This letter was to point out the lack of parliamentary understanding of public accountability and its service to the public good.

In plain common sense, public accountability is the obligation of authorities to explain publicly, fully and fairly, before and after the fact, how they are carrying out responsibilities that affect the public in important ways. It is an accounting obligation, not an obligation to act. Accountability and responsibility are related, but they are separate concepts. For the federal executive government, accountability is to explain to the House of Commons the discharge of its responsibilities. It is legitimate for citizens not to trust a government that won’t account publicly, fully and fairly

The responsible ministers will explain before the fact their policy intentions and reasoning, and their performance standards. This includes reporting whether they have informed themselves for their decision-making and management control responsibilities to a standard of self-informing that citizens have the right to see met. (Ministers’ management control responsibility means ensuring that what should happen does, and what shouldn’t happen, doesn’t — a responsibility ignored in the HRDC and sponsorship disgraces). After the fact, ministers will explain to the House what resulted, whether they met agreed performance standards, and how they applied the learning available to them.

It is the job of MPs to hold to account, which means exacting from ministers the needed public explanations at the time they are needed; validating the accountings for their fairness and completeness; and doing something fair and sensible with answering given in good faith. MPs need to learn how to do this effectively. It doesn’t mean shouting at each other across the floor, asking rhetorical questions and killing off accounting in good faith through partisan use of government’s reporting. In serving the accountability relationship, but standing outside it, the Auditor General validates for the House the fairness and completeness of ministers’ reporting

Justice John Gomery thus far has not viewed accountability in a way that gives practical help to MPs and citizens. Treasury Board President Reg Alcock in his October 2005 public statement views accountability as assigning more monitoring, controlling and audit. Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in announcing his proposed “Federal Accountability Act,” avoids the concept of public accountability and talks about conduct instead. And he would give greater powers to the Auditor General and officers of Parliament to “hold to account”, thus adroitly passing the buck from MPs — both government and opposition — who are there to hold fairly to account on behalf of Canadians. In concentrating on ethics, the NDP also talks conduct which, like whistleblower protection legislation, can’t be expected to make a difference without public accounting for the responsibilities involved.

Public accountability is not political policy; it is a society imperative. Accountability will have to be worked on after the election, but it won’t be if citizens refuse to impose performance standards on MPs (thus confirming Pogo’s observation, “We have met the enemy, and he is us”), and MPs tacitly agree to retreat from facing up to the real meaning of accountability.

Henry McCandless,
Citizens’ Circle for Accountability
Victoria BC

The letter-writer was a Principal in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada from 1978 to 1996.