Government by bureaucrats may be reality, but it cries out for reform

HALIFAX—The late John Crosbie once told me that 90 per cent of government decisions were in fact made by the public service. At the time, I was writing a book about the epic collapse of the great northern cod stock off Newfoundland, and Crosbie was Brian Mulroney’s fisheries minister. I asked the minister why he had set such high cod quotas, when fishermen were reporting a disaster brewing in the ocean. They saw it from the stern of their boats—starved skinny fish, when there were fish at all, and no Caplin. Crosbie’s answer was that his experts on Kent Street knew more about the state of the stocks than the men and women who went fishing every day. The DFO dismissed fishermen’s assessment as “anecdotal” rather than “scientific." Why did the bureaucrats conclude that the quotas were safe? Because their computer models told them so. The models, of course, turned out to be fatally wrong, as American expert Dr. Lee Alverson discovered years too late. Crosbie had to return to St. John’s and announce the unthinkable—the closure of a fishery that had been prosecuted by 60 nations for 400 years. As a result of Ottawa’s bungling, one of the world’s great fish stocks was wiped out as a commercial species. It was a costly blunder at every level. Canadians paid billions for the TAGS program itself to bail out and retrain unemployed fishermen, and retire licences from an overcrowded industry. Too many fishermen chasing too few fish. No one in the public service answered for the eco-catastrophe, the social disaster, or the economic ruination. I thought of Crosbie’s remarks when Justin Trudeau offered his defence of his decision to hand over $500-million of public money to the WE Charity to run the volunteer grant program for students as part of his government’s COVID-19 response. Apparently, Crosbie’s insight still holds. Part of the PM’s justification was that it was not really his decision at all. After looking at the problem, his “professional” public service offered the government a “binary” choice. Either choose WE, or have no program at all. The bureaucrats had decided that this charity was the only one that could carry out the mission. The PM says he pushed back against the initial recommendation, dropping the volunteer grant program from the agenda of a May 8 cabinet meeting. He wanted the public service to reassure him that their original finding was correct, and could stand up to the scrutiny he knew was coming because of his own connection to WE. When the bureaucracy returned with the same recommendation, Trudeau followed it, even voted for it in cabinet. The program was endorsed by cabinet on May 22. It was so flawed, the whole thing lasted barely a week as a government program. It remains to be seen how long it will last as a “scandal.” Former federal fisheries minister John Crosbie had to return to St. John’s in 1992 and announce the unthinkable—the closure of a fishery that had been prosecuted by 60 nations for 400 years. As a result of Ottawa’s bungling, one of the world’s great fish stocks was wiped out as a commercial species. More than 35,000 fisherman and plant workers in more than 400 coastal communities lost their jobs. The Hill Times file photograph If the opposition parties get their way, WE will be filling newspapers and newscasts until the truth comes out or the last conspiracy theory falters under the weight of its own overreach. But there are a host of legitimate questions that still need to be asked—and answered—no matter what documents on this deal the government decides to release. Since the PM admits that cabinet practised zero due diligence before handing half a billion dollars to WE Charity, and relied totally on the advice of bureaucrats, who were those bureaucrats, and exactly what investigation of this charity’s fitness for the job was undertaken? Make it public. Did the responsible members of the PM’s “professional” public service know that WE had shelled out more than $600,000 to Republican political consultants in Washington, as reported by Paul Waldie and Geoffrey York of The Globe and Mail? Did donors to WE know that? And what about WE’s murky corporate structure? The CPC’s deputy-critic of national revenue, wants some answers about the organization that got millions of public dollars long before the doomed volunteer grant program came along. Greg McLean has asked National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier to conduct an audit into WE and its various associated entities. That is a good idea. It would be nice to know if Canadian taxpayers’ dollars enriched Republican political consultants. And who, if anyone, in the PMO, no matter how lowly, had conversations with WE before the decision was made by cabinet? The PM said that neither he nor any of his staff tried to influence the WE decision. His chief of staff, Katie Telford, had a more nuanced view. She spoke of a “handful” of staffers who might have had a “few interactions” with WE. The names please, what “interactions," and if they exist, the emails. Why didn’t the PM or his chief-of-staff know that Canada’s finance minister travelled to Kenya on a trip in 2017 that cost $41,000, a tab picked up by WE? Bill Morneau repaid that loan just recently. That means that Morneau voted to hand the volunteer grant program to WE while he owed them money. That is not a due diligence problem for the public service. That is a due diligence problem for the PMO. Government by bureaucrats, as described by John Crosbie, may be reality, but it cries out for reform. No one elects top bureaucrats. Unlike elected officials, they are not accountable in the same way. Their work is usually done discretely behind the scenes, with little or no public access to how decisions are really made. And it’s not just the WE Charity affair. The Canadian Press recently reported that Ottawa and Alberta have agreed to a deal that makes major cuts to environmental monitoring of the tar sands. Who would make a deal suspending water quality monitoring around a project that routinely degrades the environment and consumes and pollutes vast amounts of water? Wasn’t this supposed to be the government of science-based policy? According to CP, “top bureaucrats” in Ottawa and Edmonton agreed on July 7 to a 25 per cent budget cut that will mean, among other things, no field work on the main branch of the Athabaska River. Coincidentally, Alberta is looking at allowing contaminated water from tar sands tailing ponds to be released into the river. I would like to see the overdue diligence on that one. And I would like to know if Justin Trudeau agreed to this deal. If Crosbie had it right, the PM’s vision of the country and policies are handed to him by the great, grey bureaucracy. That sounds more like lazy ways than sunny ways, no? Michael Harris is an award-winning author and journalist. The Hill Times

Government by bureaucrats may be reality, but it cries out for reform

Since the PM admits that cabinet practised zero due diligence before handing half a billion dollars to WE Charity, and relied totally on the advice of bureaucrats, who were those bureaucrats, and exactly what investigation of this charity’s fitness for the job was undertaken? Make it public.

Health misinformation is hurting patients and undermining trust. Let’s do something about it.

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Follow us

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Government by bureaucrats may be reality, but it cries out for reform

Since the PM admits that cabinet practised zero due diligence before handing half a billion dollars to WE Charity, and relied totally on the advice of bureaucrats, who were those bureaucrats, and exactly what investigation of this charity’s fitness for the job was undertaken? Make it public.

Become a Political Insider