Acting Auditor could Tell Campbell No

Imagine the uproar if the Harper government waited until Federal Auditor General Shelia Fraser retires, and then appointed their hand picked candidate. A minority government hoping to be a majority government wouldn't do anything that stupid, but that pretty well characterizes what the Campbell Liberals have done.

Section 2 of the Auditor General Act requires the unanimous recommendation of a legislative committee, the Public Accounts Committee, before the Legislature appoints the Auditor General; however, Section 7 of the Act provides that if the legislature is not sitting and the position is vacant the committee may appoint an acting Auditor General until the committee reaches unanimous agreement on a recommendation. On May 31, 2006, the Liberal majority on the Public Accounts Committee appointed an acting Auditor General despite objections from the NDP. So much for a new way of doing business in the BC legislature!

There are eight Liberals on the Public Accounts Committee: John Yap (Richmond-Steveston), Iain Black Port Moody-Westwood), Ron Cantelon (Nanaimo-Parksville), Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge-Mission), Joan McIntyre (West Vancouver-Garibaldi), Mary Polak (Langley), John Rustad (Prince George-Omineca), and Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver-Capilano). While by tradition the Committee is chaired by a member of the Official Opposition, currently the NDP's Rob Fleming (Victoria-Hillside), there are only six New Democrats on the Committee. Fleming is joined by Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton), Adrian Dix (Vancouver-Kingsway), Maurine Karagianis (Esquimalt-Metchosin), Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley) and Diane Thorne (Coquitlam-Millardville).

Does anyone believe that the Liberal backbenchers would take the controversial step of unilaterally appointing an acting Auditor General without first clearing their plan with the Premier? What makes the unilateral appointment particularly controversial is that their appointee is former Comptroller General Arn van Iersel, currently Associate Deputy Minister, Regionalization and Strategic Projects, in the troubled Ministry of Children and Family Development. With his long history in the public service, there can be little doubt that the government recruited the talented van Iersel to the Ministry in order to help sort it out. That being the case, why would anyone object to applying his considerable talents and experience as Auditor General?

If Mr. van Iersel had the same job experience working for the province of Alberta or Ontario, he probably would have received unanimous endorsement for the position of Auditor General. The problem arises when someone who has held one of the most important positions in the public service is made chief watch dog over government. Would the change in job title be enough to allow the acting Auditor to criticize decisions in which he may have played a role? An elected official with a history can be found to be in an apparent conflict of interest if dealing with matters that are too close. No one questions the integrity of van Iersel, but no one can remove the inherent difficulties he faces in crossing the line from decision maker to watch dog. Those difficulties are not restricted to decisions he supported; there are bound to be some decisions he was aware of but was less than enthusiastic about. If as acting Auditor he focuses his attention on those matters, would the bureaucratic and political rumour mill be any more accepting of his "independence"? Despite all the integrity in the world, and the highest qualifications, the Campbell government has put him in a situation of impossible optics. British Columbians deserve an independent Auditor General whose reports are accepted without controversy regarding their author. Mr. van Iersel could make a courageous decision that would be consistent with the best of initiatives by former Auditors by declining the appointment. That would send the Campbell government the kind of message that it could not receive through any report he is likely to author.