Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

What of ministerial accountability?

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, October 1, 2010 2:53pm - 0 Comments

In light of revelations that an aide to Christian Paradis meddled in access to information requests, that aide’s subsequent resignation, and Minister Paradis’ refusal (at least so far) to do likewise, it is likely worth turning again to Jay Hill’s announcement in the House last May of the government’s new doctrine of ministerial accountability.

Ours is a system of responsible government because the government must retain the confidence of the House of Commons and because ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. We ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada … There is a clear case to be made that the accountability of political staff ought to be satisfied through ministers. Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not.

Mr. Hill specifically cited a statement from the Gomery commission report which read, “Ministers need to understand clearly that they are accountable, responsible and answerable for all the actions of their exempt staff.”

The issue at the time was whether political staff should be testifying for their actions at parliamentary committees. And the question that lingered then was what will now be asked is both simple and difficult: What does this mean? What is to be done, if staff are not to be held so accountable and ministers are to accept full responsibility, with a minister whose staff is found to have transgressed?

(Among the hypotheticals that could follow consider this: if the principle is that the minister is solely and entirely accountable to the House for the actions of his department, if the House passes a motion declaring a loss of confidence in the minister on such grounds, is the minister obligated to resign?)

As it is, here is what Jay Hill’s successor as government house leader, John Baird, had to say to the House when the opposition pressed the matter during QP this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has taken the appropriate action. The individual in question has submitted their resignation and the minister has accepted it. The minister has asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to transfer the file to the information commissioner so that she can do her important work.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    Hey how did that thing with aide's testifying work out anyway? Anyone recall whether they did or not? It seemed pretty absurd at the time that a party could shield itself by not allowing committee's to ask questions of underlings who would know what went on, all the while allowing minister's to stick to the script.

    • John

      Wipe these questions from your brain young man!

      the Economy is Strong. Harper is a Leader. We have always been at war with EastAsia.

      • Diavoli

        He's Strong alright, strong at witholding information!

      • Jan

        Yes, we should be worrying about a possible coalition not ministerial responsbility. What were you thinking?

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      Mr. Soudas is still hiding from the bailiff?

      • Jan

        In plain view. Do we all get to do that now?

    • Reverend_Blair

      Now that Sébastien Togneri has resigned, can they call him back? Maybe he'll be more forthcoming with information now…

  • danby

    Once again, conservative accountability is just an act*

    *(originally coined by Stewart Smith)

  • ron in

    Funny watching Soudas stew earlier today, twisting excuses like a pretzel…!

    Paradis is toast – or CONs will make it worse, as is their style….

  • tobyornotoby

    I ask you Mr. Speaker, what didn't the minister know and when didn't he know it?

  • Dan

    That is right out of 1984.

    They've somehow managed to take the term Ministerial Accountability and turn it into a shield to protect Ministers from being accountable.

    Amazing!

  • john g

    This idea of Ministerial Accountability needs to be looked at again. The current expectations do not make sense.

    Let's assume for the moment that Paradis' aide was acting of his own accord. If he was taking direction from Paradis (which may well be the most likely case) then absolutely Paradis has to go.

    But let's set that case aside for a moment, and proceed on the assumption that the aide took it upon himself. This is where the current understanding of Ministerial Accountability is flawed. Everyone says that a Minister must resign if someone in his department commits a firing offense.

    To me this seems like nonsense. This would be like asking the CEO of a company to step down because some underling screwed something up. The CEO is ultimately accountable for what his company does. The guy may be the best CEO in the world, but he has to go because one of the thousands of employees who works for him screws up?

    If firing offenses are coming out of a department on a regular basis, then you could make a case. But for single isolated instances? Does it really make sense to ask Ministers to walk the plank for the screw-ups of a staff member?

    We need a better accountability mechanism than "one strike from a bureaucrat and you're out".

    • ZestyMordant

      "If firing offenses are coming out of a department on a regular basis, then you could make a case."

      There are at least four firing offenses that we know about with respect to this aide. Assuming that he was acting of his own accord, why didn't Paradis know this was going on?

      Seems to me that Paradis is either guilty, complicit or incompetent.

    • bennji1977

      I agree to you to a certain extent; however, in this case, it was not a bureaucrat, but rather a member of the political (ministerial) staff team.

      So, yes, a f*&k up by an entry level clerk at NRC should not require the Minister to step down. Repeated cases of abuse by staff who are solely under the control of the Minister – then yes, the Minister should go as well.

      • John D

        What he said.

