Canada a governance in crisis

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In a rapidly changing world with an increased danger of armed conflicts, Canada faces a systemic failure to manage complex public policy issues at both the political and bureaucratic levels. It seems that Canada has lost its capacity to identify and deal with matters related to domestic and international events. Guided by opaque regulatory processes that have stymied oil and gas development efforts, deterred investment, and dampened competitiveness, they have given market share to authoritarian energy producers while plundering our economy and hampering strategic international export opportunities. Oil and gas arguably remains the most important commodity in the world today. It paved the way for the industrialization and globalization trends of the post-World War II era, a period that saw the fastest human population growth and largest reduction in extreme poverty, ever. Its energy density, transportability, storability, and availability have made oil and gas the world’s greatest source of energy, used in every corner of the globe. There are geopolitical implications inherent in a commodity of such significance and volume. The contemporary histories of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are intertwined with their roles as major oil and gas producers, roles that they have used to advance their (often illiberal) interests on the world stage. It is fair to ask why Canada has never seen fit to advance its own values and interests through its vast energy reserves. It is easy to conclude that its reluctance to do so has been a major policy failure. Moreover, a $35 billion Canadian Infrastructure Bank that has only finalized two projects, and failed to leverage any private sector dollars is a question mark of incompetence. The endemic existence of a healthcare system that struggles with mismanagement and governance complexity, alongside layers of state influence, special interests, public pressure, and much more is asking for a disaster to happen. Superimposed on a lack of planning, the total lack of a coherent and effective defence policy to safeguard national interests, particularly in the Arctic, is slowly leading to a catastrophic debacle. These issues are only the tip of the iceberg but they are examples of a crisis of governance across a wide range of policy areas. They reflect a systemic failure at both the political and bureaucratic levels to manage complex public policy concerns. Although past governments have also lagged in their efficiency to deliver sound policy, the current one is particularly deficient. Considering their election pledge to implement a system of “deliverology” management to improve program execution, they have failed miserably to deal with important governance issues for Canadians. After seven years in office, the Trudeau government has displayed a remarkably consistent inability to do the difficult work of actually delivering, as opposed to simply announcing, its stated policy goals. The causes are not always the same, nor are the outcomes. However, the corrosive effects are now evident in almost all areas of government operations, including areas identified as high priority by the actual political leadership. The result has been the provision of substandard services, delays, major cost overruns, chaotic findings of international projects and major international embarrassments. Unless this situation changes radically, Canada will face a dangerous decay in state capacity, as well as that of public trust and morale within the civil service. The key dynamic that underlines this crisis lies between the political leadership and the bureaucracy. The dual problem at its core is the lack of political leadership to make decisions and push them through, and the lack of a competent bureaucracy to support efficiently the leadership. This may partly be the result of greater centralization of policy-making within the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which leaves ministers and their departmental staff without the actual authority to implement decisions rapidly and efficiently. The political leadership’s focus on messaging, rather than deliverables is also a deterrent to making good decisions. In general, there is a lack of significant policy planning before an announcement, which later turns out to be far more complex than previously conceived. A clear example of this kind of gaffe is the recent fiasco of the Greenbelt land announcement by the Ford government in the Province of Ontario. While the political leadership is offloading decisions as it is supposed to, the bureaucracy is not well placed to manage them. A key underlying situation within the bureaucracy is the subtle cultural shift among its workforce over the past 30 years. This has shifted the focus away from providing unvarnished sound and competent advice to the political leadership, to defending its stated political positions. To insulate itself from criticism, the bureaucracy has added multiple layers of “process” in order to confer greater accountability and ultimately legitimacy to policies. Yet they are often wholly inadequate to deal with the challenge, leading to sclerotic progress on files as there is no ability or internal impetus to advance them. In cases where multiple departments or sub-departments are involved, policy gridlock occurs, as there is no authority to push forward decisions through the bureaucratic systems. Compounding this syndrome of “performative governance” is the damage from inertia in other areas, caused by the government’s failure to make any choices at all. This deprives both the public, the media, and other actors from even offering criticisms or suggestions to course correct. Bad decisions can at least be fixed. Instead, Canadians face policy paralysis everywhere they look, caused by a government that appears to alternate between making announcements devoid of substance and follow-through, and simply not making decisions at all. To get us out of this bureaucratic quagmire, it is time to review our process of governance and make the ‘public service’ serve the public once again, as it was set up to do. What are your thoughts?