The Bastardisation of Privilege

I had wanted originally planned on my first post being something different. However, I woke up one morning last week, and an article in The Globe And Mail one morning last week practically reached out and grabbed me. As I have re-read the article several times, I realized I couldn’t let it go. The link is below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/firms-with-bc-liberal-ties-awarded-secret-contracts-in-pro-hst-campaign/article2109375/

Upon reading the article, it becomes obvious why anyone who believes that governments have abandoned any pretense of accountability in our country would be deeply troubled by these revelations. The more frightening issue after reading it is that this probably represents a very small portion of the abuse practiced on a regular basis by every level of Canadian government. 

The issues of financial mismanagement are troubling enough. While I have never had my own series of Town Hall Meetings, I am left to wonder how they merit a firm being paid well over $150,000 of taxpayers’ livelihood simply to put them on. As to a website that dipped into your pockets for a further $50,000, well, one wonders what amazing technology was needed to the tune of $50k, or what proofreading and writing were needed  that would take yet another $40k from the public (i.e., you).

The rest of the ludicrous economic waste is clearly laid out in the article. The removal of any bidding process for these lucrative contracts ensures that your money was spent without a moment’s thought of getting any form of value for them, something that any manager in a private industry would be promptly and correctly fired for. While the combination of fund wasting absent of a competitive process for the contracts is infuriating by itself, this is simply typical government behaviour; it is difficult to believe that if we ever had an accurate breakdown on government fiscal mismanagement, we would not think ourselves fortunate to “only” be relieved of some $250,000 on a regular basis. The figures would be staggering, and a few hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer income a mere drop in the bucket.

Several other issues raised my ire in this article, some financial, for instance, the “purely logistical” (whatever that means in the context of an HST document) work given to a man who just happened to be an ex-aide (who’s “purely logistical” consulting fees subsequently not-so-purely doubled), to ethical (question: how many of these non-competing contracts were given to those not affiliated with the Liberal Party? Or better yet, having no real political ties at all? Take your time; the math is easy on this).

However, it is the reason that government is able to engage in such unchecked pillaging at the public’s expense that I find considerably more distressing; in many ways, it is the reason why I started this blog in the first place, and perhaps is it no better encapsulated than in the following quote:

‘Finance Ministry communications director Matt Gordon said that justification was used because the “information, strategies and discussions” disclosed during such a competition would have been of a “privileged” nature.’

(This comes from the same man who later in the article comfortingly reassures us that the fact that former Liberal caucus director’s $25,000 contract was given based on reputation, not affiliation. In case you needed reassuring that it was sheer coincidence she just happened to have her former position within the party that handed her your cash).

What is supposed to be true “parliamentary privilege” has not changed in it’s definition for close to 150 years.  The Canadian concept of privilege comes from the British one which preceded and is derived from Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. Briefly, it was defined thusly:

Individual parliamentary privileges include:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom from arrest in civil action
3. Exemption from jury duty
4. Exemption from appearing as a witness
5. Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation

Collective parliamentary privileges include:

1. Power to discipline
2. Regulation of the House’s internal affairs
3. Management of Employees
4. Authority to maintain the attendance and service of Members
5. Right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers
6. Right to administer oaths to witnesses
7. Right to publish papers containing defamatory material

While there have been some amendments over the course of time, the basic premise of “privilege” was as clear in 1800’s as it is supposed to be today: privilege is extended to members of an assembly to ensure freedom of speech, especially as it regards performance of their civic responsibilities, and their ability to express without fear of consequence their opinions on the matters before them. (Note: for an excellent summary of this, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch03&Seq=2.)

The link I refer to above is prefaced by a quote from The Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, the former Speaker of The House, where he offers his very succinct and accurate observation on privilege: “In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.” Not even the smallest doubt can exist: privilege was to guard freedom of speech, and things that pertained to it. In other words, in absolutely no conceivable way was the honourable concept of privilege meant to become the impregnable veil of secrecy that shrouds government from being accountable to the very people it derives its existence from.

Unfortunately, the arrogance exhibited by Mr. Gordon is well-earned. They play us for idiots. Sadly though, he knows, as do most politicians, that few Canadians have a concept of what privilege is, much less what it was originally meant to be. So off they lead us; and in our ignorance, off we go.

Calling the government into account for it’s own unethical behaviour is useless; few politicians have a desire to be accountable if they can avoid doing so. The only way this will be accomplished is when the public themselves view that accountability as their right from every level of those they have elected to govern over them, and demand it accordingly. 

Simply put: if we don’t shake off our apathy, we can expect not more of the same, but much worse, and eventually see the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”