Amid an emergency in Attawapiskat—a strategy

By Paul Wells - Friday, December 9, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Oakland Ross/Toronto Star

The Prime Minister’s Office distributes a daily “media barometer” that lists the stories getting the widest coverage and generating the most buzz on blogs and talk radio. Last week the public relations crisis at Attawapiskat First Nation entered its second week. The humanitarian crisis has been going on for longer. For the first time since the Harper government was elected in 2006, a story on Aboriginal affairs made it to the top of the PMO barometer.

Standard PMO procedure is to do what it takes to get a story off the top of the barometer. That’ll be easy enough for news of the appalling living conditions at Attawapiskat. Short attention spans will do the job without any help from the Langevin Block. Fixing the actual problem will take longer.

On Nov. 29, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan met until 10 p.m. with the cabinet subcommittee in charge of the strategic and operating review. He had prepared for his appearance for days. Every minister has to go through this. Their task is to explain how they will cut 10 per cent of their department’s spending, if needed.

Continue…

The Commons: Ipso facto governance

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press

The Scene. Adherents to the faith of smaller government take note, for the Harper government has successfully identified and eliminated one of the prime inefficiencies standing between us and true freedom.

“This government cannot say how many jobs were created after having spent $47 billion of Canadians’ money,” lamented the NDP’s Peter Julian this afternoon of the government’s trademarked action plan. “The program was so badly monitored that no one knows if it was effective.”

Of this, Mr. Julian can claim the authority of the auditor general, who apparently found no attempt by the government to determine precisely how many jobs it “created” (in the messianic parlance) with its billions in bridges, roads and hockey arenas.

But just because the government can’t—indeed, won’t—add, doesn’t mean Mr. Julian can’t subtract. “We now know that 72,000 full-time jobs were lost last month thanks to the policies of this government,” he asserted with his next breath. “Now that the truth is out, when will this government put aside bogus and unsubstantiated job claims and take real and immediate action to create jobs here in Canada for Canadian families?”

Jim Flaherty would at least stand to respond to this. Continue…

Well, there’s your problem

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM - 0 Comments

The fall report of the auditor general is here.

The concerns expressed there include defence procurement, tobacco farming compensation, drug safety, visa processing and assessing the results of the government’s economic stimulus.

Why official bilingualism doesn’t mean settling for second-best

By the editors - Monday, November 14, 2011 at 9:40 AM - 0 Comments

Chris Wattie/Reuters

Most Canadians consider themselves to be reasonable people, and rightly so. In fact, the term “reasonable” and its variants appear a dozen times throughout Canada’s Constitution. So when it comes to hiring for Ottawa’s most senior jobs, we ought to consider the meaning of “reasonable.” Is it reasonable to make the ability to speak both official languages the single most important qualification for all such positions?

The appointment of Michael Ferguson as Canada’s next auditor general has become an unusually contentious affair. Ferguson served as auditor general of New Brunswick from 2005 to 2010 and was noted for his blunt criticism of provincial spending and debt. He also has experience as the provincial deputy minister of finance. So there’s no question of his ability to scrutinize the federal government’s books or hold Ottawa to account. The only real complaint is that he admits he cannot speak French fluently.

Response to this admission has been vitriolic. Liberal MPs boycotted the appointment vote in Parliament because they claimed Ferguson’s unilingualism made the entire process “illegitimate.” The Edmonton Journal editorialized that “Ferguson cannot possibly be the best man for the job because he does not speak both official languages.” Graham Fraser, the commissioner of official languages, claimed the Harper government had “humiliated” Ferguson by nominating him for a position he was unqualified to fill.

Continue…

Maverickish (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

On second thought, Maxime Bernier isn’t even vaguely critical of Michael Ferguson’s appointment to auditor general.

Later, when The Globe asked for an interview with the minister over his concerns with the appointment, Mr. French emailed this edited version of his previous statement: “Minister Bernier has complete confidence that Mr. Ferguson will respect his engagement to learn French this year. The Minister believes he is fully qualified and the best man for the job.”

Maverickish

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM - 0 Comments

Through a spokesman, Maxime Bernier kind of sort of says something that might be considered a mild indication of some kind of dissent.

“While Minister Bernier would have preferred that the candidate chosen for the position of auditor general was already bilingual, the minister has complete confidence that Mr. Ferguson will respect his engagement to learn French this year,” said Bernier’s spokesman, Scott French, in a statement sent to Postmedia News.

Add another to the enemies list

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

On Friday, Michel Dorais, a member of the internal audit committee which oversees the Auditor General, resigned in protest. In Question Period, Mr. Dorais’ resignation was raised by Liberal MP Denis Coderre. Afterward, Tony Clement stood with a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today there was some mention from the Liberal Party of a gentleman by the name of Michel Dorais. Further to this topic of discussion, I would like to inform the House that Michel Dorais donated in 2009 to former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. I certainly make no allegations of the partisan leanings of the individual; I simply find that the House should be informed of these facts. I table these documents.

