Maclean's magazine recently published a cover story titled, "99 stupid things the government did with your money." This week's edition of our esteemed national newsmagazine included letters in response to the article - some supportive ("only 99?" asked one) and some calling attention to the fact that one person's "stupid" is another person's "useful." Clearly, not every project singled out for criticism was as wasteful or useless in the eyes of those running the programs, or those directly affected, as the editors of Maclean's felt they were.
Calling attention to government waste and ineptitude is one of the most important roles the media plays in our society. Maclean's certainly deserves kudos for having tackled the topic without fear or favour. Compiling such a list is undoubtedly fraught with potential potholes - no matter which projects you choose to include, you're bound to wind up with some that are clunkers in the eyes of those compiling the list, and gems in the eyes of others.
The danger, it seems to this writer, is that such articles might contribute to a feeling that government is incapable of delivering programs and services that meet people's needs effectively and efficiently - that politicians and bureaucrats can't, or won't, manage the public purse responsibly. That's the sort of thinking that has saddled the wealthiest country on the planet with the most inequitable and inefficient health-care system in the developed world, and could well lead to the devolution of our own system into U.S.-style, for-profit health care - if we let it.
Within any society, some services are best delivered by government and some are best delivered by the private sector. It's up to the electorate to decide where to draw the line. Canadians decided way back in the 1960s that health care was an essential service and could only be delivered equitably with strong government involvement. Is our system perfect? Of course not, but few among us would favour of going back to a U.S.-style system and leaving a large percentage of our neighbours out of luck in the event of illness.
The U.S.-based travel writer Rick Steves, in his book Travel as a Political Act, wrote that, "While in past years it seems Americans have been given two options (big, bad government or little, good government), Europeans are more likely to strive for a third option: big, good government."
This writer isn't saying Canada should go the way of Europe. Just look at the financial situation the Europeans are facing at the moment. It's a balancing act, to be sure, and we've got to find our own path - we suspect it's somewhere between the two. But we need to get past the notion that "stupid" government decision-making is a given by staying engaged in the process, demanding accountability and, where necessary, holding decision-makers' feet to the fire.
- David Burke
