Connect with us

Community

Difference between politicians and bureaucrats is important.

Published

6 minute read

The main difference between politicians and bureaucrats is that politicians worry about results and the bureaucrats worry about the process. Who do we want to take the leadership role?

For several years after the Conservatives were elected to govern, journalists and M Ps were going on about boys in short pants from the PMO were running the show, telling M Ps, Cabinet Ministers and Senators what to say and who to talk with. For Canadians it was extremely frustrating seeing our elected officials becoming bobble headed puppets spewing prepared talking points.

This was the most obvious example but the same was happening with Premiers and Mayors, across the country.

The result is distressing as governments grew, and with more and more bureaucrats specialized in more restricted areas, the bigger picture got lost. We end up with bubbles, the Ottawa bubble, the provincial capital bubbles, and the city hall bubbles. Most bureaucrats live near where they work, and politicians seldom do, living in ridings a fair distance away. Bureaucrats stay while politicians come and go.

Even in city halls, it often seen in how or where the elected officials are treated and situated in the building or in the hierarchy. Management is symbolically raised above the elected councillors, and nearer the centre of power. Chances are the councillors will be separated from the mayor by departments, floors or wings.

There is a separation between politicians and bureaucrats and a need to separate the governance from the operations and that is understandable. But it is when the governing officials are treated as less than equal, you create the systemic and chronic problems. It has been known, that Prime Ministers treat their M Ps with little respect, relying on bureaucrats in the PMO, Premiers treat MLAs in the same manner, and often times Mayors treat the councillors, so it appears we become govern by bureaucrats.

How do we accomplish anything? Who do we talk to with our personal issue or concern? You can seek out a high level bureaucrat or you can find an Advocate to raise the profile of the issue. Advocacy groups can be very effective, the Downtown Business Association is very effective and it has the extra bonus of having city hall located within it’s boundaries.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association, seems like a good start but they have a limited membership and a limited scope, basically not paying taxes, so they will not help the single tax payer in distress. They have a lot of money and influence, but are not really representative of the Canadian taxpayers. Like many advocacy groups they restrict themselves to certain issues.

Every bureaucrat and department has a drawer or file for issues or project to languish and be forgotten. That issue you discussed with your elected official, who supported your cause, probably went into that drawer or file, never to be seen again. The elected official, went on to the next person, and the cycle continues.

Individually, we are shackled to a system, created and nurtured by bureaucrats, and we hope will be changed, altered and improved after every election. It seldom changes. Listen to or watch the Prime Minister, Premiers or Mayors after an issue arises, and where they turn to for advice? Seldom an elected official but their closest bureaucrat, which will be brought forward to the elected officials, usually as a fait d’accompli. Except in some minority governments, where they have to earn support.

So, if the bureaucrats, run the show, why do we bother with the time and costs of having elections? Why not just elect a Mayor, a Premier and a Prime Minister? The Mayors could meet chaired by the Premier, then the Premiers could meet and be chaired by the Prime Minister. It would be cheaper, but it would destroy an illusion of democratic equality.

Perhaps, our politicians could remember why they are there, demand equality and not accept being dismissed by other political offices and bureaucrats, and take over leadership roles. Then this letter would not be needed, but unfortunately, it is needed now. I think the result is the more important and the process is there to achieve the needed result. That I think has been forgotten.

Politicians, please remember why you were elected? It was to lead, not to get lost in the process. Can you do that, because we need you to? Burst those bubbles and represent your constituents, the process will adapt, if you do. Thank you.

 

Follow Author

Community

SPARC Red Deer – Caring Adult Nominations open now!

Published on

Red Deer community let’s give a round of applause to the incredible adults shaping the future of our kids. Whether they’re a coach, neighbour, teacher, mentor, instructor, or someone special, we want to know about them!

Tell us the inspiring story of how your nominee is helping kids grow up great. We will honour the first 100 local nominees for their outstanding contributions to youth development. It’s time to highlight those who consistently go above and beyond!

