As election looms, a full-time pursuit of the trivial takes over federal politics

CHELSEA, QUE.—Are our elected leaders capable of fixing systemic problems? Or, must we always wait for the lame explanations that inevitably follow serious government break-downs—explanations that usually amount to “years of chronic underfunding,” battles between warring jurisdictions, or plain political neglect? Some examples: the devastating failure of aging infrastructure to save communities from the entirely predictable consequences of a changing climate; a health system staffed by burned-out nurses close to retirement, too few doctors, and depleted support staff ill-equipped to handle a pandemic surge; inadequate stockpiles of personal protective equipment when urgently needed; antiquated technology within the federal public service that makes even internal communications a challenge, and security a joke; and a bureaucracy that collapses when faced with an upsurge in demand for passports. Oh, and a recruitment crisis within the Canadian Armed Forces at a time when the military is busier than ever. Never mind the chaos in Canadian airports. There are many more examples, as a cursory glance at past auditor generals’ reports will reveal. In fact, the instances of seat-of-the-pants management and failure to anticipate change are so numerous, they raise a pertinent question: can our parliamentary system serve the deepest, most urgent, needs of the population? Recent evidence is not reassuring. Last week, for instance, a committee of MPs questioned Dominic Barton, a Canadian who was former managing director of the global consulting firm McKinsey & Company, voluntary chair of a Liberal advisory committee on economic growth, and, after that, Canada’s ambassador to China during the Two Michaels crisis. At issue was the ballooning number of contracts, worth more than $100-million, that McKinsey received from the federal government since Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015. In fact, the out-sourcing of all manner of expertise—from communications to technical to strategic advice— has grown exponentially under the Liberals, and only partly in the wake of the pandemic. It includes even larger contracts with other consulting firms, including Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young, to name the most prominent. It raises the question of what federal in-house staff—the government’s well-paid communications, policy, legal, and management specialists—do all day. Book consultants, presumably. However, this systemic problem isn’t likely to change if the Government Operations and Estimates Committee’s first session is any indicator. Conservative MPs were concerned, exclusively, with damaging Barton’s reputation—interrupting his answers, blaming him for his former firm’s contribution to the opioid crisis (although he claimed no direct involvement or knowledge), and portraying him as a close personal friend of the prime minister’s. He is nothing of the sort, Barton insisted. He first met Trudeau in an elevator when he was on his way to meet with a former Conservative finance minister, Jim Flaherty. He does not have the PM’s private number and he has never been alone with him in a room. The explanation is credible given Trudeau’s well-known tendency to limit his personal circle. Even his cabinet ministers are not his friends. Further, McKinsey’s contracts in Canada are trivial and were hardly worth Barton’s attention when he was a senior manager—less than three per cent of the company’s global total—and, he repeatedly told the committee, big contracts are closely vetted by modern bureaucracies, not passed out to friends (although smaller ones still are, as International Trade Minister Mary Ng recently reminded us.) None of which mattered to Barton’s avid inquisitors, especially Conservative MPs Stephanie Kusie and Garnett Genuis, who seemed more intent on imitating their right-wing heroes on televised U.S. committees, and Fox News panels, than listening to answers. Hearings continue this week. Maybe, at some point, we’ll hear an intelligent explanation for this latest tsunami of out-sourcing and suggestions of how to stop it and rebuild competence within the federal bureaucracy. But the smear-job against Barton and Trudeau having fizzled, these more significant questions may fade from the headlines. Another time-wasting controversy last week centred on the government’s appointment of journalist and activist Amira Elghawaby as the prime minister’s anti-Islamophobia adviser. Critics pounced on a newspaper article she had written in 2019, which appeared to portray Quebecers, generally, as Islamophobic. Elghawaby eventually apologized for “hurting” Quebecers. Islamophobia, she clarified, exists across the country. She even met with Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet to discuss the matter, but later confirmed she remains opposed to Bill 21, the Quebec law prohibiting religious garb in public workplaces. Practically speaking, the primary targets of that law are Muslim women who wear a hijab, although turbaned Sikhs, and others, are also affected. Unsurprisingly, Blanchet did not change his mind. Canada’s first special representative on combating Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, right, meets with Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet on Feb. 1, 2023. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade This contretemps quickly became another flash-point between Québec City and Ottawa, with the subtitles of an important debate—the protection of minorities versus the cultural values of the majority—replaced by angry denunciations and defensive responses. Elghawaby said the discussion needs to be free of “conflict journalism” and “conflict politics” and she is absolutely right. But, welcome to Ottawa, where every disagreement ends up as ammunition for someone. Meanwhile, in the shadows of the partisan sniping, the Trudeau government quietly endorsed the recommendations of an expert panel charged with establishing national standards of care for long-term care homes. Anyone remember those: where thousands of seniors died—and others suffered isolation, neglect, and worse—during the worst days of the pandemic? Canada, in fact, had more deaths in long-term care homes than any other wealthy nation. The prime minister, opposition leaders, and premiers were “appalled and disgusted” (so said Ontario Premier Doug Ford) as stories of the worst abuses emerged. Quebec Premier François Legault declared: “A lot of Quebecers are not proud of what happened in our homes, myself first.” Trudeau said that “one of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is the lives lost in long-term care homes.” Yet, his government is, so far, languidly applauding the proposed reforms—four hours a day minimum in personal care, improvements in staffing, infrastructure, medical attention, access to family and many pages more of practical fixes—but not making them mandatory. More like friendly suggestions. Long-term care homes, inconveniently, are a provincial responsibility and Trudeau’s promise in the 2021 election campaign to impose national standards appears to have lost its urgency. Some provinces, under pressure from their own electors, have made improvements, but only three—Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta—insist on accreditation of homes, and enforcement is spotty. The challenge of recruiting staff and of guaranteeing every resident a private bathroom, better food, and a basic level of humane care remains largely unaddressed. The much-deplored “patch work” of service remains. Seniors in some provinces will continue to suffer, if they can find a bed at all; some private homes will continue to offer sub-par care, and our national shame will be forgotten until the next pandemic. Apart from an endorsement of the updated standards from federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, along with a tepid demand for federal legislation to give teeth to the new regime—and a bristling response from Ontario that it will not “water down” its standards to embrace federal requirements—nothing. The rage machine on the right has fallen silent. In fact, this may be the last you read, or hear, about long-term care homes for a long time. In this final parliamentary session before an election, election-trigger-happy politicians will be spending most of their time chasing small game, while festering problems that affect the daily lives of many Canadians continue. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times