The Commons: Thomas Mulcair thinks he's found a boondoggle - Macleans.ca
 

The Commons: Thomas Mulcair thinks he’s found a boondoggle

The money’s not missing, it’s just not perfectly accounted for


 

The parliamentary record counts 993 uses of the term “boondoggle” over the last 19 years before today. Here would be two more.

“Mr. Speaker, today’s Auditor General’s report is another scathing indictment of Conservative mismanagement,” Thomas Mulcair reported a few moments after Mr. Poilievre. “Conservatives have actually lost track of, wait for it… $3.1 billion.”

Lest this be confused with a mere $3.1 million, the NDP leader stressed that here was a word that began with a “b.”

“We all remember when the Liberals could not account for $1 billion in spending at HRSDC,” Mr. Mulcair mused. “Conservatives called it a $1 billion boondoggle.”

In fairness to poor Jane Stewart—and perhaps as a certain note of caution now—the billion-dollar boondoggle she came to be forever associated with was not actually worth nearly that much. Possibly it was something like $85,000. By one accounting, the total bill was $3,229. But then the “$3,229 boondoggle” is rather unalliterative.

“Will the Prime Minister hold his Minister of Public Safety accountable for this $3-billion boondoggle?” Mr. Mulcair asked, adopting something of a Preston Manning accent to pronounce this new boondoggle.

The Prime Minister stood here and declared all of this quite inaccurate.

“Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is completely false,” Mr. Harper asserted.

There were chuckles from the NDP side.

“The Auditor General himself said today this has nothing to do with improper use of government money,” Mr. Harper continued. “On the contrary, it has to do with the categorization and reporting of expenses between departments over the period 2001 to 2009. There is some lack of clarity.”

Now there was outright laughter from the official opposition.

“The Auditor General has made some suggestions on how we can be more clear in our tracking in the future,” Mr. Harper concluded. “We will do that, but unlike the NDP, we remain fully committed to the legislation and to expenditures to protect Canadians from terrorism.”

So it is not that the money is missing, it is only that it is the Treasury Board didn’t quite account for it as it might have.

The Auditor General figures there are “several possible scenarios” here. Possibly the money was not spent. Possibly it was spent on anti-terrorism initiatives and reported as part of ongoing program spending. Or possibly it was spent on other things. And s maybe there is nothing much to worry about except a certain lack of internal documentation collected by the Treasury Board as it pertains to this particular expenditure. Indeed, it is argued by Tony Clement’s office that the money might be tracked by reviewing each year’s public accounts and that it is important to note that the audit was specific to the Treasury Board’s responsibilities. In which case, the money should be hiding somewhere in plain sight. (Maybe even, for once, Tony Clement is being unfairly maligned.)

Awhile after Mr. Mulcair, the Conservatives sent up Brad Butt to raise the matter of the Old Port of Montreal and to suggest that the problems of misspending within that organization were not taken seriously enough by the Liberals. Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose duly stood to champion the good news about the bad news.

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that while the Liberals defended unacceptable spending at this independent crown corporation, we did call in the Auditor General to do a special investigation,” Ms. Ambrose reported. “Today, the Auditor General agreed with us that there were problems with hospitality and travel expenses at the Old Port of Montreal, and reaffirmed that we did the right thing by placing the Old Port of Montreal under new management with Canada Lands. While the Liberals defend waste and unacceptable spending, our government is ensuring that tax dollars will be protected.”

If only someone at the Port had attempted to expense that $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funds we might now have a better idea of precisely where that money went.


 

The Commons: Thomas Mulcair thinks he’s found a boondoggle

  1. Or possibly it was spent on other things.

    Has Tony been building more gazebos?

    In which case, the money should be hiding somewhere in plain sight.

    • Don’t be silly.

      $3.1 billion would be something like 6,200 gazebos. At least, the way Tony builds them.

  2. Did they look in the trunk of Clement’s car?

  3. Mulcair seems to not listen to his own double speak.

    He says he wants less foreign workers, yet does not object when members of his own party ask for more foreign workers.

    He constantly lies about the 15% of the wage scale being talked about; no, Tom, foreigners cannot be paid less just like that. The TFWP had rules about that sort of thing.

    It’s actually quite embarrassing to hear Tom go on and on about the fallacies he keeps throwing up into the air!

    Hey, Tom, have you found investors for your soon to be build refineries already?? NON? How come?

    • Lovely shiny thing, Francien.
      Have any comment about the conservatives not being able to account for 3.1 billion dollars?

      • I’ll leave that up to you.

        • You’re waiting to receive a ten-percenter to find out how to think about this.

          • You are funny! You must have had your ten percenter already!

        • Interesting you have so much to say about what the opposition parties might do if elected, but never, ever have a bad word to say about the CPC even when they are caught messing up. And then (on another reply to me on a different thread) you claim to be “non-partisan.” What a joke!

          • Actually, if you follow me consistently enough, you will have noticed that I am not partisan.

            When following politics, I find it more useful to pick winners over losers. And out of the bunch, I find Harper the better one. That’s all.

          • “When following politics, I find it more useful to pick winners over losers.”
            So what they actually stand for, and how they achieve (or fail to achieve) their goals, or how they fail at basic accounting (see AG’s report or the various reports from the PBO – even now with the interim PBO in place [so much for the “bias” theory]) or lie, cheat and game the system – none of this matters as long as they win?
            The list of what I find wrong with the CPC is a very long one – and I have yet to see anything but unqualified support for these fools from you.
            When I see some kind of considered comment from you on a CPC policy or snafu, I might be inclined to think of you as more than a hyper-partisan hack. But I have a sense I’ll be waiting a long time…

          • Are you willing to wait longer than I have waited for some solid responses to fall into my questions being asked? Because if you are willing to wait that long, you will be waiting a long, long, long time.

          • I’d hate to go to the racetrack with you! Your “sure thing” would be one day removed from the glue factory…

  4. $3.1 billion unaccounted for. Un-frickin’-believable.

    Maybe they should be looking at list of 450.

  5. What do the ten-percenters tell people to absorb… Harper = experience. Trudeau = inexperience.
    With that kind of experience I am willing to give potential a chance.

  6. When you hire the most mistrusted man in government to watch the chicken coop and things go missing, Tony-the-Fox Clement is bound to have some explaining to do.

  7. “So it is not that the money is missing, it is only that it is the Treasury Board didn’t quite account for it as it might have.”

    Didn’t Harper put Attawapiskat under third-party management for exactly this problem?

    • He only appointed the third-party manager two years after the leadership in Attawapiskat started improving their bookkeeping. Because political opportunism knows no logic.

  8. how is spending 3 billlion less than anticipated BAD NEWS? seems to me to be the reverse

    • It’s not that it wasn’t spent, it’s that nobody knows if, how, why, or on what it was spent. If the department(s) involved reported a surplus in their annual reports and returned excess money to the Receiver General (or carried over to the next budget cycle), the AG wouldn’t have raised his eyebrow.