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…

'My sense is that they're taking it very seriously'

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM - 18 Comments

The RCMP has conducted at least one interview towards some kind of investigation of the G8 Legacy Fund.

The RCMP is looking into allegations that the Harper government misappropriated funds in order to lavish $50 million on a cabinet minister’s riding prior to last year’s G8 summit. The probe comes on the heels of an auditor general’s report earlier this month, which concluded the government “did not clearly or transparently” explain how the money was going to be spent when it sought Parliament’s approval for a G8 legacy fund for Tony Clement’s riding.

The Mounties’ involvement was prompted by a complaint from former Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. She was interviewed for an hour last week by three RCMP officers. ”My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously,” Jennings said in an interview Tuesday. ”My sense is that they’re looking at this to see if there are any elements of proof that there may have been wilful intention to mislead Parliament.”

‘My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM - 2 Comments

The RCMP has conducted at least one interview towards some kind of investigation of the G8 Legacy Fund.

The RCMP is looking into allegations that the Harper government misappropriated funds in order to lavish $50 million on a cabinet minister’s riding prior to last year’s G8 summit. The probe comes on the heels of an auditor general’s report earlier this month, which concluded the government “did not clearly or transparently” explain how the money was going to be spent when it sought Parliament’s approval for a G8 legacy fund for Tony Clement’s riding.

The Mounties’ involvement was prompted by a complaint from former Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. She was interviewed for an hour last week by three RCMP officers. ”My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously,” Jennings said in an interview Tuesday. ”My sense is that they’re looking at this to see if there are any elements of proof that there may have been wilful intention to mislead Parliament.”

The Commons: Why so bashful?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM - 16 Comments

The Scene. Here was Rona Ambrose’s chance. Late in the hour, the New Democrats had sent up Nycole Turmel with an urgent bulletin. ” ‘Public Works managers informed their employees Monday the department will shed about 700 jobs over the coming three years, including the elimination of 92 auditors,’ ” she informed the House, reading aloud from a freshly published news report.

“Is it true?” Ms. Turmel wondered.

And so here stood Ms. Ambrose, afforded a great opportunity to loudly and proudly luxuriate in those “Conservative values”—those “Canadian values,” as the Prime Minister is lately fond of putting it. Here she was practically invited to not only confirm the hundreds of public sector jobs eliminated, but proclaim her government’s belief in those hallowed principles of conservatism: limited government, fiscal prudence, personal liberty and the righteousness of the unfettered market. Here was her chance to champion with soaring prose, or at least exclamation points, a new awakening of freedom, a new day for an empowered nation casting off the shackles of tyranny.

Instead, she said this: “Mr. Speaker, as part of our continuous efforts to become more efficient and more effective, Public Works has achieved the strategic review target set out by Treasury Board.”

To Ms. Turmel’s yes or no question, this seemed the most banal way possible—a lullaby of bafflegab—of confirming the affirmative. 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…

The Commons: Humble brag

By Erica Alini - Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:14 PM - 18 Comments

Across the street and behind a metal barricade, a young man in a bike helmet, holding a pink sign that read “contempt,” was yelling at Conservative delegates as they filed into the giant glass orb that is the Ottawa convention centre. He yelled about the G8 and the $50 million. He yelled about Bev Oda. He yelled about the defeated candidates now in the Senate. He yelled the word “mockery” more than a few times. Most of the delegates ignored him. Some smiled and laughed and waved.

The man in the bike helmet was eventually joined by about 300 others waving various signs for various reasons. “Beat Back The Tory Attack On Reproductive Justice,” read one. “Whither Joe Clark,” read another. The noisy gathering eventually settled on a simple enough chant: “Hey Har-per! You! Suck!” Later there was something about no one being illegal or some such sentiment. Somewhere in the middle of it all was apparently the rogue Senate page.

Inside the orb, the proceedings were running rather late. Eventually, about a half hour behind schedule, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney and Senator Pamela Wallin turned up to play host. After throwing to “floor reporters” Mike Duffy and Jacques Demers from interviews with various members of the crowd, Mr. Blaney and Ms. Wallin got around to expounding on how fondly they regarded Stephen Harper. 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…

The Commons: Tony Clement's bike racks, streetlights and boulevards

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 6:41 PM - 126 Comments

The Scene. By Thomas Mulcair’s reckoning this was a scandal—”Sponsorship scandal 2.0,” he dubbed it, perhaps hopefully.

