Former auditor-general Kenneth Dye is reportedly puzzled that many MPs are hesitant to submit to an audit by Sheila Fraser. I suspect he's in a small minority.
While it seems inevitable that Ms. Fraser will win this tug of war with the House of Commons, I don't find it too puzzling that MPs are anxious about what lies ahead if she does. And not necessarily because they have anything to hide.
Cynicism about politicians is so profound, and so widely felt, that it's hard to feel confident that such an audit will result in a fair and balanced picture of how our elected representatives handle the money they are provided with.
What are the odds that news coverage of her audit findings will accord as much praise for those who've earned it as criticism for those who may deserve to be skewered? What are the chances she will find some examples of people eating meals we think are too expensive, and these will make front-page news, even if these are a relatively small minority of cases? My point isn't that we should be unable to find out about abuses, it's that we should hope the facts emerge in a reasonable and fair rather than sensationalist way.
History, over and over, tells us that we will hear a lot less about the good and a lot more about the bad and the ugly. Even when there is more good. To worry about this isn't an indictment of the Auditor-General. Ms. Fraser has a track record of commenting favourably where she sees behaviour that merits it. But the truth is, a clean bill of health from the Auditor-General is generally not front-page news.
One could , and it would be fashionable, to put the blame for this on the media. But a fairer assessment would take into account that the media react to the expectations and demands of their viewers, listeners and readers.
We seem to live in an era where the public appetite for scandal is impossible to sate and willingness to believe the worst of the people we elect is greater than ever. News organizations compete for eyeballs, and the competition is punishing. If an audit finds scandalous behaviour, however rare, no news organization will want to be left behind in covering it.
For better or worse, it's not just politically incorrect, it’s pretty much politically impossible for most MPs to hold firm against an expense audit. Most voters likely won't linger over the arguments against the audit, choosing to assume instead that resistance means there's plenty to hide. Better to try to set some reasonable ground rules, as Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff appear to be hoping to do.
So if we go down this road, as it appears we will, perhaps this initial resistance by MPs will serve some useful purpose, reminding the Auditor-General of the implicit duty to understand the influence she has through the news media and to use her power judiciously. How she characterizes whatever she finds can either further undermine extraordinarily low regard for our politicians, or not. Naturally, she must be guided by the facts as she finds them, but if she finds that most MPs are doing well, we might all be better served if this message emerged at least as loudly and clearly, as would her dismay over exceptions to that rule.
