The business of government is a ruthless taskmaster. Those who serve must face the daunting task of governing for the good of all people—the voices loud and quiet, those who lobby and those who don’t. They must consider the full scope of each decision, including all consequences, whether intended or otherwise. Economic decisions may have social consequences, and environmental decisions may have economic ones.
Within the business of government, just like with capital market businesses, there are some discussions and considerations which must be kept in confidence, at least in the short-term. To disclose these details could potentially weaken the government’s ability to best serve its constituents. Just as you as a homebuyer would not disclose your financial position to the vendor, governments must keep some information under wraps until negotiations are finalized and decisions come to their end.
These are pretty basic ideas which I would suspect most of us understand. And yet we end up in situations where these considerations and confidences can raise ethical questions. A government’s failure to disclose certain details can result in accusations of conspiracy.
Having occupied public office myself, I can relate to the challenges facing our elected officials. At the same time, I feel no shame in the disappointment I feel when ethical lines are crossed by those officials.
Let us consider the current controversy embroiling the Liberal federal government: the SNC-Lavalin affair. This large Canadian company is accused of unethical practices in its global operations, including making questionable payments to decision-makers in other countries, payments which some people are calling “bribes.”
We should remember that business is done differently in different parts of the world. We are blessed in the great democratic West to have a reasonable expectation of ethics in business. But in a large part of the world, this is simply not the case. Even the international arm of our proud provincial Manitoba Hydro has had to ‘adapt’ to the systems within other countries.
Our attorney general now has to make a decision about whether to prosecute the company.
It has been suggested by some governmental ministers that prosecuting the company could lead to dire economic consequences, and the opposition is crying foul. This is downright foolish. We charge our government with good, balanced decision-making, and we would be justifiably upset if they didn’t consider the impact of their decisions on the jobs and lives of the approximately 50,000 employees at SNC-Lavalin.
And yet it would be greater folly still to allow the pendulum to swing the other way, for the government to consider economic realities over the rule of law and in the process unduly influence the attorney general to make an unbalanced decision.
The weeks and months ahead will bring to light the realities of this controversy. But as a member of the voting public, I would implore you not to fall into either side’s oversimplification of the complex issues in play.
On a more local level, the recent policing report commissioned by Niverville’s council seems to have raised the ire of some neighbours who feel that the full report should be released. These people seem flabbergasted by any redaction at all.
Such people may have some justification to cry foul, but they also fail to recognize some important considerations. It used to be true that choosing a municipal council was about electing the wisest and best of our community, charging them with the duty to make the best decisions possible. By electing five people of wisdom and experience, we felt assured that their combined wisdom would lead to the best solutions.
However, through continued criticism and critique we have hobbled councils to the point that they now hesitate to make any major decisions without the ammunition of an expert’s opinion, such as in the case of a consultant’s report. They hesitate to rely on their own sound judgment. These consultant reports do provide great information, but bear in mind that they also come at a financial cost.
Is council wrong to enter into a contract whereby the final report cannot be released? Not if they received the best information from the best source available. Would I begrudge a consultant from putting in place a nondisclosure clause? Not at all, for I myself—and likely some of you as well—have had my work later “borrowed” by others without due compensation. Much like the musician who laments the free download, we all deserve to be paid for our work.
Trust is the issue at hand. We don’t trust our elected officials, and they don’t trust themselves and each other. Trust cannot be given blindly and should be earned, but to imply ignorance, incompetency, or conspiracy at every decision is counterproductive.
Our governing officials will not always make perfect decisions. Sometimes that’s because there is no perfect answer. Any solution will come with some pain.
Yet I am reminded of words I’ve heard so many times from politicians of all stripes: “All who serve have the best and same intent: a better town, a better province, a better country.” We may disagree on how to get there, but our intention is by and large the same. If we start from a position of finding common ground, we will find the right solution… even if that solution is not mine or yours.
