Editorial: The gospel, according to Kelly

Article content

It’s not so much that Kelly Lamrock is wrong about any particular point. But our Child, Youth and Seniors’ Advocate doesn’t seem to realize that, like all unelected officials in our political system, he’s there to serve a specific purpose. And, as an appointee of the House, to provide a specific kind of advice to our legislators.

We are unimpressed with the two volumes his office released this week. Both are verbose tracts, of wide subjects, containing tens of thousands of words. They are inaccessible to the public by any reasonable standard. So often the author veers into the realm of mere personal opinion, it is nearly assured that politicians will ignore his work.

The first report, a treatise on the general ineffectiveness of government programs and lack of accountability for spending, has at best a tangential relationship to his mandate. The second, a plan to restructure the long-term care sector, goes beyond the line of criticism and advocacy – venturing instead into a policy program with 75 recommendations.

We acknowledge the long-term care report has been well received by sector leaders. Still, we see no way this is going to be acted on in any comprehensive way, which makes us wonder what the point is.

Perhaps there is no actual harm – after all, plenty of reports collect dust. But there’s a reason we have this position: namely, the government is not run by the elderly or by children. These groups therefore need a dedicated voice in the halls of power who can speak to their needs.

The advocate won’t be effective if politicians, civil service officials, journalists and the public at large regard his output as academic, rather than practical.

Mr. Lamrock’s job is to advocate, not to rewrite Plato’s Republic. No doubt New Brunswick would be a bit better off if the system heeded his advice on long-term care. But the style, format and scope of his approach simply doesn’t work. It’s time to dial it back.