December 30, 2005— Watchdogs left with Scraps

Time after time, the public has witnessed the need for greater government transparency and openness. The offices of the auditor-general, ombudsman, information and privacy commissioner, Elections BC and the conflict commissioner are all appointed by the legislature to serve as a check on government and enhance accountability and transparency for the public.

 

Recognizing the public’s waning confidence in government, the BC Liberal’s promised in 2001to be “the most open, transparent and democratic government in Canada.” Shortly after being elected, they slashed the budgets of the most important of these offices: auditor general, ombudsman and the information and privacy commissioner, by 35 per cent over the past few years. In fact, all three offices noted in their submissions to the finance committee this year difficulty performing their basic duties as a result of reduced resources.

 

It is understandable that the government’s first round of austerity measures would impact most agencies and bodies. However, after billion dollar surpluses, the officers of the legislature should not only have their budgets restored, but increased to meet growing workloads.

 

Most taxpayers know the crucial role that the auditor general plays in measuring government performance and financial reporting. This year, the auditor general’s office was granted a modest budget increase. But funding remains at 1996 levels.

 

At a time when discretionary government spending is increasing on corporate welfare, entitlement programs, advertising, capital spending and Olympic related projects, it is more important than ever that the auditor general have adequate resources. The auditor general explicitly states that his office is unable to examine important aspects of government due to budgetary limitations.

 

The budget increase requested by the auditor general is a meager $1.3 million. Notes the auditor: “[our] office provides the Legislative Assembly with a strong means for holding government to account for how it delivers almost $41 billion in programs and services to the people of British Columbia. No other organization in

the province provides the same type of independent and objective assessments on the accountability and overall performance of government.”

 

The office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) co-ordinates and provides for the disclosure of government documents and protection of information relating to personal privacy. Documents released through Freedom of Information allow the public to measure government decision making and performance. It is impossible to hold a government accountable if its decisions, documents, data and reports are sealed under lock and key.

 

In it’s submission to the finance committee the OIPC states that it is “facing serious challenges in meeting its legislated duties.” And, that “our mandate and functions are vital to restraining and illuminating the activities of government and to empowering citizens, both of which are fundamental to a healthy and well-functioning modern democracy.” The OIPC is asking for an increase of $266,000 for next year. Surely a government committed to transparency can find these resources.

 

Finally, the office of the ombudsman has an exhaustive list of government agencies, bodies, authorities and crown corporations that it is responsible to hear and investigate complaints against. The office’s jurisdiction is so extensive it borders on laughable. In fact, the office has had to decline over 500 complaints over the past few years due to budget limitations. The ombudsman expects that its office will be able to meet its set budget for 2006 but is asking for an additional $305,000 for 2007.

 

Taken together the three offices are asking for less than $2 million over the next two fiscal years. A rather small price tag for transparency and openness in a budget of $41 billion. It’s time the government puts some resources behind its 2001 New Era commitments to open and transparent government and offer our in-house watchdogs the tools they need to perform their duties.

 

Sara MacIntyre

British Columbia Director

Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Many Canadians have come to realize that changes to Ottawa's political structures and institutions are as important - and perhaps even more so -
than the representatives that will be elected to Parliament on January 23rd.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will release seven commentaries during this campaign that focus on broad themes of accountability and democratic reform measures.  This fourth commentary in the series is written by CTF communications director Troy Lanigan on the subject of democratic reform.

December 28, 2005—Breathing Life into Canada's Morbid Democracy
Why vote?  With each passing election a growing number of Canadians are concluding that all politicians are the same, their vote does not count, and nothing ever changes up in Ottawa.  Can this antipathy be reversed?

Voter turnout in Canada's federal elections has steadily declined from a high of 75 per cent of eligible voters in 1988 to less than 61 per cent in 2004.  And although we Canadians like to thumb our noses at our American
neighbours, it is worth noting that registered turnout for the 2004 presidential election was 70 per cent.  Predictable remedies include changing the personalities, emboldened parliamentary committees, more
"free-votes" and democratizing the appointment process.  Each has been promised by a generation of politicians, and their proposed "reforms" have proven to be halfhearted and insincere.

"Our national parties and institutions are deteriorating through neglect, stagnation and inbred resistance to change," says 20-year political insider Rick Anderson, his website www.fireweeddemocracyproject.ca invites a
democratic renaissance in Canada.  Anderson is right.  So where do we start?
Here are three suggestions to put in the ear of federal politicians out on the hustling for votes:

The Senate - elect it or abolish it: A fair debate can be had been between abolition and election of the Senate.  Australia has been electing its senate since 1901 while neighbouring New Zealand abolished theirs in 1951.
Significant debate surrounded the decision in each of the two countries.
Putting aside the question of abolition or election, any country that anoints a quarter of its lawmakers via political appointment - as Canada does - stretches credulity in calling itself a representative democracy. 

