More than $250B in spending to bypass normal scrutiny -

More than $250B in spending to bypass normal scrutiny

MPs in Ottawa unanimously approve motion to shirk usual procedure


Members of Parliament in the House of Commons are facing criticism over their unanimous support of a motion that allows more than $250 billion to escape normally-required scrutiny. According to parliamentary rules, 24 House committees should examine bills that approve spending before they’re allowed to pass in the House of Commons. But on June 3, MPs unanimously approved a motion that will allow billions of dollars in spending to by-pass that process. The money will be available for government spending by June 23, after being looked over by just one House committee. A former MP speaking anonymously told The Hill Times that “this is like Christmas for the government, it came early.” The move came just eight days after former Auditor General Sheila Fraser issued a warning that Parliament is failing on its responsibility to properly scrutinize government spending.

The Hill Times

Filed under:

More than $250B in spending to bypass normal scrutiny

  1. Nothing brings MPs together from all sides of the political spectrum like a slush fund with minimal oversight. No doubt all Canadians will appreciate this new era of fiscal accountability.

  2. BOOOOOOO!!!

    My fellow Canadians, you should not be surprised that this government intends to head down a road of total unaccountability; all the signs were there in their minority governments, and plenty of people predicted they would behave this way once they had a majority. Appointing Tony to Treasury Board was a dead giveaway of their intentions, if you had any doubt before.

    You have every right to be deeply disappointed. But if you are surprised, it simply means you weren’t paying attention.

  3. This is just making a scandal inevitable. These guys are making up for lost time. Dollars to donuts they have a major spending scandal revealed before the next election.

    • I’ll take that bet, but mostly because I think your timing is one or even two elections to premature.

  4. It brings to mind a quote “people deserve to get the government they vote in, and they deserve to get it good and hard”.

  5. If E. May wanted to make her dissenting voice heard, this is the issue she should have chosen. Her silence is deafening.

  6. This is essentially the type of move (by-passing accountability channels) that caused Adscam.

    However, instead of a couple dozen million, it’s now being done with a couple hundred billion.

    So I guess somehow voting for the detractors of Adscam ended up giving us way more of it?


    • Adscam had (at least) two phases or aspects to it.  In this case (as far as I know) we are still missing that second phase, the part where at least a few of the people who have greatly benefited from the poorly controlled spending decide to reward the party in power with some kickbacks.

      I suppose that these kickbacks might be happening already, and we just haven’t found out about it yet, as we did with Adscam, but unitl that starts to happen we will not have reached the same level of skull-duggery.

      • My concern is the risk and the amounts.

        Chances are good given the reticence of this government to open accountability that we may never know where half the money goes, let alone whether it was well spent.

        We have checks and balances for a reason. Checks and balances this government has already been slammed by the AG for avoiding.

        ANYTIME a government dodges standard accountability, taxpayers should be very concerned.

        • Yup, the amounts are large, which together with the bypassed scrutiny, pretty much guarantees that a portion of it (ie millions and millions of dollars) will be poorly spent.  And even if there is not even a single penny directed back towards the party in power, that will be a problem, agreed.

          But rightly or wrongly, for many folks that poor spending by itself will not be equivalent to Adscam – I tend to agree with them.