Strange Days: John Robson & MPs Right, Sheila Fraser & Acolytes Wrong

Robson: Don't Audit MP Expenses. I was going to ignore the issue, since I foresaw it was likely an impossible battle, and I can't think of a time I've ever previously come across any column by Robson with which I agreed, but hey-ho, I don't think I disagree with a single word in his column, and I can't let the guy twist in the wind by himself, however big a fool he is, usually. It is of course, when considered calmly and objectively, a ridiculous waste of time for the AG, given all the other issues around, a point only underlined by the processes and supervision Parliament has already put in place, of which, whenever any honest person is told or explained, they have to admit. So cost-benefit-wise, the AG's request is stupid. But she has the right to make it, and MPs have the right to refuse, and explain why. But given Fraser's status, and her media cheerleaders, who could care less about accounting practices and productivity, and are predictably slavering at any possibility of stories of abuse, the MPs will likely lose, because they are afraid and unwilling to take Fraser and her supporters' arguments on directly ("There should be strict controls. And there are. So the whole thing is a waste of time, in relative terms, and yet another episode in Fraser's unending quest for stardom, with her media claque's support. Of course, everything, always, could use more scrutiny, but there are many larger, more pressing issues of public policy management and accounting than those of a minuscule amount that is already strictly audited, controlled, and for which sanctions exist and are applied. So we refuse her request, because she's wrong to make it, given she could much better spend her time doing more productive work.") And however few supposed scandals, however minor, there will inevitably be something, which, if Fraser is true to form, she'll oversell to an appreciative press, only to revise her evaluation upon further consideration and questioning, but no-one will make note of that. But this episode reflects a serious problem with commentators' contradictory positions, pro-parliamentarianism in theory, and opposed in practice, as well as how overrated Fraser has been as AG, and frankly, noxious for parliament and Canada.

First, Fraser. Desmond Morton was wrong, separatists, or the Bloc at least, should build two statues in front of the National Assembly, not one: one for Gomery and one for Fraser. Both were and are vastly overrated, suffering from the typical "stars in their eyes" syndrome of the quietly narcissistic technocrats who've climbed to the top of the field, in limited, circumscribed roles where their jobs require them to be convinced of their own rightness at all times, which only reinforces their own ridiculously high opinion of themselves, and their concomitantly low opinion of everyone else, who they spend their lives correcting and judging, "and if only they were in charge, they'd get everything right, and the world would finally see what incomparably brilliant stars they are." Gee it's hard to figure why the commentariat feel such a kinship with them....

But it is bizarre. Gomery was given an open goal, and proceeded to trip over his own feet. He resembled the penalty taker in soccer who tries to demonstrate his superiority by chipping the ball into the net, instead of simply slotting it, and watches as the goalie easily gathers his useless slow looping ball. Of course, like megalomaniacal strikers the world over, it was the ball's fault, the turf moved, the ref put him off, etc.. But when one is supposed to preside an impartial inquiry and plays such silly buggers as to be criticised and repudiated by the courts, and whose final report issued a ton of recommendations which were mostly stupid, impractical and anti-democratic, as their full adoption would have signalled the end of responsible government - which of course was no surprise, since buddy spent his life squirrelled away in the courts, and never had the slightest idea of how government and politics actually work, let alone a coherent philosophy of capital-P Politics - then one really is a complete duffer. But his astonishing underachievement was only possible thanks to the idiocy of another megalomaniacal technocrat, Sheila Fraser. They are such arrogant nerds, real Zuckerberg types, those angry D&D aficionados who can't understand why the world doesn't appreciate their genius.

In her quest for glory, Fraser's language on the sponsorship question was extraordinarily inflated, her initial estimates shockingly torqued. When one considers her subsequent committee appearances, much later, and her false claims that it was the media that revved her words, and they may have been off on the actual abuse by, oh, what, 95% or so, and how little coverage this received, and how utterly blithe she was, it is disgusting. And this is supposed to be the cool, calm, efficient national auditor!? Given the mandate of the AG, and the sensitivity of what she was studying, any half-decent AG should have been extremely careful with their language, and scrupulously accurate in her numbers. She failed badly, on both. And the AG is one of the few jobs where you're absolutely not supposed to fail in this way. She's not some Business Page Editor tosser, who can scream Bull one day, and Bear the next, shamelessly, without recognising any mistakes. She's supposed to be the AUDITOR GENERAL! For Gods' sakes. What a complete tool. Her empire-building attention-seeking megalomania should have been made clear, even for the slow learners, when she effectively subjugated the Environment Commissioner - it was odd observing the media, who'd built her into this great hero as the antithesis to all the "EVIL" in Ottawa, deal so briefly and awkwardly with that episode. But consider, her argument then was exactly the same as MPs' now: the law gives us certain prerogatives which we intend to use for our own political purposes. Just as Fraser says now, so then, whatever the law said, it wasn't meant to be used to prevent certain ends, in this case the audit of expenses, then, the environment commissioner's independence. Fraser could easily have allowed the freedom and independence necessary, if she were reasonable. But she was determined there was only going to be one big Officer of Parliament Star, and it wasn't going to be Gélinas, "that uppity bitch", in Fraser's internal monologue. The difference was, the MPs' situation is already under control, legitimately, while Fraser-Gélinas was needlessly conflictual, because Fraser Must Be Boss Of Everything.

