing so, Fortier has had to justify why she’s in cabinet and prove her credibility, when female politicians already have to work much harder to do than their male colleagues.

If you made it this far, congrats. Here’s a video I took of cats being amazed by the magic of tap water at @catcafeonwhyte with @julian5194 last night. All of these kitties are up for adoption, by the way!!