The Prime Minister moved quickly to correct the NDP deputy. The Auditor General, Mr. Harper explained, had merely “suggested several recommendations to improve the process in the future.”

Mr. Mulcair was unpersuaded. “No accountability, no transparency, no justification of decisions,” he cried, reviewing the charges.

The Prime Minister stuck to his story. “As I said before,” he recounted, “the Auditor General suggested several recommendations to improve the approval process in the future and we will accept its recommendations.”

Mr. Mulcair fumed for a third time—Parliament kept in the dark, funds redirected, a restored steamboat, etc—but Mr. Harper only barely budged. “The Auditor General has suggested changes in the estimates process to improve transparency,” the Prime Minister allowed.

For sure, that is one way of putting it. Less charitably, one might say that Tony Clement stands accused of not only using public funds to spread trinkets around his riding, but of drawing those funds from an account approved by Parliament for the purposes of “border infrastructure” and of constructing a selection process that involved only Mr. Clement and several small town mayors and that left no paper trail. Continue…

'A troubling and serious matter'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 1:45 PM - 39 Comments

The interim auditor general comments on the G8 Legacy Fund.

Speaking in a news conference later, he said it was “a troubling and serious matter.” Public servants weren’t involved in the process, which he said was “very unusual.” ”There is no paper trail behind the selection of the 32 projects,” Wiersema said. “I personally in my career in auditing have not encountered a situation like that where there is absolutely no paper trail behind this. It is an unusual situation. I find it quite troubling.”

The report also criticized the way the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was established, noting the government sought parliament’s approval for the spending under a separate fund for investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion. ”In our view, by presenting the request for funding in the Supplementary Estimates in this way, the government was not being transparent about its purpose,” it said.

'The funding request was not made in a transparent manner'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM - 81 Comments

The Auditor General’s Spring and June status reports have now been released. The G8 Legacy Fund is covered in chapter two of the former.

In our view, the manner in which the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was presented did not make clear to Parliament the full nature of the request. By including the request under the item “Funding for the Border Infrastructure Fund relating to investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion,” the government did not clearly or transparently identify the nature of the request for funding—that is, G8 infrastructure project spending.

We could not conclude on project selection because documentation was not available to show how projects were chosen.

Early reviews are in from the Canadian Press, Globe, Star, Postmedia and CBC.

Stephen Harper's diplomacy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM - 29 Comments

The Prime Minister commends President Barack Obama’s comments on Israel in their “totality,” but blocks any mention of 1967 from appearing in the G8′s communique.

Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel’s pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders’ final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted a mention.

President Barack Obama last week laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East, saying pre-1967 borders should be a basis of talks to achieve a negotiated settlement. Israel quickly dismissed the idea as unworkable. ”The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week,” one European diplomat said.

G8 statement shouldn't refer to Israel's 1967 borders: Harper

By macleans.ca - Friday, May 27, 2011 at 1:08 PM - 19 Comments

Prime Minister Stephen Harper blocked a mention of support for Israel’s return to its 1967 borders in a G8 communiqué aimed at kickstarting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Harper’s stance follows a speech by Barack Obama in which the U.S. president called for talks based on the 1967 borders. Israel has steadfastedly rejected the idea and Harper criticized the G8′s position for neglecting Obama’s call for concessions by the Palestinian side. “Obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama’s speech,” Harper told reporters at the G8 summit in Deauville, France. “Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized.”

The Globe and Mail

Harper says no new money for 'Arab spring' countries

By macleans.ca - Friday, May 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM - 11 Comments

As G8 nations pledge US$20 billion to support countries emerging from the ‘Arab spring,’ such as Egypt and Tunisia, in their transition to democracy, Stephen Harper has said that no new money would come from Canada, the CBC reports. Instead, Harper says the money should come from international monetary institutions, such as the World Bank and European Investment Bank, which already receive yearly contributions from Canada. “Canada has been increasing its commitment to those agencies,” the CBC’s Susan Lunn reports. “They now pay more than $12 billion (Cdn) a year into those international agencies, like the World Bank, and that’s how Canada is going to continue to support those two countries.” Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama has offered to forgive Egypt’s debt and a US$2 billion package of loan guarantees, while France and Britain have pledged “hundreds of millions,” to support both Egypt and Tunisia’s transition to democracy.

