Life in Canada

Putting Tory integrity to the test

Christiane Ouimet this country’s integrity commissioner

There’s Bev Oda. Then there is someone who makes Ms. Oda’s actions, judging from a recent Auditor-General’s report, look rather angelic. The elusive former integrity commissioner, Christiane Ouimet, was finally located last week – in Florida. And now that she has been located, the Conservative government may face one of its stiffest tests of damage control.

Ms. Ouimet is the public servant who, according to Sheila Fraser’s damning report, did not do her job properly – choosing to investigate just seven (7) of 288 complaints about wrongdoing in the public sector – possibly saving the Harper government multiple embarrassments. After failing to appear before a parliamentary committee despite being subpoenaed, her lawyer saying she was willing to return March 10 to face interrogators. What a show it promises to be. Given the large number of investigated cases that came before her, the possibility of smoking guns suddenly appearing on the government’s doorstep can hardly be discarded.

Was Ms. Ouimet acting at the behest of her political or top bureaucratic superiors.? The Public Accounts Committee has passed a motion requiring the delivery of all correspondence between her office and other government departments. Now that's tough eh..

Committee member Jean-Claude D’Amours, a Liberal, said in an interview there is no doubt some of the cases that came to her involved serious matters. “We have received information on some of them. They were about alleged fraud and the mismanagement of assets.” There is some evidence Mr. D’Amours,was corresponding between her office and the Privy Council Office. Given that Ms. Ouimet was supposed to be operating an independent agency, he wonders why. “And now the PCO is saying they don’t have time to get us all the documentation.” I can tell you why..?

There will be a paper trail maybe a page or so? . Conservatives, are clearly worried. “This fuels the whole idea that this is a government that can’t be trusted and the people they choose to put in these important positions can’t be trusted.”

If the opposition is right, this could amount to the most serious scandal this government has faced.

Committee chairman Joe Volpe said some of the whistle-blowers ignored by Ms. Ouimet have privately contacted some committee members. Some of the cases, he explained, involve complex legal questions and questions of jurisdiction. The thicket, he said, will be difficult to work through.

That raises the possibility that the government might be able to succeed in bogging the committee down in bureaucratic proceedings until an election is called. Another highly embarrassing file for the government, the Afghan detainees affair, has been out of the news for nine months due to procedural tie-ups.

Ms. Ouimet will likely argue, with the assistance of a crack legal team, that many of the serious cases that came before her were not within her jurisdiction to investigate.

Pierre Martel, who served in the integrity post (although it went under a different name) before Ms. Ouimet, says that he was troubled by one of the first things Ms. Ouimet did when taking over the job in 2007. Because of the office’s independence, he cautioned her against going to see the Clerk of the Privy Council. But he said she did so anyway.

There is no doubt that the hurdle the government faces with respect to her case is a formidable one. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said once that when a government starts to cancel dissent, it loses its moral authority to govern. Given the Conservatives’ reputation for secrecy and fierce partisanship and indeed the stifling of dissent, they will not be the recipients of much benefit of the doubt on her file.

Ms. Ouimet’s title bears repeating. She was this country’s integrity commissioner.

Last week, Maclean's magazine asked: “Are the Tories bad for business?” The answer is as unexpected as the question: “Over the past two years, there have been repeated cases where Ottawa has stunned investors with populist decisions that took precedence over sound policy. The moves raise the question: is … Stephen Harper actually hurting Canada’s reputation as a stable and open market for business and investment?” Maclean's then quotes Stephen Gordon, a professor of economics at Université Laval: “Clearly we’re not Russia, but then again, we’re not the Canada we used to be, either.”

Hold on – we’re somewhere between Russia and the good old Canada of yore? That’s some accomplishment in five years. Look at Stephen Harper's record.

He silences whistle-blowers and punishes dissenters.

He treats Parliament with open contempt and brazenly lies when found out.

He suspends Parliament at the first sign of political risk.

He makes a mockery of the accountability and transparency he loudly demands of everyone else.

He makes lying to parliament just another tactical device.

He fakes his budgets by refusing to cost new initiatives.

He transforms vital watchdogs of democracy into mushy lapdogs.

He unleashes ministers to attack judges who make unwelcome decisions. He personalizes attacks on his “enemies”.

He blithely smears other parties, groups and individuals as anti-Semitic.

He is impervious to the democratic spirit that has galvanized hundreds of millions of people to stand up for freedom.

He makes major economic decisions on the basis of their impact on his electoral fortunes.

Makes you wonder why Canadians aren’t yet out on the streets in the millions. Instead, Michael Ignatieff demands that Bev Oda be fired.

OTTAWA - Parliamentarians are "losing control" of their ability to execute their duties to cost new programs because of the Harper government's growing secrecy, warns Canada's budget watchdog.
Kevin Page told a House of Commons committee Tuesday that secrecy has been on the rise, and that MPs are losing their ability to do their constitutionally mandated jobs because they lack the information needed to cost new initiatives.

"There is a genuine concern that Parliament is losing control of its fiduciary responsibilities of approving financial authorities of public monies as afforded in the Constitution," he said.

Page noted that MPs were asked to approve new crime legislation "without financial information or knowledge of monies set aside" for the changes. I wonder why?

He estimated one bill in particular — the so-called Truth in Sentencing law — could cost upwards of $1 billion a year over five years, but is not included in the government's fiscal projections. I wonder why?

Page added that provincial governments will likely face an equally onerous bill because of the changes.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he expects Ottawa to foot all the bill if it passes laws that will result in more prisoners and longer sentences.

"If they intend to put in place new laws that make it more expensive for us ... then we expect to be compensated, especially at a time when objective data demonstrates that crime is going down," he told reporters in Toronto.

In related testimony, Page offered tacit support for a Liberal motion seeking to hold the government in contempt for refusing to release projections on future corporate profits, saying that information has been released in the past.

"In my 25 years of public service ... this type of information is regularly exchanged amongst officials. In fact, our projections, our assumptions do include information on wages and salaries and corporate profits," he said. Later, he explained assumptions of corporate profits is information "that in the past has been made available." Page quickly came under fire from Conservative members of the finance committee, who accused him of leaking information to media and of being biased against the government.

"There's a fair amount of politics in your statement today," said MP Mike Wallace, Conservative MP from Burlington, Ont. This is very unusual in Canada?

"You are willing to comment on a motion from this committee on economic information from departments we've declared cabinet confidentiality is an issue, but you don't comment on private members' bills ... not funded."

Ironically, Wallace appeared to agree with Page about the lack of information.

"I do agree with you that we are losing a little bit of control here, but is it your mandate to comment or is it something we need to do?"

Page responded he was seeking information on their behalf and within his mandate.

Afterward, he said he does not believe commenting on whether Parliamentarians have the information to do their jobs is partisan. Noting that the budget is approaching, "the environment may be partisan, but our analysis is non-partisan," he said.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison made use of Page's comments to blast the government over secrecy, noting that Liberals, when in power, had no difficulty releasing the information.

"The government's excuses are unbelievable," he said. I wonder why?

He also pointed out that the government's crime legislation will impose a greater burden on the provinces to house more prisoners, arguing that would impact on their ability to pay for health care.

On the issue of Ottawa's deficit, Page reiterated that he believes the government will post a deficit of under $40 billion this fiscal year, about $5 billion less than Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's latest estimate.

But while he and the government disagree about whether Ottawa can balance the budget in five years, Page stressed he believes Canada's problems are more long term.

He said the improving economy is putting Ottawa's deficit on a downward track, but after the five-year projection, the government will find its fiscal position deteriorating due to an aging population and low productivity.