Point of View 2-Book Bundle. Douglas L. Bland

Чтение книги онлайн.

      The growing imbalance between the legislative and executive branches of government is exacerbated by the use of the government’s discretionary power, allowing the cabinet to govern by Order-in-Council or by ministerial order. These are delegated powers, authorized by statute, which allow the cabinet to govern by regulation, authorized by the cabinet but never ratified by Parliament (which authorized the delegated authority in the statute).

      Not only is Parliament being effectively bypassed as a result of rule by decree, cabinet is also being shut out of the decision-making process. Observers and former ministers confirm that PMO decisions and plans are distributed at cabinet meetings for perfunctory approval or rubber stamping. In the current Harper government, many minsters are unable to speak to the media or make departmental announcements without first having the communication cleared by the minions inside the Prime Minister’s Office. A minister who cannot hire or fire either his chief of staff or his deputy minister is less a head of a government department than a conduit between the PMO and the department.

      So diluted is the role and efficacy of the individual cabinet minister now that the time-honoured convention of ministerial responsibility has all but disappeared. Under responsible government, all ministers are jointly responsible for the decisions of the entire government and each minister is responsible for the performance of his or her individual department.

      Accordingly, a minister of the Crown must resign from cabinet if he cannot publically support a decision of the government. The last time this occurred was in 2006, when Michael Chong resigned his cabinet seat over a disagreement with the prime minister about declaring Quebec a nation within Canada. This was proper and honourable, and it is perhaps the last time we will ever see it.

      More recently, we have witnessed the senior minister from Quebec, Denis Lebel, publically endorse the then government of Quebec’s position regarding separation — that a bare majority (50 percent + 1) of support is all that is required to allow Quebec to commence proceedings to put Canada asunder.[1] This is in contrast with the official policy of the Government of Canada, which mandates that a “clear majority on a clear question” is a prerequisite for commencing separation proceedings. However, Minister Lebel faced no sanctions or discipline.

      Most ministers do not openly challenge the government’s position. However, it has become common practice for ministers who are opposed to its position on a matter to absent themselves from a vote in the House, rather than resign from the cabinet or support the government’s position despite their opposition. This was quite apparent during the vote on C-377, a bill dealing with trade union disclosure (this bill would, ironically, have made trade unions much more transparent than the federal government). Several ministers, who saw either the hypocrisy or the inconsistent application of this proposal, including the then–minister of natural resources and the associate minister of defence, left the Commons just prior to the recorded vote.

      Then there are the many ministerial mistakes and misdeeds for which there is no longer any accounting. Historically, a finance minister who attempted to intervene or even speculate on financial markets would find himself in breach of sworn duty. However, the current government’s preoccupation with politicizing everything has allowed the late Jim Flaherty to speculate that interest rates would rise and that the Canadian dollar would decline in value.[2] These comments not only raised confusion and action inside financial markets, they also raised concerns about the independence of the Bank of Canada. However, the government defended these actions. So, we should not be surprised when some former minister lobbies Bay Street bankers not to lower interest rates or allow certain groups to take on more household debt.

      Not only are such misdeeds free from repercussions, colossal screw-ups within departments have also not resulted in ministers tendering their resignations. Underestimating the cost of CF-35s by over $30 billion (over 300 percent), gross losses of Canadians’ personal information, and diverting millions of dollars earmarked for security to pay for tourist gazebos in the minister’s own riding should have, but did not, cost the minister responsible his or her job.

      And even apparent, overt acts of malfeasance escape the taking of any ministerial responsibility let alone ministerial resignation. When the word “not” is inserted before the word “recommended” on a CIDA funding document, or when a minister uses a military helicopter to pick him up from a private fishing vacation and deliver him to a government funding announcement, the offending minister should have earned an exit from the cabinet. However, nothing happened. I suppose that it is difficult to hold the minister responsible when he or she is merely carrying out the wishes or orders of the Prime Minister’s Office.

      It appears that negligent operation of a file, negligent supervision of a department, needless meddling, and even malfeasance no longer have any real consequences for cabinet ministers. Ministerial responsibility has been replaced by rationalization of one’s actions and conduct. Rationalization and spin is all that is required in the eyes of the government … as long as, but only as long as, the minister has the support of the Prime Minister`s Office.

      And what, besides representing a particular demographic, determines if a cabinet minister is worth supporting and defending in the all-important viewpoint of the Prime Minister’s Office?

      Once somebody becomes a political liability, under the bus he goes. But as long as he can effectively communicate the government’s message, and any foibles or problems can be handled with spin, the minister is considered a valued member of the team. In fact, effective communications skills have displaced superior management and leadership skills as the qualities of primary importance, as the cabinet has been reduced to the most important asset in the government’s communications arsenal.

      It is the difference between statesmanship and salesmanship. A statesman will tell you the truth; a salesman will tell you want you want to hear. A statesman will acknowledge good points in opponents and their arguments. A salesman will embellish the product he is trying to sell and be dismissive of alternatives. A statesman will point out both sides of an argument; a salesman will show you the beautiful backyard and hope you don’t notice the cracks in the foundation. A statesman will tell you how much it will cost to fix the faulty foundation. A salesman will try to convince you can fix it with silicon filler and a coat of paint.

      We have far too many salesman and far too few statesmen amongst our political elites. But if you accept the premise that even the cabinet ministers are largely removed from a centrally controlled decision-making structure, it is clear that there is no other role for them other than that of pitchman for their bosses at the PMO.

      Notable СКАЧАТЬ