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 Commons: Let he who is without shame

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM - 82 Comments

The Scene. Liberal Dominic LeBlanc rose to report on the latest stash of documents to be released in regards to the Gaffer Affair and to wonder aloud, with seven departments now said to have been contacted by Rahim Jaffer, how many more ministers and parliamentary secretaries were still to disclose their communications with the husband of the deposed Helena Guergis.

And so John Baird stood to pronounce on the heroism of his government. ”Mr. Speaker, let me very clear,” Mr. Baird clarified, “we would not be having this debate about documents if it were not for the government which made all these documents public.”

Alas, the Liberals did not congratulate the minister so much as laugh derisively.

Mr. LeBlanc stood again and took direct aim at Mr. Baird with the allegation that the Transport Minister had put his parliamentary secretary between he and Mr. Jaffer and that such a move might constitute some violation of the vaunted Accountability Act. And here Mr. Baird did what he had the day before—he invoked the ghosts of Liberal scandals past. Continue…

The Commons: Eighteen attempts to explain the same story

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 8:21 PM - 43 Comments

The Scene. Fewer Conservatives than usual chose to mockingly applaud Bob Rae when he rose to open Question Period this afternoon. Odd that.

“Mr. Speaker, the testimony yesterday of Richard Colvin before the Afghanistan committee showed two clear things,” Mr. Rae began, to groans from the Conservative side at mention of Mr. Colvin’s name.

“First, Mr. Colvin testified that he had information with respect to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghan prisons and that he gave that information to his superiors. Second, Mr. Colvin testified that he was also told by his superiors to shut up, essentially,” Mr. Rae continued. “Given the importance of these two revelations, the revelations of mistreatment, harsh treatment and even torture and the revelation with respect to a cover-up, would the minister not agree with me and with others that there should indeed be a full public inquiry into what has taken place with respect to the transfer of these detainees?”

Across the aisle, Peter MacKay furrowed his brow, thrust his left hand in his pocket and commenced with the first of his 18 attempts to explain.

“Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here a number of times that there has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian Forces. Second, with respect to the evidence yesterday, what we know is that when the evidence is put to the test, it simply does not stand up,” he offered. “Mr. Colvin had an opportunity to speak directly to me and other ministers of the government who were in Afghanistan. He did not raise the issue. As well, what is being relied upon here is nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

That Mr. Colvin’s credibility would be an issue for Mr. MacKay is perhaps confusing, seeing as how Mr. Colvin remains sufficiently fit, at least in this government’s judgment, to serve as the deputy head of intelligence at this country’s embassy in Washington, DC. Mr. Rae took note of this. Continue…

The Commons: And so we come full circle

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM - 112 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister was not in his seat this afternoon when Question Period began. Which seems a shame. Not least because of the profound moment in the history of his government that he was not there to witness firsthand. The rest of us will at least be able to say we were there, that we saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. The Prime Minister will have to suffice with seeing it on TV. Or perhaps hearing about it from a member of his staff.

Although, maybe it was best he wasn’t there after all. Indeed, in a way, it’s better he was spared the awful sight.

The session began simply enough with the obvious, the Liberal leader wondering aloud about a potential conflict of interest involving a Conservative senator and a sizable government contract. “Mr. Speaker, a pattern is becoming all too clear,” Michael Ignatieff posited. “The Conservative government is using stimulus spending to buy votes and reward its friends. This morning, we learned that one of the Prime Minister’s newest senators works for a company that has just won $1.4 million in infrastructure spending. At a time when the middle class is struggling, would the Prime Minister explain why infrastructure spending that is needed by all Canadians ends up in the hands of a member of his own—”

His time expired, the Transport Minister stood smirking to dismiss Mr. Ignatieff’s concerns. The Liberal tried again, this time en francais. John Baird once more swatted the question away. “Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to jump to the conclusions that the Leader of the Opposition does,” Mr. Baird declared. “If he has any evidence of any wrongdoing, rather than pontificating in this place, he should put his facts on the table and be accountable for those. We have been completely open, completely transparent with the infrastructure spending that we have made.”

The Liberals howled with mocking laughter.

“The grant in question was made by a crown corporation,” the Minister finished, “with no lobbying and no involvement whatsoever of my office or the office of the Minister of Public Works.”

Here, then, is where it happened. Where everything that once was up turned down. Where left became right, day became night and blue became red.  Continue…

Look who’s back in the party

By Martin Patriquin - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 12:20 PM - 32 Comments

Beryl Wajsman is many things to many people: well-connected gadfly, perpetually angry newspaper columnist, silver-tongued orator with a weakness for Robert Kennedy quotations. To the Liberal Party of Canada, he was persona non grata, one of 10 people “banned for life” by former prime minister Paul Martin for being linked to the sponsorship scandal. It may seem strange, then, that Wajsman is once again in the party, as an organizer charged with bringing a variety of social groups and unions back into the Liberal fold. He has even consulted on policy issues and speechwriting for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

“He’s an influential guy, and has been very helpful in re-cementing some of those old ties, within the Montreal Jewish community but also with labour and community leaders,” said a senior Ignatieff strategist for Quebec. “He is one of many organizers and opinion influencers who Michael has successfully wooed back and is helping get it back together.”