Won’t stand for this

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 12:30 PM - 0 Comments

For those of you scoring at home, Liberal MPs boycotted this morning’s vote to ratify the appointment of Michael Ferguson as auditor general. In a news release, the Liberal side deemed the vote “illegitimate.” In a blog post, Bob Rae explains.

How can an Auditor General — who’s job it is to protect Canadian tax payers — do his job effectively if he does not speak French? And how can this government — that initially stated bilingualism was a requirement for the job — change the rules on Canadians at the 11th hour just to get their way? Liberals agree: they cannot.

That’s why this morning, Liberal MPs boycotted the House of Commons vote on the appointment of Michael Ferguson, a unilingual anglophone, as Canada’s Auditor General.

Liberals walk out on House vote

By macleans.ca - Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae and his party’s MPs walked out on a Commons vote that approved Michael Ferguson, who does not speak French, to serve as Canada’s new a auditor general. “Officers of the Parliament of Canada should be able to function in both official languages,” Rae told reporters. NDP MPs, who opposed the resolution, remained seated. The resolution passed by a vote of 153 to 94.

The Globe and Mail

Auditing the auditor

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM - 0 Comments

The Liberals have declared their opposition to Michael Ferguson’s appointment as auditor general.

“When the Prime Minister made me aware of his choice of Michael Ferguson as Auditor General, I responded that, after reviewing the documentation provided, I had some concerns about the proposed appointment,” said Mr. Rae. “Not only did his résumé lack experience of a national scope, we now learn he is not proficient in both of Canada’s official languages. The fact that Mr. Ferguson did not meet the criteria set out by the government itself was not disclosed to me by Mr. Harper.”

If you’ve got nothing to hide

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 10 Comments

Stephen Maher connects various dots in the G8 Legacy Fund affair and lays down a challenge for the Conservatives.

“Rules were broken,” says interim Auditor General John Wiersema. “Lawyers could have an interesting debate as to whether any laws were broken.” He said there was no point in further audits. ”I’m not convinced that more audit work is what’s called for here. I believe this is now a matter for Parliament to deal with.”

If the government takes the auditor general’s advice and lets a committee look into this mess, we may find out where the money went and Clement may be cleared. If, on the other hand, the government shuts it down, there will be no reason to have any faith in Clement’s competence or judgment.

Nothing to see here

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM - 1 Comment

A number of recent findings by the auditor general apparently won’t be studied at committee.

One study would have called witnesses to look at the behaviour of former integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet, who former auditor general Sheila Fraser found conducted herself inappropriately and retaliated against employees she thought had filed complaints against her. MPs would have likely also questioned why the government paid her $534,100 in severance … Fraser found in a separate report that the Department of National Defence did not follow some of its own rules when it bought new helicopters, which still haven’t been delivered. Total costs weren’t disclosed to the Treasury Board at key points, and decisions were made without the required oversight and challenge by management boards within National Defence.

‘We’re not perfect’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 1:45 PM - 16 Comments

A day after one of his mayors is reported to have mused on the best way to avoid access to information laws, Tony Clement manages to miss a scheduled appearance at an international conference on freedom of information.

Clement says the incident was a “mistake” and had nothing to do with recent controversies over his role in G8 infrastructure spending. ”It never appeared on our schedule,” he said in a telephone interview late Wednesday, adding he would apologize to organizers on Thursday. “Obviously, we made a mistake — we’re not perfect. I’m going to have lots of people looking into this in the morning.”

Meanwhile, the interim auditor general has mused again that, in regards to the use of border infrastructure funds for G8 Legacy projects, “lawyers could have an interesting debate as to whether any laws were broken.”

‘This stinks of a coverup’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM - 11 Comments

The NDP digs up new evidence in the G8 Legacy Fund affair.

The NDP says Clement, who was industry minister at the time and is the MP for the Muskoka region where the G8 meeting was held in June 2010, went to “elaborate lengths” to set up a system where the funding proposals were shuffled through his constituency office first before being processed…

However, Angus said the documents in his possession show that bureaucrats from several different departments did attend various meetings with Clement and other local officials. ”Why didn’t the bureaucrats say they were involved?” Angus said. “When we find out that the senior bureaucrats were involved in the process then that raises serious questions.”

The case for Marlene Jennings’ concern

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 8:24 PM - 0 Comments

When Marlene Jennings wrote to the director of public prosecutions in April—the letter is available here—she laid out her case as follows.

