Gaps in public service oversight are unacceptable...yet rarely protested

 In the Anglican/Episcopal liturgy, there is a prayer seeking forgiveness for sins of both commission, and of omission.

So much of our public discourse focuses on the commission of acts with which we do not agree, for which we have little respect and for which we have a multitude of laws to “prevent” and to “punish” offenders, whether those offenders be individual persons or organizations. As a contrarian, I have often reflected that we might do well to turn some of that laser-focused attention from the acts to the omitted, and thereby less easily perceived, documented, proven and legally actionable gaps in our lives, in our thinking and planning and in our public perceptions of the public need and the public interest.

This piece, while to some will appear whining and picayune and pedantic, nevertheless attempts to shine light into the several ‘gaps’ in public accountability, transparency and even legitimate public expectations.

The pattern of ‘gaps’ could be conceived as deliberately designed, or more likely benignly overlooked by those who write and those who debate and those who pass legislation, generate regulations, and consider the need to enhanced discipline and rigor at all of those levels.

Let’s look at the question of whether or not the federal government is doing, has done, or will do more to lower the costs of cell phone service, given that three behemoths hold an absolute and long-standing oligopoly here in Canada. Sharing towers, nevertheless, is a clause that has been included in the licence of all three, although the federal authorities have failed to enforce that specific clause. The former owner/operator of Wind cell phone service, recently appearing on CBC’s Marketplace, says he had no idea of the headwinds he faced in inaugurating his venture. Now known as “Freedom mobile”, Wind simply exhausted resources given the market dominance of the three giants, Telus, Bell and Rogers. An NDP MP, also interviewed on Marketplace, says that the cell phone lobby is the most visible and influential on parliament hill. So, what are Canadians to do about paying the highest cost for cell phone service in the world?

Cansumer.ca reports in a piece by Alex Wideman, December 16, 2022, entitled, ‘Why are cell phone plans so expensive in Canada?’:

Canadians pay 20% more than Americans and 170% more than Australians on their cell phone place on average. For unlimited talk and text an d2 GB of date, we spend an average of $74/month, compared to $60/month in the US and $22/month in Australia….The Big 3 Canadian telecom companies (Bell, Rogers and Telus) own 90% of the market and charge high prices due to a lack of competition. The lack of competition is due to a wide variety of factors including the industry’s high barrier to entry, restricted  foreign investment, limited access to the wireless spectrum, potential for price coordination and history of privatization and acquisitions…Year after year, the federal government studies the industry, acknowledges that prices are high, commits to new approaches, directs the CRTC* to prioritize the consumer, yet they capitulate when it comes time to assert their authority and decide in favour of consumers. The actions taken by the government and the CRTC over the years to address industry competition, affordability and consumer choice have brought about slow, impermanent or even regressive progress.

The depth and degree of “beholdenness”, or in ordinary terms, co-dependence, of the federal government to the “big three” is not only unconscionable but also inexcusable. However, given that the nation’s preference to muddle through, rather than cut through the bull-shit of the rationalizations, excuses and deferrals of the big three, is both legendary and shameful. On the other side, the degree of relative compliance, orderliness, politeness, and resistance to activism among the Canadian public not only permits, but actually encourages and fosters such negligence, even insouciance on the part of the federal government. In their ‘heart of hearts’ they know that the public will not be stampeding Parliament Hill in massive protests over such a minor public issue. Trouble is, however, that, while that gentile and negligent approach may have been somewhat tolerable, given how happy Canadians were at the inception of cell phone service, and the surprise and awe at the very technology itself, that early ‘bloom’ has come off the rose; and at the same time, rising inflation, interest rates, and growing public awareness of the  exorbitant differences between Canadian cell phone prices and those of countries considered similar to, analogous to, and thereby relevant to the Canadian scene, all contribute to the growing angst among Canadians.

Like so many other issues on the “plate” of the federal government, however, it tends to get lost in the ‘force-field’ of public issues and the relative detachment from politics generally among the Canadian electorate, except perhaps at election time. And even then, a mere 50-60% of voters actually turn out to vote. Wikipedia.org, reports: Voter turnout rose sharply in the 2015 election, at 68.5%, the highest turnout since 1993. Voter turnout has been on the decrease post 2015 and dropped 4.3% from 48.8% in 2019, to 44.5% in 2021.

We need and want both the CRTC and the federal cabinet to shift priorities from bowing and sycophancy to the big three, to enforcement of the shared tower regulation, as well as opening the doors to competition and investment in order to better serve Canadian people. And that does not include, infer or imply any opening of the cell phone networks to Huawei or China. And while, we in the neighbourhood, given that the U.S. and Europe have sanctioned or refused permission to TikTok, why is the Canadian government not actively considering a similar approach to that platform.

Jeremy Nuttall, in The Star, December 15, 2022, writes, in a piece entitled, ‘As
TikTok bans unfurl across the globe, some say Canada should follow,’ writes: Ottawa must investigate TikTok over national security concerns as more jurisdictions in the United States move on banning the controversial social media app based in mainland China, says Conservative foreign affairs critic, Michael Chong. Chong said the app’s reach and ability to manipulate algorithms and laws in China requiring companies there to co-operate with the government, including on intelligence operations, could present a national security threat to Canada…Pin the United Kingdom, the government closed its Parliamentary TikTok account over the summer due to security concerns. I:n Ireland, the country’s Data Protection Commission recently sent the results of an inquiry into the handling of children’s data to other EU members. A draft decision from the inquiry said TikTok is also to be hit with a range of fines, the Irish Times reported Nov. 24.

