This column was published in in the Toronto Sun.
Don’t feel too bad for Piragal Thiru – the failed Liberal candidate for Scarborough-Rouge River who lost the long-time party stronghold on September 1. There’s a good chance the Liberal party will ensure Thiru lands on his feet.
A recent analysis by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that 33 per cent of failed Liberal candidates from by-elections between 2009 and 2016 have been appointed to government agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs). Not a bad consolation prize.
Further analysis of ABC appointments dating back to 2011 reveal that patronage appointments were given to 9 per cent of federal and provincial Liberal candidates who failed, retired, or subsequently won an election between 2007 and 2016.
Many Ontarians seem to have resigned themselves to the belief that patronage is just how every government does business. It’s hard to blame them. Between 2003 and 2008, the multi-party Standing Committee on Government Agencies found that 42.6 per cent of candidates interviewed had an identified connection to the government party.
And the CTF data is only the tip of the iceberg. It only identifies the most astoundingly obvious cases of patronage; that of individuals who have run for the Liberals. There are countless other Liberal activists who have no doubt received patronage appointments without ever having unsuccessfully put their name on a ballot. Think of the Sudbury by-election scandal, where senior Wynne staffers appeared to offer a Liberal activist a patronage appointment in exchange for dropping out of the nomination race. He could have quietly accepted the appointment, like other before him may have, and no one would be the wiser.
A huge part of the problem in Ontario is the sheer number of appointments that exist. There are 540 different agencies, boards and commissions in Ontario. In 2014, the government made 1,384 appointments. In contrast, federally there are only 207 agencies boards and commissions to which the government makes appointments for the entire country.
The other problem is that there is essentially no way to stop obvious party hacks from receiving appointments. While the Standing Committee on Government Agencies can interview nominees, they are only able to interview a tiny fraction of the enormous and constant tide of government appointments.
As the number of positions has expanded exponentially, the percentage of candidates interviewed has shrunk. Between 1999 and 2003, the committee interviewed 10 per cent of all new appointments. But in 2014, only 0.7 per cent of new appointments were interviewed – 10 out of 1,384.
This has led to blatant examples of partisan patronage. Take for example the appointment of the former Liberal Party of Canada president Doug Ferguson to both the Consent and Capacity Board and the Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory Committee. Or the appointment of former Liberal MPP Maria Van Bommel to Agricorp, the Rural Economic Development Advisory Panel, and to the Council of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners. The only area of expertise that appears to overlap in her appointments is in that of Liberal partisanship.
Even if the Committee does identify a clear case of patronage, their hands are tied. The Committee is controlled by the government, and even if it were not, the Committee lacks a veto.
Support Canada Free Press
Worse yet, the Committee appears to have stopped searching for patronage entirely. From 2003 to 2006 only 26 per cent of appointees went unasked about their partisan affiliation. In 2014, it appears as though none were asked. The result of the current system is that in Committee there has been only one instance since 2003 of a “non-concurrence” vote against a government nominee.
The appointment system isn’t working. The government treats ABC appointments as a parting gift to retiring party favourites and failed candidates, and the only check on accountability is a powerless committee. Solving the problem of patronage starts with cutting back on the number of appointments available, and granting some actual power to the Committee. Until then, keep your eyes out for Piragal Thiru.
For more information:
Ontario Director Christine Van Geyn
email: cvangeyn@taxpayer.com
