Flapping The Accountability Bird

It's like that wonderfully majestic goose that looks so great in flight, and good too waddling along the greensward. But its odious leavings, well that's another matter entirely. Not just in Canada where the Canada Goose leaves unwanted heaps of guano; in the U.S. where the birds are extremely unpopular for that very reason, they're called "Canadian geese". So, um, where to start?

Auditor General Sheila Fraser, wrapping up her official stint, in an idle speculative moment of harmlessly shallow thought, ventured the opinion that it might be a good idea, after a long hiatus where no audits have been performed on MP accounts, to have a look. As a parting gesture, a good-will gesture, just to cement her already-admirable reputation for no-nonsense, practical, down-to-earth, getting the job done.

Accountability is where it's at. And Canada Goose-types are notoriously unaccountable, they just do not give a damn where they toilet themselves. Other Canadian representatives do; they are admirably discreet. Our esteemed Members of Parliament, elected by the public taxpayer and installed in Parliament to do the bidding of the electors are privy to handsome expense accounts.

Is it too much to ask where the money goes? Oh yes, we know, in a broad, generalized way where the money goes, notionally. But it's those devilish details that evoke such curiosity in us. After all, the ordinary Canadian is held accountable for his/her earnings, and taxed so that needed public services can be implemented, and the House of Commons can seethe with incivility.

It's just a little thing, after all, isn't it? Why the frantic denials? No one is holding any distinguished politician in the House to any standards we're not ourselves prepared to observe. Don't think so, anyway. And here is Auditor General Sheila Fraser, without doubt the most trusted public servant on record, confessing she hadn't meant by her musing, to use a magnifying lens on MPs' expenses.

In a more broad, generalized manner she meant to do a "performance" audit. Which might, or might not have led to a more intensive expense review of MP accounts. She was interested in contracting, human resource management, management of information technology and security in the House of Commons. So she could assure Canadians we're getting our money's-worth.

Instead, she came up against a blank wall of denial. Fearful denial. When that kind of defensive attitude surfaces it's just natural that people looking in from the outside think: uh-oh, what's going on here? Who is trying to hide what, and why? So, why the panic running off in all directions?

Why not have had the good grace to hear out Sheila Fraser's proposal? Troubled conscience?

"It was never suggested that it would be an audit of MPs or MPs' expenses, and certainly never, never an audit or any kind of assessment of MPs' performance", she explained. So now, look where jumping to conclusions gets you, hmmm? The public is suddenly wary, offended and disgruntled over the reaction of MPs to the very idea that an audit need be done on their expenses.

Conservatives to the rescue! They are prepared to offer a "proposal" to opposition parties in an effort to come to an agreeable working arrangement respecting MPs' expense audit. A compromise that just might work for everyone concerned; Members of Parliament, that amorphous, audit-averse nest of squawkers. And the dear, departing Auditor General.

So good on them! Transparency is what it's all about, hey! Eh?