    • Kyle

      Assuming your scenario is correct (i.e. Paradis was not directing this aide to disregard the law) there are still quite a few other questions that need to be answered.

      Did the Minster know about the other incidents of interference before he read about them in the paper? If he did know, why did he not fire his aide before the news broke publicly? If the Minister didn't know the other incidents, did he at least attempt to find out if his aide had interfered on multiple files? If he didn't bother looking into the matter, why not?

      Thoe answers to those questions will reflect heavily on Mr. Paradis' competance as a leader and manager. If he has good answers to all of them, thenby all means he should stay on.

      • madeyoulook

        That is indeed the point. Ministerial accountability rests with firing the offender, and the minister should be prepared to defend his conduct once he was made aware of the problem.

        So the questions for the minister are: Did you direct this misbehaviour in the first place? When did you know this was a problem? Shouldn't you have known sooner? Shouldn't you have acted sooner? It is the answers to these questions that should determine whether the minister gets turfed.

        But it is just plain nonsense to bleat from across the aisle: This happened under you, so buh-bye.

        • Jenn_

          This particular case is not one that 'just happened under your watch'. This particular case is one where the Minister stood in place of his aide–regarding the exact issue the aide has now resigned over–and took all responsibility for his aide. It would have behooved him to first look at the emails the Committee wanted to see, wouldn't you think? It would have been a prudent course of action to actually find out what said aide had been up to before you exerted Ministerial authority in a House of Commons committee looking into this very topic. If he didn't, he should resign as being incompetent. If he did, he should resign as being responsible like he told the committee.

          If he hadn't gone to the committee and claimed responsibility, I would have nothing to say about this.

    • MarionKl

      As others pointed out, it was not a bureaucrat. It was a political staffer, hired at the discretion of M. Paradis.

      And M. Paradis had so much trust in this staffer that he went to committee to testify in his stead. He pretty much stated that he would take responsibility for everything his staff had done.

      So if your fictional CEO stated that he had so much trust in his staff that he would take responsibility for their indiscretions, then yes, he should resign.

    • TJCook

      The responses here have been excellent and I have nothing substantial to add. But I do have to observe:

      To say "Let's assume for the moment that Paradis' aide was acting of his own accord" when discussing this government is like ignoring friction in physics class. It makes the exercise a lot easier, but it quickly becomes disconnected from reality.

    • brooster

      My understanding of the political culture in Ottawa is that ministers often recruit young (fresh-outta-school) party partisans who can be expected to work ridiculous hours in support of "the cause". In their youthful hyper-partisanship, they occasionally make silly, immature decisions on behalf of their "mentor" (MP). When the walls come tumbling down, they are easily expendable and often end up working down the hall for some other minister or member.

      At no point, does the minister/member accept responsibility for hiring unprepared underlings in the 1st place.

      It's a very convenient way to disown stupid decisions.

      • MarionKl

        That sounds reasonably accurate.

    • tedbetts

      I generally agree with all of the comments posted here, but will add two more elements.

      The concept of ministerial accountability is hundreds of years old. It is the prime way that the subjects of government (us) hold a minister accountable for his or her conduct and the conduct of his or her people. We have no say in who gets to be responsible for billions of our dollars in any particular cabinet department and put such a great deal of trust in the individual in charge. The quid pro quo is that they fall on their sword for the major screws ups, let alone illegal acts, done under their watch. If it were not so, then the minister would never be held accountable as long as he delegated all the doing. That is an untenable position in our democracy.

      So on the basic principle, which is sound, Paradis should have resigned.

      But more than that. This staffer broke the law and had his wrist slapped. He was not fired. Clearly, no investigation into his conduct was undertaken by the Minister. He lied in a Parliamentary Committee, under oath. I think this is gone beyond a clear case of ministerial accountability.

      There should have at the very least been that "for show" offer of resignation to at least mimic a care about accountability. Instead, accountability gets completely thrown under the bus along with the staffer.

      On my DefCon (DefendConservatives) scale, that's a very serious DefCon5: DefCon1 – it's no story, DefCon2- blame the media, DefCon3- blame the Liberals, DefCon4- blame a bureaucrat or premier, DefCon5- blame a staffer, DefCon6 (which we've been seeing an awful lot more lately)- start talking about Adscam, Toronto elites, broken GST promises and the NEP.

  • Charles H.

    Here, let me sum up ministerial responsibility:

    "Ministers are responsible, except when they aren't."