Continue…

And now, to antagonize any readers still speaking to me after this week's Blackberry Roundtable . . .

By kadyomalley - Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 11:59 AM - 4 Comments

I actually agree with the government’s decision to appeal the Teitelbaum ruling, which found “a reasonable apprehension of bias” on the part of Justice John Gomery — although it really should have happened immediately following the ruling, not three months later  – and definitely not in the middle of an election campaign. I said so at the time — to a card-carrying Conservative, no less — the very day the ruling came out. “You have to appeal this thing” were my exact words, I believe. There may even have been a thumping of the table for emphasis.

Not, I should note, because I am convinced that Gomery hadn’t – or, for that matter had – demonstrated “a reasonable apprehension of bias” — honestly, I’m still not convinced that he did, although he certainly did himself no favours with his now infamous Christmas eve chat with Don Martin — but because a finding of bias against a judge in any case — let alone something as politically charged as the Gomery inquiry — is, happily, a rare occurence, but one that is incredibly serious, and should go to the highest court in the land as a matter of course.

Of course, it goes without saying that the decision to appeal should have been – and, as far as I know, was – made not for political reasons, but this isn’t really about Justice Gomery, or Jean Chretien, or Jean Pelletier, or even the ghost that haunts us still that is the sponsorship scandal. It goes deeper than that.

Canadians have a fundamental right to believe in the integrity, independence and impartiality of our judges, our courts and our legal system — and I’m sure that, once the Supreme Court has weighed in, they will continue to do so — because regardless of its ultimate conclusion, the system will have worked, and – just as importantly – will have been shown to work.

Spare some federal contracts?

By Philippe Gohier - Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 6:09 PM - 0 Comments

Jean Lafleur, the Quebec ad man who pleaded guilty last year to 28 charges of fraud in connection with his role in the sponsorship scandal, claims he’s flat broke. Lafleur has filed for bankruptcy, citing his criminal conviction as the reason for his recent economic hardship.

Of course, times haven’t always been so tough for the man who always had a bit of spare cash laying around when the federal Liberals needed it. (Though Lafleur always seems to have trouble remembering those heady, post-referendum years when it was Quebecers who needed constant reminders they were indeed living in Canada.)

Documents tabled at the inquiry Monday showed that Lafleur’s company took in $31.9 million in sponsorship and advertising contracts involving the federal government between 1994 and 2001, and another $28.5 million from federal Crown corporations over that same period.

That’s a total of $60 million in public funds.

Lafleur personally earned more than $9.3 million while at the helm of Lafleur Communication Marketing between 1994 and 2000, his salary rising from just over $100,000 to $2.5 million.

During the same period, Lafleur’s wife, daughter and son earned a total of $2.8 million, though they had earned nothing before the sponsorship contracts started to flow in.

It’s not clear what will happen to the $1.3-million Lafleur still owes in fines, nor how the bankcruptcy will affect the $6.5-million the feds are seeking in restitution for his role in the massive fraud. The Crown, however, doesn’t seem to be buying Lafleur’s pauper routine: they plan on requesting that Lafleur’s financial situation be looked into.

Megapundit: James Moore, son of Trudeau?

By selley - Friday, June 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM - 0 Comments

Must-reads: Don Martin on Gomery’s comeuppance; Susan Riley on the cabinet shuffle; Richard Gwyn on the Green Shift.

Stuck in the past
Some of us, apparently, haven’t quite gotten past David Emerson’s floor-crossing and the fact that Michael Fortier isn’t an MP.

If Fortier and Emerson awoke today with a burning sensation all over their bodies—less painful than white phosphorous, say, but not by much—it may have something to do with Susan Riley‘s piece in the Ottawa Citizen. She portrays Fortier as an idly rich, over-entitled, unelectable layabout who exacerbates Stephen Harper’s contempt for the democratic process in appointing him with his unconvincing promises to run in an election if and when a riding with a “winning profile” is located. Emerson’s personality fares slightly better, but his CV doesn’t: he stands accused of “negotiat[ing] a flimsy truce on softwood lumber” and, in his previous Liberal life, “putting the brakes on Stéphane Dion’s environmental ambitions” (Aha! So he’s why it’s so difficult to make priorities!) This is all several feet over the top, particularly Riley’s bizarre talk of “class loyalty” affecting the appointments, but we sure loved reading it!

