QUESTIONABLE SPENDING
MINISTERS’ ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM OPPOSITION REVEAL SPENDTHRIFT WAYS, POLICY FAILINGS
The Liberal commitment to open government remains an empty promise — for confirmation, watch question period on any given day or, worse, file an Access to Information request.
Yet sometimes, despite the worst intentions of risk-averse politicians and public servants, citizens get to peek behind the curtain of bland assurances that government has never been in such capable hands.
While oral questions in the House of Commons are seldom answered to anyone’s satisfaction, written questions from opposition MPS to ministers are often much more revealing.
A slew of ministerial answers was tabled this week, offering a less than reassuring picture of the way taxpayers’ money is being spent and their affairs conducted.
For example, take Elections Canada’s use of “influencers” on social media to encourage young Canadians, new immigrants and people with disabilities to vote. The campaign was scrapped when it was revealed that some of the 13 influencers had engaged in past activities that could be deemed partisan. Alas, Elections Canada did not discover that First Nations activist Ashley Callingbull had called for Stephen Harper’s defeat in 2015 until after she and her 12 fellow influencers had been paid. The net cost of this fiasco to the taxpayer: $430,000.
The recent batch of written answers reveal the usual questionable spending of tax dollars — $1.9 million on the UN Security Council seat; $59,500 for the new Destination Canada logo, and the food and drink bill for various prime ministerial trips on the Airbus — $51,500 spent on a round trip to Paris, for example. (I’m sorry I missed the trip to the G20 in Japan last July — 57 bottles of wine were consumed on the round trip and $95,000 worth of food.)
The bill for the trip to the UN Climate Change conference in Madrid last month is not in. But we did discover that 65 Canadian bureaucrats and political staff burned their way through a lot of jet fuel and taxpayers’ money to attend — proof that the number of bureaucrats required to attend a conference is in direct proportion to the temperature at the location.
It’s not all bad news. One answer revealed that Transport Canada is conducting its own risk-based validation exercise on the grounded Boeing 737 Max aircraft and may refuse authorization in Canadian airspace if it is not satisfied, even if the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority gives it clearance for takeoff. That’s a scenario that Canadian authorities acknowledge “would not be considered routine practice.”
Elsewhere, it was revealed that the protocol panel of senior bureaucrats convened to monitor foreign interference in last fall’s election “did not observe any activities that affected Canada’s ability to hold free and fair elections.
But problem files remain for this government, beyond indefensible spending.
The Liberals’ imposition of a stress test on many first-time homebuyers was blamed for freezing young people out of the housing market. The government responded with the First Time Home Buyers’ Initiative, which offers buyers 5-10 per cent of the value of their home, with no interest required. The catch is that when the house is sold, the government takes back the same percentage — a clear disincentive to anyone considering renovations. In addition, terms and conditions mean people in high income brackets are not eligible.
During the election, the Liberals promised to increase the value of homes that could be covered by the initiative in high-cost markets like Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto. No wonder — one answer revealed that take-up has been light between September and December — just 3,252 applications for an average amount of $15,774. While there were 654 applicants in Montreal, there were just 148 in Toronto, 45 in Vancouver and five in Victoria.
Perhaps the most concerning, though not surprising, revelation was on the number of irregular migrants who have been deported. It emerged that 55,025 removal orders have been issued to foreign nationals in the last three years but only 1,310 have been removed. The reason is that, even after being found ineligible to settle in Canada, claimants are allowed to remain in this country while seeking a judicial or administrative review.
That’s not the kind of admission of failure you are likely to hear in the House. As the old parliamentary precept goes — it’s called question period, not answer period.