I base this concern on a possible misappropriation of funds granted to the Crown by the House of Commons through Appropriation Act No. 2, 2009-2010 and Appropriation Act No. 4, 2009-2010. Based on the accompanying Estimates tabled in Parliament by the Government, Parliament approved the use of funds for the Border Infrastructure Fund. However, recent revelations make it clear that the monies approved by Parliament for that specific purpose were instead used to subsidize infrastructure projects in the Muskoka region that have no bearing on international border services. I believe that the stated intent presented to Parliament for the use of these funds cannot be reconciled with their actual use, and may constitute an intentional subversion of Parliament’s authority for the appropriation of public funds. If so, this appears on its face to be a potential violation of s. 26 of the Financial Administration Act, and therefore a willful contravention of an Act of Parliament.

Section 26 of the Financial Administration Act states that “Subject to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, no payments shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of Parliament.” And on that note, Ms. Jennings points to Section 126 (1) of the Criminal Code. Continue…

The Commons: Philosophical riddles

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:35 PM - 12 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae called it deception. The government, he said, had promised during the election campaign to achieve necessary public service savings through employee attrition. Now, he noted, they were dismissing civil servants by the hundred.

“Why,” he asked, “did the government deceive the people of Canada before the election?”

Here the Prime Minister, like the Public Works Minister the day before, declined the opportunity to loudly champion his recent achievement in the pursuit of proudly held principles.

“Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada employs hundreds of thousands of people,” he said. “When it is necessary to make adjustments to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are well spent, we always make sure, wherever possible, that we do that through attrition or reassignment.”

It is in this case an odd quirk of the system —a philosophical riddle—that ensuring taxpayers’ dollars are well spent involves eliminating a department—Audit Services Canada—that was created for the expressed purpose of ensuring taxpayers’ dollars are well spent. Continue…

The one bureaucrat we’ve all come to trust

By the editors - Friday, June 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

Mohammed Salem/Reuters; Adrian Wyld/CP

Ineffective government programs. Reckless spending by bureaucrats. Taxpayers’ best interests ignored. Sheila Fraser may have retired at the end of May, but the auditor general’s report released last week bore the unmistakable stamp of her efforts over the past 10 years.

As usual, the report covered a wide variety of topics of great interest to taxpayers. Chief among them was the mystery of the $50-million G8 Legacy Fund. Originally approved by Parliament “to reduce border congestion,” it was instead spent on gazebos, docks and flower pots in cabinet minister Tony Clement’s riding. Fraser’s interim replacement John Wiersema described the process as “very unusual and troubling.” (The good news was that the entire bill for the G8/G20 summits was $664 million, substantially below the $1.1 billion originally budgeted.)

The report also reminded Canadians of the embarrassing living conditions on native reserves, despite billions in federal funding; all of which suggests better governance on reserves, and not more tax dollars, is the condition necessary to make a difference. And it found the Department of National Defence has “dropped the ball” in reforming the Canadian Forces reserves’ pensions, and that the government is making “unsatisfactory progress” in managing large information technology projects.

Continue…

The daily shaming

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM - 11 Comments

Charlie Angus’ two questions in QP this morning, neither of which convinced Tony Clement to stand and respond.

Mr. Speaker, a minister of the Crown has an obligation to treat taxpayers with respect and be accountable to Parliament. The President of the Treasury Board has failed miserably on both counts, because since the Auditor General’s report, he has been hiding under the desk of the foreign affairs minister. Since he cannot seem to stand up in this House and apologize for his out-of-control booty run through the backwoods of Muskoka, I will keep it simple: go to the Twittersphere, 140 characters or less, hashtag, I am sorry, Canada.

Mr. Speaker, there are 150-plus Conservatives sitting behind the Treasury Board minister, I am sure all of them would love to siphon taxpayers’ dollars off for their own personal pork barrel projects. That is why we have rules. That is why we have Treasury Board. What message is the government sending by putting him in charge of Treasury Board, that it is open season on the taxpayers’ trust? Otherwise, why would the Prime Minister put the Muskoka fox in charge of the taxpayers’ henhouse?

The Commons: The NDP disappoints John Baird

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 6:18 PM - 16 Comments

The Scene. In an attempt perhaps to preempt the Prime Minister’s dismissal, Bob Rae attempted a preface. ”The Prime Minister is constantly saying that those of us who quote the Auditor General are not telling the truth,” Mr. Rae posited. “So let me simply quote the Auditor General very directly with respect to the activities of the President of the Treasury Board and ask him one simple question.”

With the parameters thus set, the interim Liberal leader proceeded. ”The Auditor General said that he found what the government did ‘unusual and troubling,’ ” he reported. “I would like to ask the Prime Minister, is the Auditor General telling the truth when he says those words?”

