Canada's Civil Service - Liberal Partisans?

[Keepitsimple]

This article speaks for itself - from the Star of all places!

Ignatieff raids public service to staff inner circle, poaching diplomat

OTTAWAAnother high-profile public servant has joined Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieffs inner circle.

Patrick Parisot has quit his post as ambassador to Algeria to become Ignatieffs principal secretary.

Parisot, a former broadcaster who served as a valued adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, is the fourth person to jump straight from the bureaucracy into Ignatieffs inner sanctum.

The pattern is troubling to public administration experts who believe the line between professional, neutral public servants and partisan political staffers has become dangerously blurred.

Ignatieff has repeatedly chided Prime Minister Stephen Harper for treating bureaucrats and independent watchdogs like partisan enemies of the Conservative government.

Yet Ignatieffs staffing choices have contributed to the Tories perception that the bureaucracy is full of closet and not-so-secret Liberals.

The Tories were irate when Kevin Chan, executive assistant to the countrys top civil servant, quit his post last year to join Ignatieffs team. They fretted that Chan, who had been privy to secret discussions on the budget and other sensitive matters, would share his inside knowledge with the Liberals.

Ignatieffs late communications director, Mario Laguë, was in and out of the bureaucracy several times. He left the Privy Council Office to work briefly in Paul Martins prime ministerial office, then served as a diplomat before joining Ignatieffs team.

Brian Bohunicky had been a political staffer during the Chrétien era before joining the public service. He quit a senior bureaucratic position to become Ignatieffs chief policy adviser.

Ignatieffs chief of staff, Peter Donolo, has also been through the political-bureaucratic revolving door. He was formerly communications director to Chrétien, who eventually appointed him consul general to Milan.

However, Donolo spent several years in the private sector before returning to active political duty.

Peter Aucoin, public administration expert at Dalhousie University, said Ignatieff’s staffing choices are part of a trend in which both Liberal and Conservative governments have stacked the public service with partisan staffers.

“The line between being a professional public servant and being politicized has been blurred, particularly over the last 20, 30 years,” Aucoin said in an interview.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of confidence in the public service as an independent institution,” he added.

link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/864556--ignatieff-raids-public-service-to-staff-inner-circle-poaching-diplomat

Edited September 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

This article speaks for itself - from the Star of all places!

link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/864556--ignatieff-raids-public-service-to-staff-inner-circle-poaching-diplomat

oh noes! Not the ambassador to Algeria!!!

yes, Simple... the article does speak for itself... unfortunately, you selectively quoted from it, stopping so as not to include the suggestion that the practice is not limited to your favoured target - hey?

Peter Aucoin, public administration expert at Dalhousie University, said Ignatieff’s staffing choices are part of a trend in which both Liberal and Conservative governments have stacked the public service with partisan staffers.

“The line between being a professional public servant and being politicized has been blurred, particularly over the last 20, 30 years,” Aucoin said in an interview.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of confidence in the public service as an independent institution,” he added.

[PIK]

With all the ''leaks '' that have been going on, of course I believe it.

[waldo]

With all the ''leaks '' that have been going on, of course I believe it.

leaks? Do tell, do tell... oh wait, are you speaking to leaks emanating from within the PMO?

[Wild Bill]

oh noes! Not the ambassador to Algeria!!!

yes, Simple... the article does speak for itself... unfortunately, you selectively quoted from it, stopping so as not to include the suggestion that the practice is not limited to your favoured target - hey?

Oh, well! If they both do it I guess it must be all right! Forgive them both and bless them! Let them commit that particular sin all they want since after all, they both did it!

What a marvelous defense! If I ever do something that fails to pass the "smell test" all I have to do is get someone else to do the same thing and we're both off the hook, forever!

[waldo]

oh noes! Not the ambassador to Algeria!!!

yes, Simple... the article does speak for itself... unfortunately, you selectively quoted from it, stopping so as not to include the suggestion that the practice is not limited to your favoured target - hey?

Peter Aucoin, public administration expert at Dalhousie University, said Ignatieff’s staffing choices are part of a trend in which both Liberal and Conservative governments have stacked the public service with partisan staffers.

