PUBLICATION:  The Winnipeg Sun 
DATE:  2003.10.29
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  Editorial/Opinion 
PAGE:  8 
COLUMN:  Editorial 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHICS IN NAME ONLY
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remarkable contrast between the effectiveness of two watchdogs of Parliament -- Auditor General Sheila Fraser and ethics commissioner Howard Wilson -- should be reason enough for legislation to establish independent ethics officers to be passed this session.

Neither the House of Commons nor the Senate should delay such badly needed reform.

Fraser has lit a candle that has become a beacon of light in the nation's capital for her unswerving and bulldog-like approach to rooting out waste in the federal government.

Among her targets have been extravagance in the office of former privacy commissioner George Radwanski and the federal long-gun registry. Originally estimated to cost $2 million, the registry has become a $1-billion sinkhole -- a classic case of spending run amok.

We can hardly wait for what Fraser has to say about Ottawa's $100-million purchase of two luxury Challenger jets, while our military pilots are risking their lives in Sea King helicopters.

Fraser has been able to do this because she enjoys the luxury of independence from the Prime Minister's Office, which, regardless of who's in power, has a vested interest in avoiding the embarrassment of exposing such waste.

Wilson, who in his most controversial ruling cleared Chretien of wrongdoing in 2000 in the celebrated Shawinigate affair, reports directly to the prime minister under the terms of his job.

That is unfair to the Canadian public, to the politicians he monitors and to Wilson himself.

Regardless of the propriety of any decision he comes to, it will be subjected to suspicion until the position is given independence.

The legislation before the House this fall would establish not one, but two independent ethics commissioners. One would monitor the House of Commons, the other the Senate.

This legislation seems to be causing concern on the part of some senators. Too bad for them. If the ethics of members of the House of Commons are to be subjected to an independent ethics monitor -- as they should -- there's even more reason for senators to face the same scrutiny.

MPs have to face the electorate about every four or five years. Senators, who invariably get their positions via service to the party in power, are appointed until age 75 -- and never face the electorate. For this almost lifetime pass on the gravy train -- currently worth $114,000 annually -- accountability for ethics is a small price and should be non-negotiable.

It's time to give the ethics position the same independence the auditor general enjoys. Fraser is a shining example of how well that works.