News   Apr 24, 2024
 969     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 627     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Yes, but executives have so much independence and freedom from meddling that most public boards are basically rubber stamps. In many cases their members are chosen by the CEO they ostensibly supervise.
 
Umm, I don't think so. Deputy ministers are not given free reign to represent their departments like a EVP would for an operating unit of their company. They are totally beholden to their political masters.

Just like CEOs who don't have free reign to do as they please, DMs or City Managers are obligated to follow any guidance issued by their political masters. I don't get how you see this relationship as any different from that of a corporate board and a CEO.

The board of directors approves major expenditures, and strategic direction. They don't draft every piddling policy and get involved in the day-to-day operations the way politicians do.

Policy is the business of politicians. That's why they draft it. The machinery of government exists to implement policy and to assist politicians in assessing the impact of their policies. That's simply how democracy works. The alternative is Communist Party of China where 'politicians' are career civil servants who are promoted into governing positions based on their skill as professional civil servants.


Politicians are poisoning what should be an apolitical aspect of government: operating effectively to meet the high-level expectations set to them by the caucus/legislature.

That's more a failure of the various legislatures to exercise control and discipline over wayward ministers. It has very little to do with politicians 'poisoning' government. Our government structure is one of the most apolitical in the world. Have a look at the US or the UK if you want an idea of what a politicized civil service really means. Things aren't ideal in Canada but I don't think its fair to suggest that our government structure has been 'poisoned' by overly ambitious politicians. Everything governments do is political. I would expect that in a democracy, politicians would exercise some say in how the government is run. I would disagree that such actions should be deemed as interference. We'd end up with a tyranny of the bureaucracy if we got rid of the politicians.

I don't blame civil servants for getting fed up with the bullshit political meddling in matters that are not political.

By and large I haven't met too many civil servants who complain about political meddling. I'd love to know where you got this impression from. There are of course some high profile cases like Kevin Page. But that's the extremely rare exception not the norm. There are government departments that favour certain ends of the political spectrum: DFAIT is pretty much a finishing school for young Liberals, DND tends to be Conservative friendly (though no where near as much as anyone would imagine), etc. And that, of course, puts these depts in conflict when there's a change of government. But the maximum depths of political interference tend only to be a shuffling of the DM and a few senior staff. I doubt you'd hear the average policy analysts on the floor complaining about political interference.
 
Back on topic. Is anyone suggesting that Miller interferes too much in the Civic bureaurcracy? I doubt that. I just think his policies are flawed.

It's ridiculous that he won't take responsibility for the strike. I can see where this going now. I expect he'll repeat his routine of threatening severe cuts unless the province coughs up dough. Must suck to live along the Sheppard line....it's going to be an annual bargaining chip as long as Miller is in power. And I can only imagine who expensive plate registrations are going to get in short order.
 
One example is our diplomatic corps that goes largely unused by this government, who do things like hiring Republican and Democratic fixers to get interviews on Fox and Friends. Many independent observers (outside Canada, particularly), have noted that Canada has just dropped off the political radar in the past decade. Much of this is attributable to churn in ministerial leadership under Martin and Harper--this to me indicates that the ministry has little or no mandate to actually pursue an agenda.
 
One example is our diplomatic corps that goes largely unused by this government, who do things like hiring Republican and Democratic fixers to get interviews on Fox and Friends. Many independent observers (outside Canada, particularly), have noted that Canada has just dropped off the political radar in the past decade. Much of this is attributable to churn in ministerial leadership under Martin and Harper--this to me indicates that the ministry has little or no mandate to actually pursue an agenda.

Without getting too far off topic, let's just say that some ministries chew up and spit out ministers rather easily and that bureaucratic inertia inside these organizations means that they are incredibly resistant to change. DFAIT is one of these. It has a terrible reputation in Ottawa for staff who do what they like, when they like, and don't really like to play with anyone else in town, regardless of which minister from which party is in the hot seat (though they do have a preference for Liberals).

Though I will suggest that not all of the diplomatic corps fate is entirely of their making. Real diplomacy can be dirty and expensive work. And I am inclined to believe at times that our country would never really want its diplomats to be old school....going around handing bribes to third world dictators (to get a Canadian corporation a better place in the pecking order, etc.), or offering aid (economic and military) to further our interests. This kind of behaviour would be called umm American. If Canadians can barely stand our participation in a tiny war that's to date claimed less lives than a good day during either of the World Wars, can you imagine what they would think of DFAIT fielding brash, debonair diplomats throwing lavish receptions in Europe and cutting deals with dictators?
 
