Routine Diligence
Canada's Auditor General has a huge vision, quite matching the large mandate that she has. Departmental heads of federal government sections quake in their boots at the very thought of one of her audits uncovering yet more issues with respect to lax management of tax dollars. She has performed outstandingly well, as Canada's latest Auditor General, earning plaudits from both government and the public.
Her name is held in great esteem, her administration of her public office stands as a paean to public service as it should be practised. Her reports make for fascinating reading, even as they damn those bureaucrats whose disinterest in, and ineffectiveness in pursuing actions meant to serve the public weal, are revealed for all to comment on. Scathingly, for the most part. News Media have a field day publishing all the revelations.
And then, horrors! The very politicians who heaped praise on this public servant for her dedication to her position of trust, her excellent administration of her office in ensuring that theirs is kept in line, have suddenly come face-to-face with a suggestion that appalls them. What?! Audit the parliamentary expense budget? We're honourable, elected Members of Parliament!
Yes. Certainly true. So what's the problem in undergoing a performance audit. That's a half-billion dollars of tax dollars she's looking at potentially weighing in the balance of dedicated public value for funding expended. Sounds reasonable. But not to the three federal parties that count in this country. The Bloc Quebecois's languid favour of 'transparency' is meaningless.
What is meaningful and disappointingly so, is that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP have wrapped themselves in an aura of righteous indignation at the very thought that their members' spending allocations might be thought of as indifferent to the public purse. This is a government and a parliament meant to serve the people and the country. There is accountability.
This is not a matter of public security, but one of a 'right to know', exactly how fundamentally well-functioning the institution of Parliament is in using tax dollars effectively to pursue their regulating and law-making duties on behalf of the electorate, that great amorphous mass that funds their parliamentary activities.
It is clear that our politicians, our lawmakers, our elected representatives in Parliament have not given this matter adequate thought. It is, in fact, in their interest as much as it is in the public's, to ensure that they are trusted to handle the funding allocated to them. By refusing to sign onto the potential of undergoing an annual audit, as is done in many other countries they ensure that an already-slighted public feels good reason to think there is something to hide.
Public institutions should be prepared to be accountable to those who fund their activities. It's that simple.
Her name is held in great esteem, her administration of her public office stands as a paean to public service as it should be practised. Her reports make for fascinating reading, even as they damn those bureaucrats whose disinterest in, and ineffectiveness in pursuing actions meant to serve the public weal, are revealed for all to comment on. Scathingly, for the most part. News Media have a field day publishing all the revelations.
And then, horrors! The very politicians who heaped praise on this public servant for her dedication to her position of trust, her excellent administration of her office in ensuring that theirs is kept in line, have suddenly come face-to-face with a suggestion that appalls them. What?! Audit the parliamentary expense budget? We're honourable, elected Members of Parliament!
Yes. Certainly true. So what's the problem in undergoing a performance audit. That's a half-billion dollars of tax dollars she's looking at potentially weighing in the balance of dedicated public value for funding expended. Sounds reasonable. But not to the three federal parties that count in this country. The Bloc Quebecois's languid favour of 'transparency' is meaningless.
What is meaningful and disappointingly so, is that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP have wrapped themselves in an aura of righteous indignation at the very thought that their members' spending allocations might be thought of as indifferent to the public purse. This is a government and a parliament meant to serve the people and the country. There is accountability.
This is not a matter of public security, but one of a 'right to know', exactly how fundamentally well-functioning the institution of Parliament is in using tax dollars effectively to pursue their regulating and law-making duties on behalf of the electorate, that great amorphous mass that funds their parliamentary activities.
It is clear that our politicians, our lawmakers, our elected representatives in Parliament have not given this matter adequate thought. It is, in fact, in their interest as much as it is in the public's, to ensure that they are trusted to handle the funding allocated to them. By refusing to sign onto the potential of undergoing an annual audit, as is done in many other countries they ensure that an already-slighted public feels good reason to think there is something to hide.
Public institutions should be prepared to be accountable to those who fund their activities. It's that simple.
Labels: Crisis Politics, Economy, Government of Canada, Traditions
posted by Pieface | 2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home