Another obvious, glaring and deplorable “gap” of regulations, supervision, monitoring and public ethics has surfaced in stories about the announcement of the closing of Huronia Guest Home in Stayner, Ontario. Cheryl Browne, on CTVNews.ca Barrie, reports on January 12, 2023, in a piece entitled, Ont. Assisted living home announces closure, gives residents 60 days to vacate’:

Leaky ceilings, rotting floors, little food and bed bugs were the conditions at Stayner’s Huronia Guest Home in which resident lived during the last few weeks before a whistle-blower blew the lid off their plight…..The facility is not considered a licensed care facility. In mid-2022, its owners terminated its domiciliary care funding contract with the County of Simcoe…However, the County of Simcoe said it doesn’t have the legal or regulatory authority to intervene. A spokesperson from the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority which oversees retirement homes under the Retirement Home Act, also stated it has not authority over the site.

Stories about public officials ‘taking care’ to attempt to find new places of residence for these displaced both residents and workers, while decent and honourable, do not substitute for the glaring lack of oversight, supervision,  monitoring, reporting and even enforcement of minimum standards of decency, cleanliness, nutrition and care in this home, and what is worse, this is likely only the tip of the ‘iceberg’. While the Stayner story concerns a “guest house” and not a licensed Long-term care home, under the act, (and even that omission, both on the part of operators and provincial authorities, speaks volumes about the public hierarchy of responsibility and care for people on the verge of homelessness. Oh, but there is no political retribution from the homeless or the near-homeless! Sorry, UI forgot!)

Of course, COVID exposed glaring inadequacies in both care and facilities in long-term care homes. However, while that exposure garnered some public attention, the matter of care for indigents, at all levels of their existences, has been ignored for decades if not longer, at least in Ontario. In 2020,  according to a report in the National Post, an independent commission on  the long-term care sector point(ed) the finger in a scathing report at governments past and present for thousands of COVID-19 deaths at the province’s nursing homes.’ Quoting the report, ‘Many of the challenges that had festered in the long-term care sector for decades-chronic underfunding, severe staffing shortages, outdated infrastructure and poor oversight contributed to deadly consequences for Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens during the pandemic”…The commission took particulate issue with long-term care homes that area owned by investors.

Negligence, insouciance, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to such a glaring public boil, one that continues to fester and ooze public disdain and contempt, for the public officials, is becoming so prevalent, in so many jurisdictions, that one has to wonder about the spikes in failures. Are they a cumulation of a kind of ho-hum tradition of attending primarily to those issues which are guaranteed to erupt in public outrage, political opposition, loss of votes and termination of governments? Are they part of the Canadian tradition of the ‘nice-guy-and-gal’ stereotype which protects many political oversights and negligence from catching fire? Are they also embedded in the decline of local reporting media, and the resulting silence, and unawareness of many public issues that really need to be addressed? Are they a part of the political landscape and culture that hold that, there are only a few prominent and politically radioactive files with which any government can be really focussed, leaving all others to ‘maybe we will get to that sometime later’ kind of thinking and acting?

When hundreds of air passengers are left sitting on a tarmac for twelve hours without food, water, or even evacuation, in a period of turbulent weather, when the responsibility for such legitimate human services are essential, none of those services were, apparently, supplied. Whether the airline or the airport, both of whose regulatory and contractual responsibilities are involved in any solution, is more or less accountable, the fact that previous arrangements for a set of circumstances that occurs in Canada on a regular winter basis, had/have not been made, and written into the contracts between airlines and airports,  is inexcuseable.

Another obvious “gap” in coverage, whether deliberate or not, whether caught between the public service of the airport or the private profit of the airline, another of those ‘intersections’ of power, the issue of ‘gaps’ seems to be one that inflicts much of our public policy and accountability.

Intersections of power and jurisdiction, however, not attended to, as was the demonstrated case in 9-11, when intelligence and national security  and criminal agencies had relevant information that was never shared with the appropriate agencies, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000, Americans, is a lesson for all governments, large and small. Gaps, for which no one and no agency can be held responsible, have surfaced, too in the responsibility for housing at the municipal level. If a person calls a mayor looking for assistance in finding a place to live, that matter is referred to the “county” which holds responsibility and authority for “housing”. Not only is there no accountability residing in the mayor’s office, but the issue is permitted to slide out of the public mind-set of the municipality.

Deferral of public responsibility, as a political weapon, seems to have been one of the legacies of the Harris government in Ontario, when maintenance of local roads, for example was transferred from the province to the municipalities. Down-loading is just another word for out-sourcing, a practice and policy that has infested the major corporations for decades, as they sought and found the cheapest labour and the fewest environmental regulations in whatever country they could find, and abuse.

Let’s start to get real with our governments; let’s stop burying our collective heads in the sand. And let’s stop turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to some of the more obvious and yet equally unacceptable gaps in public service, from our public officials.