[lenaitch]

However, when it comes to Ministerial positions that actually require proper technical background, education, knowledge, and experience, I wholeheartedly agree that merit should always come before identity politics.

I'm not sure an in-depth or 'technical' background in a particular portfolio is as important as factors such as leadership, advocacy, political gravitas, and an ability to listen/consult, etc. That's what ADMs and other senior bureaucrats are for. We don't need a retired General to be MND, a doctor to be Minister of Health or a contractor to be Minister of Housing. It has been argued that there a certain legal elements assigned to an Attorney General that justifies them being a lawyer but that mould has been broken before.

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

We don't need ... a doctor to be Minister of Health

Sure. Might as well appoint a truck driver as the Minister of Health to fulfill some sort of a regional representation quota:

image source

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sure. Might as well appoint a truck driver as the Minister of Health to fulfill some sort of a regional representation quota:

View attachment 686289
image source

I wouldn't necessarily have any issue with a truck driver serving as a minister so long as they have the good sense and judgement required for the portfolio - and there are also good reasons why it might be good to have a minister politically and professionally insulated from their portfolio: think a MP from the Maritimes serving as the Minister of Fisheries - and the endless amount of headaches it kept on giving.

AoD

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

I wouldn't necessarily have any issue with a truck driver serving as a minister so long as they have the good sense and judgement required for the portfolio

Interesting. How far are you willing to go with you leniency towards hiring unqualified individuals? For example, would you be okay with a Minister of Finance whose only relevant knowledge on the subject matter is Economics 101 they took as an elective 30 years ago and got a "C" on? However, they are a really stand-up person, good-spirited and can usually make an excellent judgement on the color of their tie.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting. How far are you willing to go with you leniency towards hiring unqualified individuals? For example, would you be okay with a Minister of Finance whose only relevant knowledge on the subject matter is Economics 101 they took as an elective 30 years ago and got a "C" on? However, they are a really stand-up person, good-spirited and can usually make an excellent judgement on the color of their tie.

I doubt most of what anyone had learned 30 years ago (in Economics 101 at that) would ultimately matter that much in a ministerial role. If they can demonstrate a mastery of portfolios that they had not had training in previously - then sure, I don't really have a huge issue with it. I think at some point it is more important to consider how a Minister can square professional knowledge - supplied by others - through the political lens to produce the best outcome possible.

AoD

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

I doubt most of what anyone had learned 30 years ago (in Economics 101 at that) would ultimately matter that much in a ministerial role. If they can demonstrate a mastery of portfolios that they had not had training in previously - then sure, I don't really have a huge issue with it. I think at some point it is more important to consider how a Minister can square professional knowledge - supplied by others - through the political lens to produce the best outcome possible.

AoD

I suppose, chuck it up as a difference of opinions. I don't have a problem with your statement in principle. It works in a hypothetical vacuum. I just have trouble imagining how a person with zero background in a subject matter can demonstrate mastery of a new-to-them portfolio. In order to make a good judgement based on the information provided by "others" (hopefully at least those "others" are subject matter experts in your hypothetical cabinet) a minister should at least be able to understand what is being presented to them. To me, that requires at least some level of technical understanding of the subject matter.

It would bother me in you hypothetical scenario, if your minister were presented with conflicting reports. On one hand, evidence presented by an expert. On the other hand - "alternative facts" presented by a political hack (Kellyanne Conway style). I would really hate it if that minister then, due to lack of knowledge in the subject matter, would judge those as equally valid sides of the argument. And then, making their decision through a 'political lens' enacted a policy based on the politically expedient "alternative facts".

Call me old-fashioned, but I like my ministries making evidence-based decisions. I like my doctors to have gone to a medical school. And just like during the Freedom Convoy days, I still don't think that a bunch of truckers should be dictating public healthcare policy.

 

[Northern Light]

I suppose, chuck it up as a difference of opinions. I don't have a problem with your statement in principle. It works in a hypothetical vacuum. I just have trouble imagining how a person with zero background in a subject matter can demonstrate mastery of a new-to-them portfolio. In order to make a good judgement based on the information provided by "others" (hopefully at least those "others" are subject matter experts in your hypothetical cabinet) a minister should at least be able to understand what is being presented to them. To me, that requires at least some level of technical understanding of the subject matter.

It would bother me in you hypothetical scenario, if your minister were presented with conflicting reports. On one hand, evidence presented by an expert. On the other hand - "alternative facts" presented by a political hack (Kellyanne Conway style). I would really hate it if that minister then, due to lack of knowledge in the subject matter, would judge those as equally valid sides of the argument. And then, making their decision through a 'political lens' enacted a policy based on the politically expedient "alternative facts".

Call me old-fashioned, but I like my ministries making evidence-based decisions. I like my doctors to have gone to a medical school. And just like during the Freedom Convoy days, I still don't think that a bunch of truckers should be dictating public healthcare policy.

I share your instinctual preference; but Ministers have rarely been experts in the field they regulate, that's the exception to the rule when it happens.

Lets look back at Ford's first cabinet. (note I could do this to any Liberal or NDP regime)

Minister of Health/Deputy Premier - Christine Elliot - BA. History, Lawyer. - specialty real estate law. (did have personal experience w/special needs children)

Minister of Finance - Vic Fideli - Founded an Advertising firm, later Mayor of North Bay (no degree listed in his bio, though he apparently 'studied' business at Nipissing)

Minister of Social Services - Lisa MacLeod - Degree Poly Sci, previous work experience, Pierre Polievres Riding Assistant.

Minister of Education - Lisa Thompson - Former General Manager of the Ontario Dairy Goat Cooperative.