    (Alternatively: "Ministers are responsible, except when it's inconvenient.")

    • Dave

      Naw, you had it right the first time.

  • Blacktop

    He should do the right thing and resign.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    Accountable when it suites their unaccountability. And unaccountable when an aide can take accountability.

    Leaves me wondering; "how can we know the dancer from the dance?" (William Butler Yeats)

  • rad pather

    If the aide resigned on account of impropriety, then the Minister should automatically resign because he is ultimately responsible even though he did not commit 'offence'. So two people get nailed ? Yes or No?

    • MarionKl

      "He displayed a lack of judgement in hiring said aid, and is therefore not competent enough to be a minister."

      How does that sound?

      • Jenn_

        He displayed a lack of judgement when he didn't allow the Committee to hold the aide in question accountable, and instead specifically took on the accountability on this exact aide's behalf. A little late now to say it's all the aide's fault, accept his resignation and wipe his hands of the affair. That is precisely "Ministers are responsible, except when they aren't" and it is completely ludicrous that he should get away with it.

  • chet

    John g is correct.

    Ministerial accountability should follow regular accountability. That is, be accountable for that which you should be personally responsible for.

    Yes there is always the indirect, general type accountability which goes with overseeing a department. But that type of accountability is "big picture" stuff.

    Attributing the specific actions of an individual to another, who has no specific knowlege of those actions, is contrary to basic notions of fairness.

    • gottabesaid

      I agree with you… however the government is playing with the definition of 'ministerial accountability' as it suits them. If the staffer did something wrong at his/her own accord, he should go, not the minister, because the minister wasn't personally involved in it. BUT, that staffer CAN'T go in front of a parl. committee because, you guessed it, ministerial accountability. I just wish they'd be more clear about what a minister is responsible for and what he's not… and not choose between whatever definition happens to suit the Conservative Party at the moment. BTW, this isn't a case of gotcha politics… it's a situation that needs to be corrected.

  • chet

    The Liberals,

    devoid of policy ideas and lacking any real prospect of providing a viable alternative to the most economically successful government in the world right now,

    sticks to the "gotcha" partisan games.

    And did you here this one?

    The Harper government wants to reduce the size of a census that is….FORTY pages long…scandalous.

    • Jan

      chet, as usual, attempts to change the channel and shows his l lack of knowledge of the census issue. Fail.

    • tedbetts

      Will someone please explain several hundred years of "ministerial accountability" to Chet?

      Do all means of government accountability have to be thrown out the window by these idiots in government?

  • bergkamp

    "What of ministerial accountability?"

    Good question but should have been asked about 15-20 years ago when Ministers stopped being responsible for their departments. I remember Chretien and his minions crowing about how they had the fewest Minister resignations of any admin – like that means anything when Ministers refuse to be accountable for their departments. And now Cons continue on path of Ministers enjoying perks, accoutrements and extra salary while refusing to be responsible for what goes on in their departments.

    No one is responsible for anything anymore – it is always someone else fault. Cons should be embarrassed that they throw assistants under the bus while protecting Minister. It is not how our system is meant to work and Cons/Libs have totally debased Minister accountability.

  • bennji1977

    Cons should be embarrassed that their entire platform that got them elected was to Stand up for Canada, and to bring greater accountability to Ottawa. In my opinion this has been an epic fail, and they should be ashamed.

  • Andrew (not PorC)

    Excuse number two: "they did it first"

  • Blacktop

    There is no excuse. Both parties have breached an old parlimentary principle and the trust placed in them. It is all about power now, irresponsible uses of power.

  • chet

    And those who are demanding a resignation, are not operating within the world of basic notions of fairness, but rather within the world of "gotcha" politics.

    The lowest form of politics there is. The world where you know, no matter how responsible the actor is, no matter how removed he is from the wrongdoing, you nevertheless seek his destruction by virtue of another's fallibility.

    For shame.

  • Jenn_

    Yes, indeed. For shame that you go in front of a committee that asked to hear from your aide and represent yourself as respoonsible for everything the aide did. Then let the aide resign and carry on as Minister. How is that being responsible? Why is it okay to pick and choose the precise moments (not even the precise behaviour because we are talking about the same problem in both places) of when you will be responsible?

  • MarionKl

    As Jenn said, this is a hole of their own digging. They were the ones who tried to protect their aides (Dimitri Soudas included) from appearing before committee by saying the Minister is responsible for the actions of their staff…

    Had they not done that, the aides would have taken the fall just like they always did.

From Macleans