On topic, I hope this goes to show that politicians are not supposed to be the operators of the government. The mayor is not supposed to be a CEO. He is supposed to lead City Council like a President leading a corporate board.

Miller, unfortunately, has a penchant for some terrible guidance and a nagging habit of simply rejecting or interfering with policy output of the city's staff. I would love to see some real documents on how the TTC and the City's transportation staff would plan a rapid transit network (if they didn't have Transit City imposed on them). The concept of having a specific implementation (not a general policy) in a platform is ridiculous. Miller from promising increased support for transit to shoving streetcars down the TTC planners' throats.

I can't wait to see what comes through next year. I'd start planning to travel without the Sheppard subway. I sincerely hope that if he decides to close the Subway, that Metrolinx expropriates the asset for him and decides to keep it running instead.

His actions with the unions certainly leave room for an anti-union candidate:

http://urbantoronto.ca/showpost.php?p=298684&postcount=782
 
Last edited:
Harper's Reform hatred of DFAIT is blindingly obvious in how pathetic our diplomatic efforts have become, at government behest. Other countries know that presenting their best face in other countries is an excellent way to build their country's reputation and attract investment. I attended a beautiful party thrown by the German Consulate at the 1 King West hall for German Unity Day. It had great (German) food and attracted hundreds of people. It was a great way for the consulate officials to build connections in the community. The French government throw a party open to any French citizen at all of its embassies and consulates for Bastille Day in order to solidify the connection of expats to their home country. By contrast, the Canadian embassy in Berlin's Canada Day celebration consisted of inviting a few dozen businessmen for ice cream.
 
^ The lack of connections to Canadian expats isn't a Harper specific policy flaw. It's been that way for decades unfortunately. In fact, that's one that the Harperites have tried to reverse much to the chagrin of DFAIT officials who seem to think that dealing with Canadians overseas is not 'real' diplomatic work….believe it or not, it's been CSIS, DND and EDC that have been pushing to build links with Canadians abroad. While I might not agree with a decision or two (like selling off the grand buildings overseas), having seen how DFAIT works and how the staff in the Pearson palace think I am less inclined to blame Harper on this one. He is doing his darndest to let some fresh air into that building (not in the least because it has a reputation as Liberal finishing school). Unfortunately, DFAIT has significant bureaucratic inertia. I wasn't kidding when I said they do what they want, when they want and rarely consult the politicians or the government. I have witnessed them on more than one occasion make decisions on defence policy and not tell DND or simply draft up an aid commitment and not inform CIDA…or the government. And they do this knowing full well that if the policy flops it'll land in the government's lap not theirs. It's behaviour like that which has led to the Harper government thinking that the civil service is full of closet Liberals who are out to undermine him, rather than apolitical professionals. That being said, there aren't too many offices in town like that. But DFAIT does seem to be the most egregious offender at times.

I wouldn't blame Harper on this file unless you know a little more of the backstory....you should check out how little DFAIT knew about how many Canadians were in Lebanon during the 2006 war and where they were located. The CF had to figure that one out manually..as in sending troops on the ground door-to-door to retrieve Canadians. The one decision Harprer does deserve criticism for though, is the attempt to sell off DFAIT properties overseas. That to me is a really stupid decision.
 
I am looking for a potential union busting candidate for the next election. And I don't mean someone who'll just take on CUPE. I want a candidate who'll tackle the incessant demands of the cops and the transit workers as well. We can't hire more cops or improve transit as long as labour costs are so high. These unions are now a direct impediment to the improvement of services in this city.
 
Most of the people in our Ward vote for Raymond Cho because he puts "Dr." on his election signs. The silly ethnic community in our Ward think someone with a Ph.D makes the best politician.
 
I am looking for a potential union busting candidate for the next election. And I don't mean someone who'll just take on CUPE. I want a candidate who'll tackle the incessant demands of the cops and the transit workers as well. We can't hire more cops or improve transit as long as labour costs are so high. These unions are now a direct impediment to the improvement of services in this city.

Going after garbage men and ttc workers? Sure. Attacking police unions, highly unlikely. Especially if the candidate is running on a "get tough on crime" platform.
 
It is key that we have only 2 major candidates running against Miller in 2010. 1 Liberal (i.e. Smitherman) and 1 Conservative (i.e. Thompson). As a matter of fact, Thompson would make a good Mayor and having met him several times, he would definitely choose members from both left and right-wings to be on his Executive Committee. For instance, I would not be surprised if Mike Del Grande, Adam Giambrone, Karen Stintz and Adam Vaughan are all working side-by-side!!
 
Last edited:

Back
Top