Patronage for MPs continues

The appointment of parliamentary secretaries is getting out of hand. The new roster unveiled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper contains 32 names, up from 28.

With Harper’s cabinet at 39 members — tied for the largest in Canadian history — last week’s appointments mean nearly 44 per cent of the 162- member Conservative caucus is either a minister or is assisting one. This from a supposed advocate of smaller government.

It’s not that parliamentary secretaries do no useful work. They help cabinet ministers with their parliamentary duties, handle routine matters in the House of Commons and play a liaison role within the government caucus. But is it really necessary to have so many of them?

Parliamentary secretaries get $ 16,000 on top of their MP salary of $ 160,200, a relatively modest stipend. But with 32 of them on the public dime, that adds up to $ 512,000 a year — coffee money for government, perhaps, but an impressive enough sum to the ordinary taxpayers who foot the bill.

Serving as a parliamentary secretary can be a useful apprenticeship for cabinet. Indeed, Harper elevated eight former parliamentary secretaries in his summer cabinet shuffle.

But it’s hard to escape the impression that Harper, like prime ministers before him, also uses the position to reward otherwise undistinguished backbenchers who demonstrate unswerving loyalty to the chief — like a minor league Senate appointment. It’s a bone he can throw to restive MPs, discontent with their lot in life, to keep them in line.

In the latest shuffle, Harper appointed a dozen new parliamentary assistants, shuffled 11 others and left nine in place.

While new blood can be invigorating, tellingly, no serving parliamentary secretary was dismissed.

Of the current crop of parliamentary secretaries, 12 have served for five years or more, including five who’ve been there since the Conservatives were elected in 2006. Clearly, these are not the party’s rising stars. Their prospects of advancement to cabinet run the gamut from slim to nil.

While there is some virtue in experience, being a parliamentary secretary ought not to be a sinecure for loyalists. If we must have so many of them, Harper should at least trim the deadwood and open up spots for promising backbenchers.

It would also be useful to have a wider debate about the role and utility of parliamentary secretaries as a species. The first were appointed during the First World War by prime minister Robert Borden, who named three to help ministers burdened by their war responsibilities.

A 2006 paper on the role of parliamentary secretaries concluded that the loosely defined nature of the office makes it well suited to meeting the “administrative and political needs” of the government. That also opens it to misuse. The position could become a back- door method of raising the salaries of government MPs.

There’s a place for parliamentary secretaries, but they should be deployed selectively and only when truly needed. It’s easy to see why, for example, the foreign affairs minister needs one. But in the latest round of appointments, Harper and Justice Minister Peter MacKay each have two parliamentary secretaries.

With fewer parliamentary secretaries, the position would gain both status and value. Prime ministers would be more likely to appoint only the most talented members of their caucuses, sidelining the time- servers. That would enhance value for money — a solid Conservative virtue. That’s something Stephen Harper should be able to get behind.