Minister of Environment - Rod Phillips - MBA, worked at KPMG then as Mayor Lastman's Chief of Staff

Minister of Transporation - John Yakabuski - Former operator Yakabuski's Home Hardware in Barrie's Bay.

***

So, Health Minister was not a Doctor/Nurse/Healthcare Admin by education or training

Finance Minister was not a CPA, no Business/Econ. degree

Social Services Minister had no experience in the field nor on-point degree

Education Minister had no on point experience or degree

Environment Minister had no on point experience or degree

Transportation Minister 'ditto'.

****

Not unique to the Ford government by any means.

As @lenaitch noted, ideally, there are Assoc. Deputy Ministers and other senior civil servants in any given ministry with the relevant expertise to operate/administer/regulate same.

The Minister's job is more political 'The Art of the Possible'. Liase between the Premier/Cabinet/Treasury Board and your Ministry, generally as an advocate for the latter; but while communicating policy goals and expectations from the former.
As well as motivational, politicians aren't always, but should be charmers/good speakers who can inspire/motivate staff. They are the outward spokesperson of the Ministry to the public, and their office is backstop to which the public can appeal to rectify problems.

Its certainly helpful if a Minister has a background familiarity w/their file, but its not all that common.

 

[picard102]

How far are you willing to go with you leniency towards hiring unqualified individuals?

Who's hiring? These are elected officials. Are you expecting parties to only field candidates with degrees in multiple fields lest they need to take on a Ministerial role?

 

[lenaitch]

I suspect that if we did a deep dive into previous federal and provincial cabinets, we would find very few Crown ministers who had first-hand, professional qualifications or knowledge of their portfolios (with the noted exception of MAG). At that level, they are not making operational or technical decisions, certainly not on their own. It can be argued that Anita Anand was a better MND than Harjit Sajjan who was, in fact, a Lt. Col.

Then of course, it begs the question of what is the government expected to do if they don't have said requisite knowledge or, a corollary, must the Minister of Indigenous Affairs always be indigenous, regardless of any other factors?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

On one hand, good on Carney for trying to get more talented immigrants. But given the backlash against immigration, this is equally dangerous. Indeed, I'd argue that a lot of the radicalization in the US against Indians started with all the stories of Indian students in Canada.

...but nobody should be giving into backlash against immigrants, rather calling them out for the bigots they are. That would be common sense too.

 

[Northern Light]

...but nobody should be giving into backlash against immigrants, rather calling them out for the bigots they are. That would be common sense too.

In Canada, I don't think you're seeing widespread backlash against immigrants, you're seeing widespread backlash against immigration, and more particularly, grossly excessive levels of same, predominantly, but not exclusively
in the form of students and TFWs.

I don't see any widespread blame of the people who came, its just more focused at the governments that made the policy.

Something that was among the key factors in the housing crisis and the doctor shortage, with population growth far exceeding the ability of the country to grow infrastructure and services.

Of course there are outright bigots, but I don't see them as driving the proverbial bus in Canada.

I think @kEiThZ is simply making the point that Canadians, writ large, don't want to see another population surge just at the moment, not from any ethnic group. If Canada poaches 100,000 top tier scientists, professors and grad students, no one will be unduly fussed. That's a rounding error in the county's population, especially true if the gains spread across multiple cities/regions.

But add a zero and enthusiasm may wane.

 

[DSCToronto]

This sums up the ghastly and annoying PP rather well.

 

[Richard White]

This sums up the ghastly and annoying PP rather well.

View attachment 686513

Mark Carney should send PP to talk to Trump as a "Special Envoy". When he does not come back with a deal in place, that's on him.

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

Who's hiring? These are elected officials. Are you expecting parties to only field candidates with degrees in multiple fields lest they need to take on a Ministerial role?

but Ministers have rarely been experts in the field they regulate, that's the exception to the rule when it happens.

I thought we were dealing with the hypotheticals, not just discussing things they way they are. While ministers are rarely experts in their field, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. Personally, I don't see why we should be complacent with things the way they are and not even discuss things the way things ought to be. With things the way they are, sure, you might as well appoint a goat milk co-op manager as your Minister of Education. If your only job responsibility is to ram through the ham-fisted reforms to repeal sex-ed curriculum and increase classroom size, then what qualifications do you need? One can only wonder what could have been had an actual education professional been put in that position though.

The Minister's job is more political 'The Art of the Possible'. Liase between the Premier/Cabinet/Treasury Board and your Ministry, generally as an advocate for the latter; but while communicating policy goals and expectations from the former.
As well as motivational, politicians aren't always, but should be charmers/good speakers who can inspire/motivate staff. They are the outward spokesperson of the Ministry to the public, and their office is backstop to which the public can appeal to rectify problems.

While I agree that it is important to have all those soft skills that you have outlined, nothing precludes you from having all those talents while also having a background in a field relevant to the ministry you are heading. I do also realize that with the current parliament system we inherited, it makes it really challenging to find all that expertise within your party. First-past-the-post electoral system making things even worse in that regard. Personally, I would much rather have proportional representation system based on popular vote with political parties having a deep roster of various professionals for potential ministry appointees, so that voters know upfront what sort of government they are electing rather than voting for a party brand of a representative from their riding. But hey, one can only dream...

 

[kEiThZ]

It can be argued that Anita Anand was a better MND than Harjit Sajjan who was, in fact, a Lt. Col.

I don't think I have met a single person in the CAF who would argue Sajjan was better than Anand. That guy was universally reviled. And Anand was well liked and genuinely respected in the department. Blair is probably second most loathed MND behind Sajjan from this government. McGuinty is a 50/50 at least.