Trudeau has a knack for picking the wrong people

Prime Minister Trudeau fails regularly at key tasks of the governance of Canada. Since 2015, when he became prime minister, he has performed poorly in many aspects of his job. That he remains in power is attributable in large measure to the poor alternatives offered by the opposition parties.

One of the traits a prime minister must have to succeed consistently at governing is the ability to consider the longer-term issues and consequences of decisions on personnel, on policies both existing and proposed and on major economic and social issues.

He or she must be able to assemble a team that will administer portfolios with care and dispatch and understand how their actions may impact the image of the government and the confidence it enjoys in the minds of the electorate.

Being prime minister is not an easy job and preparing to be chief executive in the administration of government takes time and experience.

Trudeau had little relevant training, given his employment prior to being elected leader of the Liberal party and the same was true for his immediate unelected advisers.

They might have been knowledgeable in running a successful election campaign, but governance requires other skills and the new PM did not take action sufficient to mitigate this deficiency.

As a consequence, a case can be made that his government seemed more focused on burnishing an image than on taking decisive action on key issues.

A case in point is the SNC Lavalin issue and how he dealt indecisively with the Minister of Justice in her role as Attorney General. When he finally took action to resolve the matter, he adopted a convoluted method dealing with the recalcitrant minister and also lost, in Minister Jane Philpot, one of his most promising cabinet members.

Looking back, the PM’s appointment of Jody Wilson-Raybould to the job was a risky move in the first place. This a crucial cabinet post and a novice federal politician almost certainly lacked the experience to do the job.

She was Indigenous, however, and perhaps that appealed to the PM’s desire to find ways to signal his commitment to reconciliation. The problem is that signalling and delivering are two different things.

In dealing with the issue of sexual harassment in the armed forces, he stumbled again. Rather than making clear he wanted it dealt with quickly and effectively, he tolerated as Chief of the Defence Staff a general known to be accused of acting improperly with subordinate female staff.

What was worse, he and his staff failed to do sufficient background checks and appointed a new chief who presented the same problem as the former chief.

You could be forgiven if you concluded that, to the PM, image is the most important factor in selecting people for critical jobs.

The disastrous choice of Julie Payette for governor general is just such a case in point.

What may prove equally problematic, however, is his choice for her replacement of a candidate who does not speak French. Canada is a country with two official languages and the head of state should, indeed must, be truly bilingual, just as members of the Supreme Court and the Speaker of the House of Commons must be.

While it must have looked like a sharp move to the PM, in nominating Mary Simon to the post of head of state, it sent a strong message to the millions of Canadians whose mother tongue is French.

Yes, she is Indigenous (albeit of the smallest group by far of these first Canadians). She is also undoubtedly qualified given her long record of national service, but in her first speech after her appointment she spoke only a few words of hesitant French. That is just not on.

Imagine if the PM had picked someone who was Indigenous but spoke no English. Would he gather wide praise for such a feat? Would he do such a thing in the run up to a federal election?

If the PM had wanted to help bring about reconciliation for the long history of shameful treatment of our first peoples, he should have appointed Simon to the Senate and given her a cabinet position with a mandate of dealing with the many recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But that, of course, would not have the same cachet as naming her governor general.

I think the symbolism of a truly bilingual head of state is more important than the shortterm gain from a politically motivated appointment that sends the wrong message to one of our founding linguistic groups.