“The line between being a professional public servant and being politicized has been blurred, particularly over the last 20, 30 years,” Aucoin said in an interview.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of confidence in the public service as an independent institution,” he added.

Oh, well! If they both do it I guess it must be all right! Forgive them both and bless them! Let them commit that particular sin all they want since after all, they both did it!

What a marvelous defense! If I ever do something that fails to pass the "smell test" all I have to do is get someone else to do the same thing and we're both off the hook, forever!

Wild Bill, I didn`t say or imply that because one party does it, the other can follow... my emphasis was the OTT thread title and blatant partisanship where Simple purposely leaves out the most pertinent point in his own linked article

[Keepitsimple]

Oh, well! If they both do it I guess it must be all right! Forgive them both and bless them! Let them commit that particular sin all they want since after all, they both did it!

What a marvelous defense! If I ever do something that fails to pass the "smell test" all I have to do is get someone else to do the same thing and we're both off the hook, forever!

I have Waldo on IGNORE but I saw his comment through your reply.....and he was right - I did leave out the last part of the article - though unintentionally - there was some funny indentation and I thought I had selected the entire article but missed the end - I have since corrected it. Regardless though, the residue of 10 Jean Chretien years of majority government does seem to permeate the senior civil service ranks. However, score ONE for Waldo.

[August1991]

What a marvelous defense! If I ever do something that fails to pass the "smell test" all I have to do is get someone else to do the same thing and we're both off the hook, forever!

The best argument against such nonsense.

Wild Bill, I didn`t say or imply that because one party does it, the other can follow... my emphasis was the OTT thread title and blatant partisanship where Simple purposely leaves out the most pertinent point in his own linked article

Uh, and what's the pertinent point?

I have Waldo on IGNORE but I saw his comment through your reply.....and he was right - I did leave out the last part of the article - though unintentionally - there was some funny indentation and I thought I had selected the entire article but missed the end... However, score ONE for Waldo.

Uh, score one for Waldo? Why?

How did Parisot get to be Ambassador in Algeria? Via Chile, and Portugal.

Mr. Parisot, a former broadcast journalist, joined the Chrétien PMO in 1993 as a communications advisor and later became his special policy advisor. In 2001, he left the PMO after Mr. Chrétien appointed him ambassador to Chile and he served as Canada’s ambassador to Portugal before moving to the post in Algeria.

G&M

After Santiago and Lisbon, whoever named him to Algiers certainly has a sense of humour. No wonder that Parisot wants to come back to Canada - and is willing to take any straw extended to him.

----

Is Canada's federal civil service leftist? Of course it is. If you are a young sociology/polisci major, who else will hire you? If you vote NDP and want to make the world a better place, will you apply to manage at Walmart or apply to work at CIDA?

More important: If you want your pay cheque deposited every second Tuesday, without fail, into your bank account, where do you apply for work? The federal government? Or do you set up a business in your basement?

Government employees, from top to bottom, are people who are risk averse. IOW, they want someone else to assume the risk.

[nicky10013]

So let me get this straight, a few members of the gigantic bureaucracy leave to work for Ignatieff the entire bureaucracy is biased?

Wow. That's one of the biggest jumps in logic I've ever seen.

[August1991]

So let me get this straight, a few members of the gigantic bureaucracy leave to work for Ignatieff the entire bureaucracy is biased?

Yes, it is.

Wow. That's one of the biggest jumps in logic I've ever seen.

It's basic logic.

If you dislike risk, you will seek a life where risk is minimized. In the far past, this meant marriage to someone rich. Nowadays, it means a government job - the iron rice bowl. More generally, it means a government bailout - or its guarantee.

-----

In fact however, the State cannot protect us from risk. Risk, chance and evolution - randomness - are parts of life. (Please, let's move this thread to another category. I'm now talking political philosophy.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

It's basic logic.

I'm sorry, but....

[fellowtraveller]

Is Canada's federal civil service leftist? Of course it is.

The mosat notable aspect of the compostion of the federal civil service is not the political orientation, which I agree is left of center. That is a nobrainer, a default in a heavily unionized environment. It is also understandable, since the first thing any creature does is seek to protect itself from extinction. PSAC and the others know they have a better chance of survival under the Tories than the Liberals/NDP/Bloc, so they will lean that way by nature.