Continue…

Inkless Wells takes a trip down Gomerian memory lane …

By kadyomalley - Friday, June 27, 2008 at 11:28 AM - 0 Comments

Or perhaps a tour of the Gomerytham sewer system in a glass-bottomed boat. Let’s just hope he leaves a trail of breadcrumbs so he can find his way back to the present day:

I’ve been working on the railroad: memories of Gomery (I)
Mr. Martin’s gentle ride: Memories of Gomery (II)
Not a hostile witness, but maybe a skeptic: Memories of Gomery (III)
A nasty business: Memories of Gomery (IV)

Also, check out what we’re billing as “the toughest Canada Day quiz ever” here. I’ll confess that I barely got above a passing grade — but am confident that our readers are far smarter than me, and will sail through it with no difficulty whatsoever. (Feel free to brag/bitterly question the legitimacy of the questions in the comments below.)

Untotal non-vindication

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM - 0 Comments

I’m not quite sure what set off my friend Paul Wells today, but the ruling of Federal Court Judge Max Teitelbaum has not “utterly discredited” the Gomery inquiry, nor is it the “total vindication” that Jean Chretien’s acolytes are predictably claiming.

Judge Teitelbaum has not ruled that there was no sponsorship scandal, that senior members of the Liberal party were not intimately involved in it, or that the Gomery inquiry was not a valuable exercise in exposing and describing both.

As I read the reports on the ruling, it has weighed in on exactly one question: Gomery’s finding that Chretien and Jean Pelletier bore some responsibility for the scandal, even if they did not directly participate or know of any illegal activity. Specifically, this passage:

Since Mr. Chrétien chose to run the Program from his own office, and to have his own exempt staff take charge of its direction, he is accountable for the defective manner in which the Sponsorship Program and initiatives were implemented. Mr. Pelletier, for whom Mr. Chrétien was responsible, failed to take the most elementary precautions against mismanagement.

Whether Judge Gomery was right or wrong to take such a view, I will not presume to say. But neither did Judge Teitelbaum. He set that particular finding aside, not on its merits, but on the grounds that Judge Gomery’s comments to the media (“small town cheap,” the program was “run in a catastrophically bad way,” etc.), while the inquiry was still under way and after, gave rise to “a reasonable apprehension of bias” toward Chretien and Pelletier.

That’s a defensible ruling, but a limited one. The report, in its entirety, has not been discredited. A part of it has been set aside.

SHORTER COYNE: All Teitelbaum found was that Gomery said some things outside the hearing room he shouldn’t have. He didn’t make any judgment about the hearings themselves, or Gomery’s findings.

UPDATE: I have now had the chance to read the ruling itself. My initial conclusions stand.

UPPERDATE: The official Liberal Party piles on:

[W]e are extremely pleased that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his former Chief of Staff Jean Pelletier have been completely cleared by the Federal Court.

Though Judge Gomery’s report itself stated that there was no evidence Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Pelletier were involved, today’s decision by Judge Max Teitelbaum of the Federal Court removes any lingering hint of impropriety…

If you say so, I guess. 

COURTDATE: This one looks set to run and run:

Gomery said Thursday he did not consider himself to have been biased in any way.

“When you’re seriously criticized by a judge who points out errors and inappropriate comments that you made, it’s not pleasant — to read about the mistakes that you have made or might have made,” Gomery told CBC News. ‘It is particularly disappointing that I am held to be, appear to be, a biased judge.”

CBC’s Rosemary Barton says Gomery is anxious to clear his name and is looking to the Harper government to see whether an appeal might be filed to Thursday’s court decision.

Gloating via proxy: Liveblogging Jean Chrétien's "spokespersons and lawyers" on the Gomery decision

By kadyomalley - Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM - 0 Comments

12:49:13 PM
Well, that’ll teach a girl to plan a leisurely afternoon of running background checks on the beneficiaries of the recent flurry of federal appointments. Sorry, Google, I’ll have to take a raincheck. When the Gomery signal flashes in the sky, we have to follow.

Slowly but surely, the room is filling up. The gallery was given very short notice of the press conference, so the turnout is surprisingly robust, considering. It’s not like there’s much else happening, other than that aforementioned flurry of appointments, but still. When it comes to Gomery—in fact, the whole sponsorship scandal—I know I’m speaking for at least a few of us reporters when I say that the very name sends me into a state of twitchy catatonia, which has nothing to do with any sympathy for the former Liberal government or any of those Quebec ad firms, and everything to do with the fact that this was the story that devoured Canadian politics for nearly four years. So many thousands and thousands of words, and yet it’s apparently still not over.

12:58:48 PM
Just got a copy of the decision – I’m not even going to pretend to be able to read it in the thirty seconds before the presser is scheduled to start, but the key word is “bias”—and the reasonable apprehension of thus. That’s what the court has concluded, insofar as Gomery’s treatment of the former PM, and that is what his spokespersons and lawyers—but not, sadly, the man himself—will be talking about in just under a minute.

Continue…

Winning the hearts and minds with incompetence

By Philippe Gohier - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 6:29 PM - 0 Comments

I was watching Andrew on At Issue last night when something Peter Mansbridge said struck me. I’m paraphrasing, but Mansbridge suggested, with a kind of wink-wink demeanor, that “we all know why Maxime Bernier was put into foreign affairs.” The idea being that Harper needed a native Quebecer to sell the war in Afghanistan to his own province.

Continue…