Governing with hypocrisy

Chretien Liberals' arrogance and lack of accountability fueling public cynicism and detachment from politics

By Aaron Freeman

  "There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership."
  What a difference seven years can make. Since these words appeared in the 1993 Liberal Red Book, polls consistently show Canadians have even less faith in their political leaders. A study released by the Institute for Research on Public Policy earlier this year shows that 63 percent of Canadians polled agree with the statement "People like me have no say over what government does." In 1990, this figure was 58 percent. When asked whether "People with money have a lot of influence over politics," 88 percent agree, up from 83 percent in 1990. And despite the proliferation of political parties, 54 percent of Canadians still say that "All federal parties are basically the same; there isn't really a choice."
 

In 2000, disaffection with politics resulted in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history - just 62.8%

  Last week, disaffection with politics resulted in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Just 62.8 percent of Canadians cast their ballot, down from about 75 percent in the 1980s. Among industrialized countries, only the United States has a lower voter turnout.
  In 1993, the Liberals vowed to restore our confidence in the political process, devoting an entire Red Book chapter to "Governing with Integrity." A Liberal government would create an independent ethics watchdog that reports to Parliament. It would rein in the influence of lobbyists, create a code of conduct for MPs and Senators, and restrain the power of money in politics. "Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program."
  Once in office, the Liberals learned new respect for the corrupt system that delivered them to power. They allowed Canada's access to information system to continue to deteriorate, and severely cut the Information Commissioner's budget. As a result, it has become far more difficult for government watchdogs to keep government more accountable and transparent.
  The lobbying industry flourished. The draft code of conduct for MPs and Senators died in the Senate before the 1997 election, never again to be revived. And when the Liberals finally passed amendments to party fundraising rules earlier this year, they allowed the worst abuses of Canada's political finance system to continue. We still have no limits on campaign contributions, and an optional system of donations disclosure.
 

With abuse so rampant, something like the Business Development Bank scandal was only a matter of time

  Breaking the promise to appoint an independent ethics authority for elected officials (as exists in every provincial jurisdiction in Canada), the federal Liberals appointed career bureaucrat Howard Wilson as ethics counselor. Wilson works solely under the direction of the prime minister, and has no power to investigate or enforce ethics rules.
  Under a system so permissive of abuse, the question is not whether a conflict of interest like the Business Development Bank scandal would occur, but when. The scandal is a microcosm for the Liberals' feeble standard on integrity issues. The Liberal approach is to create a standard so low that conflicts are inevitable. Then, when a conflict occurs, they can refer to the standard to exonerate themselves.
  In this case, the prime minister lobbied one of his own appointees on behalf of a private company in his riding. To determine whether this was a conflict, the matter was referred to the Liberal standard, embodied in the ethics counselor. Predictably, as he has with every other ethics matter put before him regarding Liberal ministers, Howard Wilson said there is not even an appearance of conflict of interest.
  Ever since Chretien collared his lapdog ethics counselor, a question has been looming: If the prime minister ever finds himself in a potential conflict of interest, would Wilson himself not be in a conflict of interest? Now we know the answer.
  An ethics watchdog that was functioning ethically would have recused himself from investigating his boss. In fact, he wouldn't have taken this job in the first place, given its inherent conflict of interest. It was for this reason that former Ontario ethics commissioner Gregory Evans said that if he had been asked to take the job of federal ethics counselor, he would have turned it down. He stated that the position's lack of independence made it impossible to carry out the job of enforcing ethics rules effectively.
  The last seven years, and the last few weeks in particular, have underscored the two things that Prime Minister Chretien does extremely well: One is personal survival, maintained through centralized control over the political process. The other related proficiency is treading water -- the ability to govern by doing as little as possible to change the status quo.
  Chretien scrapped the "Governing with Integrity" agenda so quickly because it is at odds with this unique pair of skills. It threatens the highly centralized power structure of the prime minister's office by giving citizens better access to the political process, ensuring that their concerns are properly addressed rather than papered over. And by allowing citizens to place government under closer scrutiny, it forces those in power to make decisions based on merit rather than personal self interest.
  Despite their victory, many Liberals openly wonder whether Canadians will let them get away with Chretien's arrogant style. Let's hope that enough of them will force their party to clean up his unaccountable approach to governing.

Aaron Freeman is an Ottawa-based writer. He can be reached at freeman@essential.org

[ Front Page ]