MPs as Patronage Lobbyists Bad for Democracy, Society and the Economy

Lawrence MacAulay's resignation this past week has once again raised a key underlying issue that the federal government is, finally, tackling with its proposals introduced on October 23 -- namely, what is the proper role of a Member of Parliament and a Minister?

In his resignation letter, MacAulay claims that he has been "under attack for the way in which I have fulfilled my responsibilities to the people of Prince Edward Island." Those responsibilities, he writes, included lobbying senior public servants he oversees for funding for a community college whose president is MacAulay's brother.

MacAulay also writes that "It would be a dangerous precedent if Ministers were precluded from raising any matter on any subject with senior officials at any time."

MacAulay's views, fully supported in a letter from Prime Minister Chrétien, do not align with principles of ethical government. Most of these principles are set out in the ethics code for ministers and other senior public officials that has existed since 1986, and they are echoed in the draft code for MPs and Senators introduced on October 23.

Among other rules, the code for ministers quite properly prohibits ministers from having private interests that are affected by their actions in government, and from giving preferential treatment to anyone, and requires them to avoid real, potential and apparent conflicts of interest but "if such a conflict does arise between the private interests of a public office holder and responsibilities of that public office holder, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest." As a result, in contrast to MacAulay's view, ministers are precluded from raising some matters with senior officials at any time.

If these rules are routinely violated by Cabinet ministers, it is not only a recipe for corruption, but also a recipe for arbitrary, random, even absurd economic development. Why? Because proposals for spending the money Canadians give to government will not be reviewed, and rejected or approved, based on the merits, but instead based on the private interests of ministers, ministers who usually have achieved their position through a very arbitrary, random election and selection process.

In addition, if these rules are routinely violated by ministers, changes to laws, regulations, policies and programs also become driven by the arbitrary, random private interests of the ministers, instead of being driven by the public interest.

MPs and Senators have lesser roles in the flow of government money, and changes to laws, policies and programs. So what standard should they be required to meet? Some believe that it is proper if they act as lobbyists for their constituents. Such lobbying may be fine if they lobbied equally hard for all their constituents, and not just for those who voted for them or donated to them or to whom they have some other connection.

A much more enforceable, and ethical, standard, is to require MPs and Senators to help everyone equally find their way through the government to the office or official to which they want to send a letter, apply for a grant or contract, or make their views known about a proposed law, but to prohibit MPs and senators from doing anything more for anyone. The staff of ministers, MPs and senators, should also be required to act in the same way.

How would the federal government operate under such rules (if the rules were strictly enforced)? Better for more people, communities, and businesses, and better for solving societal problems, than it does currently because decisions on contracts, grants, laws, policies and programs would be made based on the merits, and alignment with the public interest, and services would be provided to Canadians more equally.

This is not to say that it is easy to decide on the merits of various proposals for handing out contracts, or changing laws, or delivering services, nor to decide what is in the public interest. However, it is far easier to make such decisions if the decision-makers are not influenced by overwhelming conflicts of interests.

The federal government's proposed new ethics rules for all parliamentarians, and proposed new more independent and effective Ethics Commissioner, will (if actually passed into law) begin the process of changing the standards of behaviour for ministers, MPs and senators. However, the Liberal's proposed changes do not go far enough, as the rules are not strong enough, the Ethics Commissioner will still not be independent enough (and will not have oversight over public servants), nor will penalties be high enough to discourage violations of the new rules.

It may not be surprising that the Liberals are not doing enough to ensure ethical government, given the Prime Minister's corrupt attitude about patronage and pork-barrelling, but it is still disappointing. Canadians deserve better, especially from the Liberals who promised in 1993 no more politics as usual, and to govern with integrity.