CBC News

Harper presses G8 leaders to fulfill maternal health pledges

By macleans.ca - Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM - 0 Comments

Europe’s financial crisis is hindering Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s efforts to secure funds for the G8′s maternal health initiative. At last year’s G8 summit in Muskoka, Harper secured pledges of $5 billion in aid from leaders that would go towards maternal and child health in the developing world. Canada pledged $1.1 billion between 2010 and 2015, while the U.K. pledged the most with $3.4 billion. But France and Germany have only managed pledges of a few hundred million euros, while Italy and Russia have committed only $75 million each. A report by a United Nations commission released last week revealed that “of the eight Millennium Development Goals, the two specifically concerned with improving the health of women and children are the furthest from being achieved by 2015.” EU leaders are hinting that bringing the eurozone economies out of sovereign debt crisis trumps aid commitments on the list of G8 priorities.

The Globe and Mail

'We have defunded it'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM - 42 Comments

Though the Prime Minister’s Office has suggested that Brad Trost doesn’t know what he’s talking about, Mr. Trost continues to talk about Planned Parenthood.

jenkew @bradtrostCPC answers. “I am very proud of the work I’ve done to defund Planned Parenthood Intl.” “We have defunded it for last 16 months.”

jenkew @bradtrostCPC ”I don’t see how anything I have said contradicts anything he [Stephen Harper] says.

'The government's parameters'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM - 87 Comments

The Conservative party has issued a statement from Bev Oda.

The Canada-led Muskoka Initiative, introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is about making a difference in the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people.

Our goal is simple and straightforward:  saving the lives of mothers, newborns and children in developing countries.  We will do this by expanding life-saving services and programs such as better nutrition, treatment and prevention of diseases, proper medication, clean water and sanitation.

Canada’s generous contribution is part of a $7.3 billion overall commitment announced by G-8 leaders in Muskoka last June.  Eighty per cent of the Canadian contribution will flow to sub-Saharan Africa which has the greatest incidence of maternal and child mortality.  If Planned Parenthood submits an application that falls within the government’s parameters for the G8 Muskoka Initiative, there will be funding.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper our Conservative government is focused on issues that matter to Canadians such as completing our economic recovery and providing Canadians greater financial security and a stable government.

Paul’s read is that this confirms Brad Trost’s version. My read is that it sidesteps the question of the funding application that Planned Parenthood submitted nearly two years ago and that the government was, at least as recently as last night, “still reviewing.”

Tony Clement makes no apologies for G8 spending

By Kate Lunau - Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 16 Comments

Adrian Wyld/CP

At an all-candidates’ debate on Monday night in Burk’s Falls, a village of 1,000 in the Ontario riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, Conservative MP Tony Clement stood at a small wooden podium, emphasizing the need for a “strong, stable majority government.” His promise to abolish the long-gun registry was, in this community of hunters, met with big cheers. Clement and three other candidates fielded questions on everything from CBC funding to industrial espionage, but things really heated up midway through the evening when local Liberal campaign manager Dan Waters stepped up to the microphone and asked Clement about news that was making headlines everywhere, it seems, but in Burk’s Falls.

Earlier that day, the Canadian Press had cited a draft report from Auditor General Sheila Fraser suggesting the Conservatives “misinformed” Parliament to win approval for $50 million invested in the riding for last June’s G8 summit, held at the Deerhurst Resort in nearby Huntsville. It suggested the process by which funding was approved may have been illegal. The story set off a firestorm, though by day’s end, a later, less damning draft was making the rounds—one that omitted suggestions of illegality or of misinforming Parliament, though it was still critical of the government.

At the candidates’ debate, Clement urged the crowd not to “jump the gun,” and to wait for Fraser’s final report. He then took a harder tack. “They’re suggesting that you or I have something to be ashamed of because we got infrastructure funding. Billions of dollars were spent across this country on roads, bridges, waterworks, you name it,” he said to loud applause. “We got our fair share, and I will never be ashamed of that.”

Continue…

'I must respect the Act that governs my work'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 11:55 AM - 119 Comments

The Auditor General has officially replied to Jack Layton’s letter of Tuesday evening.

The Auditor General Act outlines our reporting responsibility and specifically addresses the situation of Parliament not sitting. Subsection 7(5) provides for the submission of our report to the Speaker of the House. When the House is not sitting, it requires the Speaker to table the report on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.