Would it surprise you to learn that the Prime Minister sidestepped the specifics of this question? If so, you should be commended on the open-hearted naïveté with which you approach the world. Continue…

A point of clarification

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM - 2 Comments

In response to Monday’s sketch, Tony Clement’s office sends along the following note of clarification, which I reprint here in its entirety.

“To avoid misinterpretation: when Minister Clement referred to this “perhaps anachronistic process,” he was in fact agreeing with and echoing the Auditor General’s recommendation that the mechanism by which government reports to Parliament should be updated.

“In no manner whatsoever was he suggesting that the idea itself, that of reporting the financial dealings of government to parliament was out-of-date.  As he mentioned, the current process that has been used for nearly 100 years and absolutely should be looked at with an eye to improving. That is why he has instructed TBS officials to review the process by which this information is presented to Parliament, seeking ways to make it as transparent as possible.”

For the sake of the record, here’s the comment, also reprinted here in its entirety, in which Mr. Clement employed the adjective in question. Continue…

A learning experience

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 8:44 AM - 5 Comments

From his scrum with reporters yesterday, Tony Clement looks on the bright side.

Reporter: Didn’t you know that you needed paperwork on your handing out government money?

Clement: Well, we knew that we had to make sure that every penny was documented, and in fact, that was the case. The fact of the matter is each project had to be–had to be subject to a contribution agreement so that the partners and the municipalities would account for every penny and indeed the auditor-general–the good news for the taxpayers is the auditor-general was quite clear that no money was misappropriated nor was–nor did we have a situation where money was unaccounted for. So that’s the good news for the taxpayers but I think we–we have something to learn from that report, just like every report that she does is a learning experience.

'Like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank'

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM - 15 Comments

If Tony Clement won’t stand to take his questions, Charlie Angus seems determined to shame him for it. This from QP today.

Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board seems incapable of standing up in this House and explaining his $50 million pork spree in Muskoka. It is so bad that he has friend, the foreign affairs minister claiming that the Muskoka gravy train was developed by public servants. It is simply not true. The Auditor General’s report is clear, and I will quote: ‘Senior officials said their input was never sought.’ This deal was cooked up by the member from Muskoka. Public servants were deliberately frozen out. When will this minister take responsibility for his abuse of public trust?

John Baird: Mr. Speaker, just because the member opposite says something does not mean it is true. Here is what we did. We supported investments to help Canada host the G8 with infrastructure, resurfacing the runway of an airport, resurfacing a provincial highway, and building the G8 centre which is now a community centre. Each of those projects was approved by the minister of infrastructure of the day. Each of those projects came in fully on budget. For each of those projects, there is a full contribution agreement that was negotiated with the municipality. These are all good projects. The Auditor General has given some advice on better transparency and better clarify, and we fully accepted that counsel.

Continue…

The Commons: The anachronistic idea of accountability

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 13, 2011 at 6:38 PM - 39 Comments

The Scene. “I think we always answer the questions to the best of everybody’s ability at the time,” Government House leader Peter Van Loan explained to reporters one day last week, “with the information they have on hand and I think that hopefully if the tone continues we’ll see more and more clarity.”

It is on this basis, one assumes, that it was decided it would be to the best of everybody’s abilities at this time for Tony Clement to remain seated and say nothing more to the House about this business of the G8 Legacy Fund. Presumably this decision was finalized soon after Mr. Clement peaked out from behind John Baird at a news conference last Thursday to suggest that the process by which the government of the day receives the consent of the people’s representatives to spend public funds is “anachronistic” and that this somehow explains why he and a half-dozen small town mayors were compelled to divvy up money authorized for the Border Infrastructure Fund to build gazebos and public toilets in Muskoka.

A year ago Mr. Clement was only too proud to tout his government’s capacity for publicly funded trinkets and landscaping, but so as to avoid any more incidents of polysyllabic rumination, the government has delegated all House comment to John Baird. Officially, because it was he who ultimately had to sign off on Mr. Clement’s gazebo selection. Unofficially, one presumes, because no one can dance a rhetorical jig quite like the current Foreign Affairs Minister. Continue…

Funding without borders?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM - 8 Comments

The interim auditor general is asked about the Prime Minister’s comment yesterday that the Border Infrastructure Fund is “frequently used for projects that are not in border communities.”

“If monies earmarked for border infrastructure are being used for other purposes in addition to the G8 legacy fund I would have the same concern that I had with respect to using that fund for the G8 as well. If that’s happening, I don’t think it should be,” he told CBC News.

To explain Mr. Harper’s remark, the Prime Minister’s Office points to the funding, in 2003, of road improvements in Vancouver. Those improvements were linked to easing congestion around two border crossings. And that project is just one of 12 noted on the fund’s webpage. Here is a handy map of where those projects are located.

And here are the “funding and investment criteria” set out by Infrastructure Canada for the Border Infrastructure Fund. Continue…