But the problem is, just as when the PQ used Gomery as the premise for questioning about corruption in QC and PLQ responded, accurately, that he was a bad example for them to use, given he was basically found incompetent at his job as Commissioner by the courts, that while that may be true, no-one knows it. "Gomery Good. Fraser Good. Commentariat Good. Chrétien Bad. MPs Bad. Politicians Bad." That's all anyone knows.

Now, if you take the time (takes two seconds, literally) you can find how overjoyed QC ultra-nationalists and separatists were and are by Fraser and Gomery killing off a crucial part of the Federal effort to reassert it and Canada's place in QC. One has to be a real idiot to say "well, we shouldn't need to do such things, etc.". QC is not Brandon, Manitoba, dears. There are only a billion and one studies on the importance of symbolism and visible presence. Separatists & ultra-nationalists have only been aware of this from the beginning and spent a lot of productive effort trying to bring the symbols and identity-influencers over their way, through the decades. Like every other brand on Earth, for Gods' sake. And the Federal Government, faced with a constant aggressive campaign of symbolism and presence by the other side, shouldn't respond? Just how stupid can one be?

But these are not tangential anecdotes, these are essential. Because as many people have pointed out, the rise of these Officers of Paliament, their proliferation, and of "outside experts", is testament to the enfeebling of Parliament, not its empowerment. If representative democracy is about 308 elections, and it is, and those 308 MPs are supposed to be the 308 most important people in Canada, and they are, making policy and holding Government to account, then when these folk have fallen so low in public esteem, and more importantly, in their OWN self-esteem, that they can bullied by "the pure outsider", with all that image's fascistic echoes, then things are in a bad way. The sponsorship program was good public policy but too often badly, corruptly implemented. And MPs, intimidated, threw the baby out with the bath water. Parliament has already got a tight auditing system for expenses that are already very circumscribed and supervised, with sanctions, but MPs seem well on their way to letting an unelected, wrongheaded egotist bully them into submission, with the help of her fellow jealous self-interested D&D nerds in the media. So MPs, which are supposed to be adults, doing the most important work in the country, are letting themselves be turned into irresponsible children, to be chastised by The Almighty Fraser, even though they have perfectly good reason for their initial position on expenses. They, our representatives, think her request is unnecessary, a waste of resources, and hence bad public policy. But they are so hesitant to step up and say so, and tell Fraser off. And of course they get no help from the media, who are Fraser's ennablers.

So we have all these people saying how terrible it is we don't have healthy parliamentary democracy, but then doing all they can, in fact, to act against parliamentarians doing their jobs, and getting a fair shake in arguing their position, and thus, in fact, hurting parliamentary democracy. Of course, MPs would also need to have some balls and willingness to clearly and openly stand up for themselves, but it is a vicious cycle,

The people we elect as our experts on public policy are ever more hamstrung by the same people we claim are essential to the democratic process. Good programs are eliminated because problems are overblown, bad recommendations are implemented that worsen the efficiency and DEMOCRACY of administration, and our elected representatives constantly lose, as does our Parliament, and our democracy. And then media tut-tut at the poor state of things.

Anyway, this post was a waste of time, Robson is right, the MPs are right, but it makes no difference. Until, somehow, MPs recover their self-respect sufficiently to argue for themselves clearly and confidently, for their rights, for their necessary privileges, for their salaries and pensions, and necessary expenses, and all the rest of it, and it is all of a piece, orders of Parliament and work conditions and everything, and until they also somehow get a fair shake from the media when they argue these things, then things will only get worse. I urge MPs to be sharper and more forthright and confident in their own defence, and in criticism of others. But I hold out little hope, nor of their treatment as a result. But I saw Robson speak up, against the consensus, and one can never leave a righteous man to fight on his own (however astonishing it is that it's ROBSON, for Gods' sakes, who is right on this one. Robson! C'est le monde à l'envers.)