FEATURE
THE COST OF CUTTING COSTS Eliminating independent watchdogs hurts accountability and advocacy By Mark Tagliaferri
R
oughly two thousand years ago, the Roman poet Juvenal posed a question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”) Although it originally pertained to issues of marital fidelity, in the time since, theorists ranging from St. Augustine, to Socrates, to John Stuart Mill have coopted and adapted the phrase to explore a key issue of political philosophy: in a democracy, between elections, how do you hold persons in power to account? One way Western democracies have attempted to deal with this question is through “officers of the legislature.” These individuals, sometimes called parliamentary officers or “watchdogs,” are appointed by the legislature to review government activities. In Ontario, they are selected by an all-party committee and report directly to the legislature through the Speaker, rather than to the Premier or caucus. By and large, watchdogs enjoy free reign to investigate and criticize the government as they please, and they cannot be removed during their appointed term except in cases of illegality. In this respect, their key feature is their independence. They are neither beholden to, nor threatened by the government of the day. And as Auditor
14 CATHOLIC TEACHER | FEBRUARY 2019
General Bonnie Lysyk proved with the former Liberal government, a watchdog can certainly become a persistent thorn in any government’s side. That said, it would be a mistake to view these legislative officers simply as professional agitators. Arguably, their more important role is to act as advocates for those without access to the corridors of power. If Joe Natale, CEO of Rogers Communications, calls the Premier’s office, there is a good chance someone will answer. However, the same is not true of a foster child who is being abused by their guardian, or an Indigenous youth in crisis. Young people in those situations would likely seek assistance through the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth – that is, if the position still existed. In October, as part of Bill 57, the Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, the PC government cut the number of officers of the legislature by a third, from nine to six. Specifically, the duties of the Environmental Commissioner have been rolled into the Auditor General’s office, while the Child Advocate and the French Language Services Commissioner have become part of the Ontario Ombudsman’s mandate. The government explained that the moves were part of cost-cutting efforts, but they left unexplained why these three watchdogs
were targeted, or how much money the government thought would be saved by folding their activities into other offices. In the aftermath of the announcement, observers pointed out that the three chosen officers had each been particularly critical of Premier Ford’s government. Just days before the Fall Economic Update, Environmental Commissioner Diane Saxe issued a scathing report that implicated both the former and current governments in allowing raw sewage to be dumped into rivers and lakes. Likewise, Irwin Elman, the Child Advocate, highlighted continued inadequacies in youth mental health and child protection services, while French Language Services Commissioner François Boileau vociferously protested reports that Premier Ford would scrap plans to build a French-language university (the rumour proved true, though significant outcry from the Franco-Ontarian community led the government to walk back some of its planned changes). Adding to the cynicism is a clause in Bill 57 that would allow the government to suspend legislative officers based on “the opinion the suspension is warranted.” In essence, this would enable the government to remove all independent oversight on a whim, if it so chose. The Minister of Finance claimed these cuts were