The Government We Deserve?

I can't say that I have ever really subscribed to the above quote by Thomas Jefferson, largely because politicians misrepresent themselves all the time.  One may vote with a certain hope for better things based on their promises, but those promises rarely materialize. Because of that, truly informed decisions are difficult to arrive at. (Of course,  the recent U.S. election proves the exception, with voters willfully embracing the chaos agent known as Don Trump.)

However, I believe there is much truth in the quote when manifestly unfit governments continue to ride high in the polls and repeatedly get re-elected. Such seems to be the situation in Ontario, where Doug Ford, despite his grave fiscal and ethical malfeasance, enjoys ongoing popularity.

This brief CBC report on the auditor general's report gives some insight into the shady and fiscally profligate practices of the government:

In addressing the auditor-general's report on the government, Edward Keenan writes of a theme that seems to permeate the Ford government's decision-making approach, one found in the AG's report:

“Without proper planning.”

That was her description, in Tuesday’s annual report, of how the decision to close supervised-consumption drug sites was made.

On supervised injection sites, the auditor notes harm reduction strategies that prevented 1,500 deaths from overdoses are being discontinued without proper planning or impact analysis. Which sounds like a roundabout way to say people are likely to die.

But six years into the life of a government that has always shown an eagerness to fire before it aims, it seems more like an all-purpose description of The Doug Ford Way.

The report contains plenty of other language that might seem jolting when applied to government actions, but by now seems overly familiar. The decisions to issue minister’s zoning orders (or MZOs)were “not fair, transparent or accountable.” The assessment process for the Ontario Place redevelopment was “irregular” and “subjective,” and “rules and guidelines … were not followed.” 

There are a few themes there that are at the forefront of Spence’s report. Decisions seem to be made quickly and on impulse, according to either the political whims and vendettas of the premier or the backroom desires of developers and corporate interests. Traditional accountability checks or analysis of impacts are discarded. Rinse, repeat.

Keenan asks the question of where all of this leaves us. My answer is, unfortunately, without any viable alternative that will cure people's addiction to the populist premier. When she was first chosen as leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, I harboured some hope that Bonnie Crombie might prove to be that viable alternative.  But as I wrote in two previous posts, one in June and one in November, she really only promises more of the same fiscal recklessness in her desperation for electoral support. In in her latest ploy for popularity, she promises to axe the (carbon) tax. 

I’d rather cut your income taxes permanently than cut you a rebate cheque.”

The rebate remark was a dig at both Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford, who have promised cheques of $250 and $200 respectively to defray the high cost of living. 

Perhaps when they do go to the polls, the people of Ontario can be forgiven for voting for the same old thing, since that is all that will apparently be on offer. 

On Harper's Fiscal Ineptitude

Since the story has been covered in the mainstream press, and The Sixth Estate has done his usual fine and thorough job of analyzing its implications, I have nothing to add to the tale of the missing $3 billion from the Public Security and Anti-Terrorism (PSAT) Initiative.

Not only does the story further erode the myth of Conservative fiscal competence, however, it also provides an opportunity for some lacerating humour, as evidenced by today's Star editorial cartoon. Enjoy:

The F-35 Debacle: Will There Be Fallout?

Not counting this post, in the past year I have written nine times on the F-35 jet controversy. I point this out, not to claim any particular perspicacity on the subject, (many others have written much more and in much greater detail than I have) but only to demonstrate how obvious to anyone with even a modest interest in the issue that the jets were going to cost significantly more than the Harper regime repeatedly claimed they would.

That is why it is so distressing to see the liars who govern Canada try to hide behind the Auditor-General's report which not only stated the obvious, but also, because Auditor Michael Ferguson's access was limited to the bureaucracy, was only able to lay the blame at the feet of the Department of National Defense. While Ferguson hinted that political oversight was lacking, his detailed analysis of the absence of due diligence in the information being supplied to the government, and the fact that no questions were asked, bespeak a gross incompetence that cries out for correction.

Unfortunately, that cry will likely result in no changes at all, partly because of the indifference of a woefully disengaged citizenry, and partly because there is little incentive for Harper to do the right thing. After all, he has a majority government, he is aware of the short attention span of the public, and I suspect that when he convinced Defense Minister Peter McKay to betray the Progressive Conservative Party by merging with the Reform Party, a certain immunity from Cabinet termination or demotion was conferred upon him. How else to explain the fact that his exceptional record of incompetence has gone unsanctioned for so long?

Finally, I watched the At Issues Panel on The National last night, with Andrew Coyne and Bruce Anderson. While both agreed that firings are warranted in this situation, Coyne going so far as to say McKay should be 'wearing' this issue, they both seemed to be giving the government a certain benefit of the doubt over the paucity of accurate information it received from the DND . While one of them suggested there might have been some willful ignorance on the part of Cabinet, there should be no question that government heads need to roll, given the tradition of ministerial responsibility and the fact that so much information was so widely and so publicly available to alert them to problems in the procurement assessment.

Anderson weighed in with the question of whether or not this entire debacle will even register with the larger public. On that gloomy prospect, I will end this post.

UPDATE: If you are interested in further analysis, Bruce Anderson has a piece that just appeared in the Globe in which, among other things, he laments what appears to be the end of ministerial responsibility and accountability.