Big spenders make big headlines

We must beware of focusing on small snafus while ignoring larger financial trespasses

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was once fond of reminding Canadians he rode in a Chevy, not the limousine his predecessor, Brian Mulroney, favoured.

“Our government is committed to finding ways to eliminate unnecessary expenditures.”

Journalists and readers love such stories, almost as much as stories about misspending.

The problem is we tend to focus, as the media did this week, on small, easily chewable budgetary trespasses, while ignoring or failing to recognize big financial snafus. Chrétien, for example, might have saved a few bucks on the limo, but he led his government into the sponsorship debacle, where lack of government oversight and outright corruption cost Canadians millions.

The sponsorship scandal was complex, and didn’t get much traction in the media until it was reported by the auditor general, and then investigated by a government commission.

The media is obsessed with careless spending, as it should be, but the simple ones seem to resonate.

Whether it is Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda’s infamous $16 glass of orange juice in 2012, or Liberal cabinet minister Jane Philpott’s $3,700 worth of limo rides (via a Liberal volunteer) through Toronto, Hamilton and Niagara, which she admitted to last week, Canadians rightly wonder how such things happen?

Which one of us, to cite another example, would spend $6,600 on a photographer to document our government’s activities at a Paris climate summit, as Environment Minister Catherine McKenna did last fall, according to news reports this week? And how is it even possible that three bureaucrats could rack up restaurant tabs totalling $12,000 over 16 days at that same summit, according to a Sun Media report this week?

Well, Oda had a reasonable explanation, if you ask me, but few people remember it now or even care. The outrageous $16 orange juice was all that mattered. McKenna’s staff was following the same photography protocols used by the previous government, but that’s not in the headlines. And there may be an explanation for the big restaurant tabs in Paris (then again, maybe not, because the government hasn’t been transparent yet on the matter), but who really cares — I have all I need from the headlines: our elected officials and bureaucrats are squandering our money and living the high life.

Will we remember the headlines about Mike Duffy and the Senate, or will we remember the verdict?

Also this week, there was this headline: “Quitting federal politics, Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney will get multimillion-dollar pensions.” There is no implication of wrongdoing, and the story is clear: Harper’s pension reforms cost him personally but save taxpayers money.

But people will still label pensions, like limos and photographers, “entitlement.” One prominent Hamilton radio commentator even went so far as to call the pensions a “windfall” and Harper’s decision to accept it “hypocrisy.” Please.

Keeping an eye on expenses big and small is good government policy. Holding governments to account to ensure honesty, transparency and responsible spending is good journalism, and small infractions can indicate larger problems. As always, it looks as if better rules are needed. But politicians, journalists and readers should not lose sight of what happens between — and beyond — the lines.