What is more troublesome is the utter domination of the senior civil service ranks by Francophones. It is vastly disproportionate to the population in general.

[nicky10013]

Yes, it is.

It's basic logic.

If you dislike risk, you will seek a life where risk is minimized. In the far past, this meant marriage to someone rich. Nowadays, it means a government job - the iron rice bowl. More generally, it means a government bailout - or its guarantee.

-----

In fact however, the State cannot protect us from risk. Risk, chance and evolution - randomness - are parts of life. (Please, let's move this thread to another category. I'm now talking political philosophy.)

This doesn't prove your point in any way. Try again though, it's funny to watch!

[P. McGee]

I'm not bothered in the least by former civil servants working for a political party once their duties are concluded. It's unreasonable to expect civil servants not to have their own political views, and once they leave the job their time is their own. Ruling parties appointing partisan staffers to the civil service is more concerning.

[August1991]

I'm sorry, but....

Sorry but why?

This doesn't prove your point in any way. Try again though, it's funny to watch!

Doesn't prove my point? How?

----

Smallc, Nicky, I don't want to set a trick question here. So let me explain further my point.

IME, if the money coming in is not connected to the money going out, most organizations are not sustainable.

Edited September 24, 2010 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Government employees, from top to bottom, are people who are risk averse. IOW, they want someone else to assume the risk.

How are employees of large corporations any different? By your typically facile logic, only "rightists" can be entrepreneurs and only "leftists" can be health care workers?

Do you even know what the colour grey is?

[August1991]

How are employees of large corporations any different?

While the United States financial industry has taken a huge hit over the last year, they aren’t alone. Even north of the border companies are feeling the economic pinch. Bank of Montreal, one of Canada’s largest banks, will reportedly layoff approximately 1,100 employees...

Link

---

Bubbler, what world do you live in? Risk is a fact of life.

If someone says that risk doesn't exist, or that they can eliminate it, they are likely a charlatan.

----

My point, once again, is that civil servants - State employees - prefer to avoid risk. Hence, they work for a government. They choose the Iron Rice Bowl.

IOW, there is good reason to believe that government employees in general increase risk because they foist risk on to others.

[Shwa]

Is Canada's federal civil service leftist? Of course it is. If you are a young sociology/polisci major, who else will hire you? If you vote NDP and want to make the world a better place, will you apply to manage at Walmart or apply to work at CIDA?

First of all - define "leftist" as opposed to "centrist" or "rightest" as it applies to Canada.

Secondly, I highly doubt that the sociology/polisci majors make anything near a significant portion of the federal public service and where they do, they are generally overseen by those of the economic/business administration set.

Thirdly, most public service highers come from the private sector and many of those are high placed managers and executives. In fact, the federal public services recruits executives from the private sector.

So your argument right there is at risk of being moronic.

More important: If you want your pay cheque deposited every second Tuesday, without fail, into your bank account, where do you apply for work? The federal government? Or do you set up a business in your basement?

Government employees, from top to bottom, are people who are risk averse. IOW, they want someone else to assume the risk.

So all those soldiers, pilots, police officers, fire fighters, drivers, rangers, investigators, doctors, nurses, researchers - etc., etc., etc., all want someone else to "assume the risk" because they are "risk adverse?" WTF?

It is obvious that your understanding of the federal public service is very limited and lacks the depth to be able to form any sort of coherent opinion. So your "logic" need not apply.

[waldo]

Wild Bill, I didn`t say or imply that because one party does it, the other can follow... my emphasis was the OTT thread title and blatant partisanship where Simple purposely leaves out the most pertinent point in his own linked article

I did leave out the last part of the article - though unintentionally - there was some funny indentation and I thought I had selected the entire article but missed the end - I have since corrected it. Regardless though, the residue of 10 Jean Chretien years of majority government does seem to permeate the senior civil service ranks. However, score ONE for Waldo.

how gracious you are Simple... keep your ONE point... and if you truly recognize and acknowledge your partisan distortion, why not edit your OP thread title. C'mon, you can do it - sure you can!