"Government ethics" does not have to be an oxymoron

In 1993, the Liberal Party's "governing with integrity" election platform quoted polls showing that 75% of Canadians do not trust the federal government. The Liberals acknowledged that their ability to govern effectively depended on fulfilling their pledge to restore Canadians' faith in political institutions. In June 1994, the Liberals introduced their ethics package as the hallmark of their government integrity pledge.

However, the federal government's ethics package was unenforceable and rife with conflicts of interest, and should have caused Canadians to question the government's honesty and integrity. A fundamental problem with the package is the Ethics Counsellor position, which was promised as an independent, effective watchdog who "has the teeth to investigate and take action." The Liberals broke their promise by putting the Ethics Counsellor, Howard Wilson, under the direction of the Prime Minister.

The above two paragraphs were the first two paragraphs of an opinion piece written, and published in slightly different form, in November 1994. Another line of that piece posed the question: "Does anyone think this system will work if, for example, the Prime Minister finds himself in a conflict of interest?"

What has happened with the Liberal government and ethics since then? First and foremost, the ethics enforcement system has not worked when any minister has been in a conflict of interest, let alone the Prime Miniser.

The Liberals have also gone on to break most of their other "governing with integrity" promises. There is still no ethics code for all MPs and Senators, as the Liberals promised.

The Prime Minister promised in June 1994 that changes to the lobbying law would "force lobbying out of the shadows into the open," but a survey conducted by KPMG Consulting last year on behalf of the government found that 50% of consultant lobbyists, 20% of organizational lobbyists, and 15% of corporate lobbyists surveyed knew of lobbyists who had failed to register in the public registry.

"Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program" said the 1993 red book, but the past year alone has provided much clear evidence of a culture of secrecy in the government led by the Prime Minister's aggressive attacks on the Information Commissioner's attempts to uphold his legal duties.

Not to make you, the reader, more sickened than you probably are (or maybe you are laughing bitterly), but here's another doozy from the 1993 platform: "A Liberal government will move quickly and decisively in several ways to address these concerns about conflict of interest, influence peddling, and selling access." As with everything else concerning ethics, the Liberals have also redefined what the words "move quickly" mean.

As the above examples make clear, the Liberals never had any intention of governing with integrity, but instead lied to Canadians to get into power and have since redefined "governing with integrity" as whatever a Liberal does, as if this will restore the public's faith (no Prime Minister, despite your repeated claims over the years, you and your government have done nothing, and I mean nothing, to restore the faith of Canadians in political institutions (as many polls clearly show)).

So where do we go from here? Unfortunately, there is a fundamental split between many politicians and the Canadian public on this question. For these politicians, increasing cynicism is exactly what they want because the more Canadians who turn off politics, the easier for politicians to abuse the public trust.

As a result, the public is truly caught on the horns of a dilemma -- damned if they do believe in the promise, and promises, of government (because leading politicians often lie), and damned if they don't believe in government.

The opposition parties are, finally, placing ethics reforms front and centre in their platforms -- but why should we believe their promises? After all, the Liberals were also an opposition party back in 1993, and look at their record of broken pledges.

Most of the much-needed reforms are well-known, and outlined above. Beyond implementing these reforms, here is one other thing each for political parties, the media, and the public to do to achieve, finally, a federal government with integrity.

For the parties, make an titanium-clad promise that, if elected, you will dissolve Parliament and call an election if you have not passed a law in the first 100 days that gives Canadians the right to file a complaint with an fully independent, fully empowered ethics commission if any minister or other senior politician lies (or if the government lies in advertising or other documents), with mandatory and very high penalties for any lies. If you are afraid of frivolous and vexatious complaints, build in penalties for filing such complaints, but existing libel laws are likely sufficient to discourage them.

Even better, the Liberals could enact such a law before the next election (don't hold your breath), or an opposition party could challenge the Liberals' attitudes toward honest government with such a private member bill very soon.

Six Canadians can file a petition with the Competition Bureau about false advertising by any business, and the Bureau is required to investigate, and in some provinces shareholders or customers can fairly easily launch a mass class action against any corporation which misleads them in other ways. Canadians deserve just as easy a method to have lies by politicians investigated, but again mandatory and very high penalties are key to making this accountability measure work.

For the media, don't let any party that makes "governing with integrity" promises off the hook like the Liberals were let off the hook for years. I know it's not catchy, flashy, simple or sexy, but breaking these type of promises deserves to be front-page, top story news every day until the promises are kept.

For the public, I know we are getting gored by the horns of a dilemma. But although Elections Canada does little to let you know this, you have a right to refuse your ballot. It will be counted and reported in election results as a refused ballot, not a spoiled ballot. If no political party makes the titanium-clad promise set out above, vote for "none of the above" by refusing your ballot in the next election. Maybe they will all finally get the message.

In November 1994, I ended the piece with this line: "Canadians deserve better." Canadians still deserve a better, honest federal government. Which party is up to the challenge?