SALLY Rutherford seemed to hit a raw nerve on Parliament Hill recently when she told MPs they are losing control of the bureaucratic system they are helping create.
It seems like an obvious truth, yet a Saskatchewan Liberal took it as a challenge to his political manhood.
After listening to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobbyist warn of out-of-control bureaucracies, Bernie Collins said he wants the world to know that politicians remain in charge and accountable, damn it.
“I heard from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and they said, well, bureaucrats make all the decisions, we just kind of bumble along,” the MP complained.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
“I take strong umbrage to that kind of viewpoint.”
Collins #argued that because voters can judge him and other politicians during elections, he and the system remain accountable.
“I have no qualms about saying I’ll be accountable,” said the rookie MP from southern Saskatchewan.
Rutherford acknowledged his point, but said it missed the point.
Responsible government involves elections, she agreed, “but the way the system is being altered means that there’s a great deal more of the responsibility and power being given to bureaucratic structures with no recourse through Parliament except through the electoral process.”
Despite Collins’ sensitivity to the image of his powerlessness, Rutherford was making a telling point about the evolution of government these days.
At all levels, politicians have decided to redesign government by making it smaller, giving it more independence from traditional bureaucratic rules, insisting that it embrace business operating principles, and in some cases, demanding it inject the profit motive into its business plan.
These business-like government structures have the power of public policy objectives and legislative authority without the discipline of market competition.
And when “clients” complain that user fees are too high or service is inadequate or other problems exist, where do they go for redress?
If they are so inclined, the agency officials can hide behind the fact that they are operating according to the mandate given them by the government.
If they are so inclined, politicians can hide behind the fact that the quasi-bureaucracies are kept at a distance from government and politics, allowing them to act more independently.
While Rutherford was talking about the structure of the new food inspection agency, with its “special operating agency” status, she was making a more general point about government.
Declining political control and accountability are issues, whether the subject is food inspection and pesticide regulation federally or operation of airports locally.
Instead of being defensive, politicians should be grappling with the complex issues of accountability and political control in this government-as-a-business era.
“We want a system that is going to be clearly accountable to the stakeholders,” said Rutherford.
That sounds reasonable.