To nominate, visit Events (sparcreddeer.ca)

Continue Reading

Addictions

‘Harm Reduction’ is killing B.C.’s addicts. There’s got to be a better way

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk 

B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy

Since 2016, more than 40,000 Canadians have died from opioid drug overdoses — almost as many as died during the Second World War.
Governments, health care professionals and addiction experts all acknowledge that widespread use of opioids has created a public health crisis in Canada. Yet they agree on virtually nothing else about this crisis, including its causes, possible remedies and whether addicts should be regarded as passive victims or accountable moral agents.

Fuelled by the deadly manufactured opioid fentanyl, Canada’s national drug overdose rate stood at 19.3 people per 100,000 in 2022, a shockingly high number when compared to the European Union’s rate of just 1.8. But national statistics hide considerable geographic variation. British Columbia and Alberta together account for only a quarter of Canada’s population yet nearly half of all opioid deaths. B.C.’s 2022 death rate of 45.2/100,000 is more than double the national average, with Alberta close behind at 33.3/100,00.

In response to the drug crisis, Canada’s two western-most provinces have taken markedly divergent approaches, and in doing so have created a natural experiment with national implications.

B.C. has emphasized harm reduction, which seeks to eliminate the damaging effects of illicit drugs without actually removing them from the equation. The strategy focuses on creating access to clean drugs and includes such measures as “safe” injection sites, needle exchange programs, crack-pipe giveaways and even drug-dispensing vending machines. The approach goes so far as to distribute drugs like heroin and cocaine free of charge in the hope addicts will no longer be tempted by potentially tainted street drugs and may eventually seek help.

But safe-supply policies create many unexpected consequences. A National Post investigation found, for example, that government-supplied hydromorphone pills handed out to addicts in Vancouver are often re-sold on the street to other addicts. The sellers then use the money to purchase a street drug that provides a better high — namely, fentanyl.

Doubling down on safe supply, B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy — though for now that effort has been stymied by the courts.

According to Vancouver city councillor Brian Montague, “The stats tell us that harm reduction isn’t working.” In an interview, he calls decriminalization “a disaster” and proposes a policy shift that recognizes the connection between mental illness and addiction. The province, he says, needs “massive numbers of beds in treatment facilities that deal with both addictions and long-term mental health problems (plus) access to free counselling and housing.”

In fact, Montague’s wish is coming true — one province east, in Alberta. Since the United Conservative Party was elected in 2019, Alberta has been transforming its drug addiction policy away from harm reduction and towards publicly-funded treatment and recovery efforts.

Instead of offering safe-injection sites and free drugs, Alberta is building a network of 10 therapeutic communities across the province where patients can stay for up to a year, receiving therapy and medical treatment and developing skills that will enable them to build a life outside the drug culture. All for free. The province’s first two new recovery centres opened last year in Lethbridge and Red Deer. There are currently over 29,000 addiction treatment spaces in the province.

This treatment-based strategy is in large part the work of Marshall Smith, current chief of staff to Alberta’s premier and a former addict himself, whose life story is a testament to the importance of treatment and recovery.

The sharply contrasting policies of B.C. and Alberta allow a comparison of what works and what doesn’t. A first, tentative report card on this natural experiment was produced last year in a study from Stanford University’s network on addiction policy (SNAP). Noting “a lack of policy innovation in B.C.,” where harm reduction has become the dominant policy approach, the report argues that in fact “Alberta is currently experiencing a reduction in key addiction-related harms.” But it concludes that “Canada overall, and B.C. in particular, is not yet showing the progress that the public and those impacted by drug addiction deserve.”

The report is admittedly an early analysis of these two contrasting approaches. Most of Alberta’s recovery homes are still under construction, and B.C.’s decriminalization policy is only a year old. And since the report was published, opioid death rates have inched higher in both provinces.

Still, the early returns do seem to favour Alberta’s approach. That should be regarded as good news. Society certainly has an obligation to try to help drug users. But that duty must involve more than offering addicts free drugs. Addicted people need treatment so they can kick their potentially deadly habit and go on to live healthy, meaningful lives. Dignity comes from a life of purpose and self-control, not a government-funded fix.

Susan Martinuk is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of the 2021 book Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health Care Crisis. A longer version of this article recently appeared at C2CJournal.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X