 

Change how Canadians vote: Randomly stop 10 citizens on the street and each will agree with the statement that a majority of voters should determine who governs the country.  Yet our current first-past-the-post voting system regularly translates a minority of the vote into a majority of seats in our Parliament.  In most of the world's democracies, 40 per cent support would
not grant a political party 100 per cent of the power, but that is almost universally what "elects" majority governments in Canada. 

The vast majority of democracies have some form of proportionality that ties vote share to seat share in their parliaments.  Many of those countries - as diverse as Ireland and New Zealand - do so while retaining strong local representation.  Surely the most elementary building blocks of improving voter participation and accountability require that a majority of citizens
have a say in who governs them.

Recall and Citizens' Initiative: One of the great benefits of the marketplace is that consumers are empowered.  If a product or service is misrepresented not only can you get your money back, but you have the option to sue for costs or damages.  Try that the next time a politician says one thing during an election and does the exact opposite after getting elected.
(Take a bow Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.)  The ability for voters to remove their representatives from office or petition for a law between elections moves accountability from a one day window every four or five years at the ballot box to a full-time dialogue between citizens and their legislators. 

 
Political outcomes stem from rules in which Members of Parliament operate.
If, for example, a politician knows that he is subject to recall, he may think twice before voting along party lines for a measure unpopular in his community.  A prime minister elected under a more proportional voting system understands his 40 per cent support at the polls places limits on his ability to ram through legislation, assign committees, stack courts and appoint party hacks like David Dingwall and André Oulette to head
multi-billion dollar Crown corporations.

Of course, politicians are reluctant to change the rules that put them in office in the first place.  British Columbia, for example, has a Recall and Initiative Act in name only.  The province's referendum to change the voting system won the support of 58 per cent of voters in May, but it will not be implemented by the government, which won a majority with 46 per cent of the vote.  Although the reform processes in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick are still unfolding, in Ottawa there is no debate or discussion - a void, in
other words.

Systemic reform would not end all ills, but it will create different incentives and outcomes that will lead to a more accountable, inclusive and participatory kind of politics.  Sums Mr. Anderson, "We have to free up the
atrophied arteries of our democracy, to make it welcoming to innovation, more encouraging of good people and good ideas."  Until such time, expect
voter turn-out to continue in one direction.

Troy Lanigan is national communications director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

 

Many Canadians have come to realize that changes to Ottawa's political structures and institutions are as important - and perhaps even more so—than the representatives that will be elected to Parliament on January 23rd.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will release seven commentaries during this campaign that focus on broad themes of accountability and democratic reform measures.  This third commentary in the series is written by the CTF Ontario director Tasha Kheiriddin on the subject of judicial accountability and Canada's Supreme Court. 
 
December 21, 2005—Accountability on Canada's Highest Court

The Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbiter of law and justice in our country.  As evidenced by its recent decisions on the same-sex marriage reference and the health care case of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), it can have a profound impact on laws affecting the day-to-day lives of Canadians. 

And who sits on the court can have a profound impact on its decisions.  This was never so clearly evidenced as in 1981, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau asked the Court to pronounce itself on his proposal to unilaterally
patriate the Constitution.  Seven of nine judges found the proposal legal; of these, all had been appointed by Mr. Trudeau.  The two dissenting ones had been appointed by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

Yet the judges who compose the high court are selected by what is probably the least accountable and transparent process for any body of this importance.  Currently, our Constitution gives the Prime Minister complete discretion to appoint whomever he chooses.  There is no requirement for a review committee, no list of recommendations, and no obligation to consult
anybody.  Apart from regional balance (the Constitution mandates that Quebec gets three out of nine judges, by virtue of its civil law tradition), the matter of who dons the scarlet robe is completely up to the PM.

During the last round of judicial appointments in 2004, the government did constitute an all-party committee to hear about - but not from - the two proposed nominees, Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron.  Neither was compelled to testify before MPs or answer any questions.  Contrast this with the American system, where Supreme Court nominees must face a grueling committee hearing, complete with thorough questioning in front of television cameras, a Judiciary Committee vote, and then a full vote of the United States Senate
before being confirmed. And this comes only after the president consults senators on who to nominate.  Were President George W. Bush's failed nominee Harriet Myers up for consideration in Canada, she would probably have landed on the high court instead of in hot

water.

The Canadian legal community has repeatedly called for reforms to the appointment process.  Voters should remind politicians, however, that justice is not the exclusive purview of lawyers and legalists.  What is
missing is the voice of Canadian citizens, who just happen to foot the bill for the entire justice system.  And that system does not come cheap.  The last time Statistics Canada checked these things in 2000/01, more than $1-billion was spent annually on the operation of Canadian courts.  This included the employment of nearly 10,000 court staff and 2,000 judges, over
half of whom were appointed by the federal government.  Salaries and benefits paid to this judiciary totalled $382-million - an average of $191,000 per judge.

