In search of $3.1 billion - Macleans.ca
 

In search of $3.1 billion

The NDP make a demand


 

The New Democrats will ask the House of Commons on Thursday to demand documentation related to the $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding that the Auditor General has questioned.

That, in light of $3.1 billion of missing funds outlined in Chapter Eight of the 2013 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada, an order of the House do issue for the following documents from 2001 to the present, allowing for redaction based on national security: (a) all Public Security and Anti-Terrorism annual reports submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat; (b) all Treasury Board submissions made as part of the Initiative; (c) all departmental evaluations of the Initiative; (d) the Treasury Board corporate database established to monitor funding; that these records be provided to the House in both official languages by June 17, 2013; that the Speaker make arrangements for these records to be made available online; and that the Auditor-General be given all necessary resources to perform an in-depth forensic audit until the missing $3.1 billion is found and accounted for.

In terms of the vote on that motion, I wonder for now what argument the government could make for opposing this motion.

Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister during QP this afternoon if the government would support the NDP motion, but the Prime Minister offered no direct response. I’ve asked Tony Clement’s office if the government will be supporting the motion, but have not yet received a response.


 

In search of $3.1 billion

  1. “… but the Prime Minister offered no direct response. I’ve asked Tony Clement’s office if the government will be supporting the motion ….. ”

    John Stuart Mill – I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

    • Are you calling the Harper govt ungentlemanly?

  2. If the CPC votes this down, it may be a little hard to explain to voters why the government doesn’t care where the $3.1 billion went. It will make those “in over his head” ads seem hollow & hypocritical.

    • Oh perhaps they will vote it up, but then use the phrase “allowing for redaction based on national security” to essentially provide no information. Who gets to say what is or is not a matter of national security, particularly with this government’s paranoid attitude towards anything touching that? We can’t have the terrorists knowing on what we spent our national security money! Heck, they could even find out what kind of armament those TC-X35 Stealth Gazebos carry, and figure out appropriate countermeasures . . . then where would we be?

      At best we’ll end up with another exercise like what was done regarding the allegations of Afghan prisoner abuse . . . send it to a special group to review the documents to determine what is safe for public consumption. Of course given the government has a majority, it will doubtless hold a majority in any evaluation group and take until after the next election to find out.

      • if we start looking for missing money, the terrorists win!

      • It’s easy to steal money, when all you have to say is “matter of national security”, when anyone tries to ask questions. So much for transparency and accountability.