Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:47 PM
What staffers are made of
Bruce Anderson
Mark me down as one who feels badly that Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt’s communications director lost her job over now famous lost documents. It’s not that there shouldn’t be consequences for errors, it’s that I think context and proportionality ought to be part of the equation. I also feel there's a difference between errors of judgement, errors based on bad faith and simple human foibles.
I worked on Parliament Hill many years ago. So did all three of my brothers. My wife did too, reluctantly achieving a form of fame as the legislative advisor who accurately informed then prime minister Joe Clark that if he proceeded with a vote on his 1979 budget, he would lose. That vote of course led to the Lazarus like re-election of Pierre Trudeau. Today, one of our daughters is working on Parliament Hill. I could write a lot of nice things about her, but she would probably not be happy with me if I did.
All of that to say, I know something about the life of a parliamentary aide. For sure, they are not all the same. But for the most part, these are people, across all parties, who exemplify commitment, extraordinary work ethic and a spirit of achievement.
The hours and the demands would make it tough on anyone and the jobs are often most appealing to those who are younger. Sometimes people in these roles are asked to take on responsibilities that are greater than their life experiences might have prepared them for. But we engage them nonetheless and the ones I know give their all. We need succeeding generations of young Canadians to believe that politics can be a force for good and to know that we want them to get involved and make it better still.
Those who abuse our trust, those who deliberately cross ethical lines, who abandon the public interest to serve a personal or political one, should of course be sanctioned and stiffly. And if the error is one that creates massive consequences for the state or the country, then this has to be taken into consideration as well.
But leaving the papers in question behind in an interview studio, in the course of a busy day, doesn't feel like it meets those tests. I'm sure the Prime Minister and Ms. Raitt took the action they felt was appropriate and that they wanted to demonstrate to the public, and to others in those jobs, that there are consequences for mistakes. It's their responsibility to decide how to make that message heard and they chose the course they felt best.
But that part of me that remembers what it was like to put in the hours, sweat the details, invest the energy and the hope that I could make a contribution, leaves me feeling sad about this outcome, not to mention hopeful that the woman in question recovers well and quickly from this setback. Her colleagues on the Hill surely all know that this was a mistake. I hope they also know that their commitment to our political system is valued and their hard work appreciated.
