G8 spending in Clement's riding was undocumented: AG - Macleans.ca
 

G8 spending in Clement’s riding was undocumented: AG

Auditor general’s final report into summit spending finds Parliament was misled


 

Canada’s auditor general has released the report into G8 spending that prompted criticism of the Conservatives during the past election campaign. The conclusions of the final version of the report are largely the same as those of the draft report that was leaked during the campaign: Parliament didn’t know it was signing off on $50 million in ‘legacy spending’ on the Muskoka region and the choice of projects was largely undocumented. The legacy funds were in fact drawn from an $83 million pot earmarked for improving the border. And of the 32 projects which received legacy funds, public servants weren’t consulted on any of them. In all, government spending came in much lower than initially projected. Parliament approved a total of $1.1 billion in funding for last summer’s G8/G20 summits, but total costs came in at $664 million.

CBC News


 
Filed under:

G8 spending in Clement’s riding was undocumented: AG

  1. I look forward to the government proactively releasing all the spending information related to this $50-million fund. I’m sure the invoices and contracts they have for work performed reflects open tendering processes and the such.

    I highly doubt a Conservative government would spend $50-million outside the gaze of the public service without keeping appropriate paperwork and still following the bureaucratic processes governing the spending of public money.

  2. ” In all, government spending came in much lower than initially
    projected. Parliament approved a total of $1.1 billion in funding for
    last summer’s G8/G20 summits, but total costs came in at $664 million.”

    Does this mean that the gov’t is more efficient without the watchful eyes of the opposition? I am sure there is a story here somewhere.

    • An inability to properly estimate spending because of a lack of preparation isn’t efficiency. It’s bad management.

      • Or it’s under-promising, over-delivering.

        They were dealing with a minority gov’t. They weren’t going to be able to ask for more money in the future. Also, they were probably trying to do it without (to use a term from the US) ‘earmarks’ being added to it.

        • You mean like Clement’s gazebos? 

          • Sadly, yes.

            That was in the general area of the summit, though, wasn’t it?

          • Paid for out of a fund for border security.  Arguing they need *less* scrutiny doesn`t seem wise.

    • No, it means they didn’t spend the money from the fund that authorized it, but rather spent money earmarked for other things, such as border improvements.  Presumably so they could say what great efficient managers they were.  Bonus benefit is that we’ll probably never know how much they really spent since it could be hidden just about anywhere.

      You know, if I budget $3,000 for hydro and only spend $1,200 of it I must be a real conservation genius.  Maybe I could get an award from somebody.  (Nevermind that the grocery money paid several of the electricity bills.)

      • We know how much was really spent, because they just ‘found’ it. How would it have been in the CPC’s benefit to spend more than the 1.1 billion that was allotted? And if it was, why didn’t they spend the 1.1, as well as more?

        Your example of a personal budget would be similar, if the total came in dramatically under budget.

  3. If this isn’t illegal,it should be.

    Tony’s family crest: a very big pig overflowing its barrel…

  4. G8gate?