Public funding brings with it certain expectations, including accountability and transparency.  But if an appointment is made behind closed doors, no one
can be held accountable until after the fact - when it is too late to do anything about it.  Small wonder then that Canadians are cynical about their courts.  According to an Ipsos Reid opinion poll taken in March, 2003, a
majority of respondents said they do not trust judges or the judicial system.  Even more disquieting is the finding that two in three polled think that Supreme Court judges are influenced by partisan politics.  Such a
perception erodes confidence in the judicial system, and puts into question the leadership of those who appointed judges in the first place.

The Prime Minister must go further than a rubber-stamp committee if he is to increase judicial accountability and transparency.  He should institute an open appointment process that lets Canadians judge the judges for themselves before they are chosen.  He should also introduce term limits for judges as several European countries have done, so that no one administration can
stack the bench indefinitely (Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed five of the current nine judges - two of them will not retire until 2022 and 2028).
And to truly ensure regional representation, he should rebalance the court to ensure that Quebec does not have an over-representation in terms of population and caseload heard.

Taken together, such reforms would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the Supreme Court and ensure that Canada benefits from the best and most accountable legal system possible.

 
Tasha Kheiriddin is Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Many Canadians have come to realize that changes to Ottawa's political structures and institutions are as important - and perhaps even more so—than the representatives that will be elected to Parliament on January 23rd.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will release seven commentaries during this campaign that focus on broad themes of accountability, systemic and democratic reform measures.  This second commentary in the series is written by the CTF's Aboriginal Division director Tanis Fiss on the subject of increased accountability for Canada's Indian reserves. 
 

December 14, 2005—Accountability for Indian Affairs

One well known definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.  Canadians have witnessed this in the delivery of Indian affairs.  Regrettably, Ottawa's insanity is not likely to stop without our lawmakers first making a number of elementary reforms.

Canadian taxpayers spend approximately $10-billion each year, for federal and provincial programs for native Canadians.  Regrettably, for both natives and taxpayers there is little to show for all the spending.  The status quo is failing.  Fortunately, change can provide new hope.  

According to auditor-general reports, 80 per cent of the Department of Indian Affairs' total expenditures are transferred directly to native bands.
How these funds are disbursed is decided by the Chiefs and their band councils.

Accountability on native reserves is lacking today, but there are ways to solve that problem.  One possibility is to have native governments collect taxes in the way other levels of government collect taxes: through income taxes, property taxes and a multitude of other measures.

To increase accountability, the payments currently transferred to native band councils should be re-directed to individuals.  The money necessary for native governments could then be taxed back by the local native government.
To ensure appropriate community support, this recommendation should be implemented on a pilot basis on one or more reserves over a set time-frame.
That way the policy, if successful, can be expanded to other reserves. 
Currently, once the federal government transfers money from federal departments to native bands, the auditor-general of Canada no long has the authority to audit how and where the money is spent.  No checks and balances on tax dollars foster inefficiencies, redundancies, corruption and even abuse.

If the ultimate ambition is to eventually have all Canadians treated with the same rights and responsibilities, then creating another separate
auditor's office - as is being proposed - will not be the best route to achieve that important goal or ensure the best use of tax dollars.
Expanding the existing auditor-general's mandate to include native bands would instead require fewer tax dollars to operate due to the economies of scale.  Moreover, the standard of audits, mandates and scrutiny would remain consistent.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) routinely receives calls from native Canadians either frustrated with their local council or with the Department
of Indian Affairs.  This is because, in part, the delivery of programs is in the hands of a few - the Chief and council. 
 
Since there is little separation between politics and administration on reserves - and there is no requirement to do so - activities on a reserve that are related to band administration is often heavily politicized.  This
scenario provides the Chief and council with tremendous power and control over community members.  Access to Information documents obtained by the CTF show in 2003, the Department of Indian Affairs received 297 allegations of corruption, nepotism or mismanagement by native band councils.
 
As an interim measure to ensure native Canadians receive appropriate redress, an independent ombudsman for aboriginal affairs needs to be established.  The ombudsman would have authority to investigate complaints and propose changes to be made in a band's administrative practices or the administrative practices of the Department of Indian Affairs.  If the band
or department fails to make the recommended changes, a report would be brought before Parliament.

Some might say such changes will lead to "cultural genocide."  Such overblown rhetoric has no merit.  When native Canadians are enabled to succeed in the same way as other Canadians, they will be no less Cree,
Mohawk or Ojibwas.  In fact, by doing so, they will render the entire paternalistic mechanism of the Indian Act, and the Department of Indian Affairs irrelevant.
Regardless of who wins the election, the federal government must reform aboriginal affairs.  It is only through major reform that aboriginal poverty
on reserves will truly be eradicated.  To do otherwise is insane.  Even worse, it consigns many aboriginal Canadians to live in poverty and in despair.
 Tanis Fiss is director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Aboriginal Division located in Calgary, AB.