It's a win-win for Auditor-General Sheila Fraser and Canadian Taxpayers

Finally, the very secretive Board of Internal Economy relented today and agreed to allow Sheila Fraser, Canada's Auditor-General, to have a wee peak at their books. Here is the press release from the Board stating their new position on the audit. It is important to note that today's agreement does not include the Senate; Ms. Fraser will be making a formal request to examine their books soon, let's hope they do the right thing without having to be pushed.

For those of you that aren't aware, the Board is "...the governing body of the House of Commons...." which has the legal authority to administer the House, its budget and expenditures and salary scales for non-unionized employees of the House. Basically, in a nutshell, they control the books of the House of Commons.

Back in May, the Board basically told Ms. Fraser to "go fly a kite" when she suggested that she'd like to audit Parliamentary expenditures. Here's what the Board said back on May 13th, 2010:

"Following careful consideration, the Auditor General will not be invited to conduct a performance audit of the House of Commons. According to the Auditor General’s Act, the proposed audit would go beyond the scope of the Auditor General’s mandate, which allows her to audit government departments and various Crown agencies as identified in the Act, but does not include the legislative branch, which includes the House of Commons and its Administration."

That sounded like a firm no to me. Unfortunately, Canadian taxpayers felt otherwise; fully 85% of Canadians polled stated that they were concerned about their MPs' refusal to let Ms. Fraser audit their books despite the Board's reassurances that their books were audited.

Today's (June 15th, 2010) press release took a different tone, likely reflecting (for a change) what Canadians want from those they elect:

"Having considered the key points raised in that meeting, as well as the assurances provided by the Auditor General as to the process her Office would follow in doing the audit, the Board has decided to invite the Auditor General to undertake an audit of the House Administration and to grant her access to the House of Commons and its records."

Now that's more like it.

In looking through the Board's website, I found this interesting line:

"The Board of Internal Economy is committed to being transparent about the financial and operating matters of the House of Commons."

They should have added "...only when forced by public opinion".

Unfortunately, Ms. Fraser will only be spot-checking certain expenditures made by MPs and will only expand her audit to include all MPs if significant wrongdoing is found. As the rules stand now, any MP that is found in breach of the expenditure rules are forced to pay back the House, unfortunately, because the Board of Internal Economy meets in camera (in private), the identity of the offending MP is kept secret. Canadians had hoped that secrecy would not be an issue if Ms. Fraser had found irregularities, however, she has already stated that her report will not name names. That approach leaves MPs with little to fret over during their three month summer break. I would also rather that she was doing a full audit rather than a performance audit but at least this exercise will accomplish something.

For your information, here is the pdf file containing all of the major details about Members expenses for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009 from the Board of Internal Economy website which have, according to the Board, been audited by an independent accounting firm. At least with this document, we get a look at where some of the $583 million Parliamentary budget is spent. As well, the audit of the Financial Statements for the House of Commons for 2009 - 2010 is underway and will be posted to the Board's website when it is completed. It will be worth a look once it is released.

I think the whole exercise could have been avoided had legislation been in place that would require MPs to post their audited expenses on their government websites on an annual basis. Right now, three Liberal MPs are posting their expenses on their websites against the orders of Mr. Ignatieff; they are Michelle Simson, Rob Oliphant and Marlene Jennings. As a taxpayer, I for one would like to see legislation passed after the next general election that forces MPs to divulge how they are spending our money on a regular and readily available basis.

After the recent expense scandals in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, it is the least that our MPs could and should do for those of us who faithfully send our tax dollars to Ottawa. Despite their protestations that spending controls are in place, Canadians still deserve proof that there is no wrong-doing from a neutral third party like Ms. Fraser.

Our trust in our politicians is blind but it shouldn't be stupid too.

Canada's MPs, Our Money and the Waiting Game

In the past couple of days, there have been developments on the proposed audit of Canada's Parliamentary budget of $583 million (fiscal 2010) including MPs expenses, and the ensuing storm that occurred when the Auditor-General was refused access by the all-party Board of Internal Economy. News reports from last week suggest that the deadlock will be broken this week and Ms. Fraser will be invited to discuss the issue with the Board.

On Friday evening, the Globe and Mail posted this item in their Ottawa Notebook about Liberal MP Michelle Simson. I’ve written about Ms. Simson, MP for Scarborough Southwest previously; she is one of three MPs (the others being Rob Oliphant and Marlene Jennings) who, in the interest of full disclosure, have posted their MP expenses on their websites. These voluntary disclosures ensure their constituents that they are spending taxpayers money responsibly. Good on all three of them!

According to the Globe article, Ms. Simson is not popular with many of her fellow Liberal caucus members. Some of her fellow caucus members, including Mr. Ignatieff, believe that she is making them look bad because of the proactive nature of her actions. Here's what the Globe had to say about Mr. Ignatieff's reaction to Ms. Simson's actions:

"Rather than praising her and encouraging other MPs to follow her lead, however, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told members not to do what she did. He told his caucus to stick together and not to be mavericks on this issue. He is concerned that different MPs could post difference expenses, creating the perception of inequities"

Here's a solution Mr. Ignatieff. Have one of the Liberal Party accountants prepare all of your MP's expense statements so they are all reporting expenses in the same fashion to make it easy for Canadians to understand, then post them online. See, Mr. Ignatieff, that wasn't so bad was it? Give Canadians more credit; most of us are capable of deciding what is fair and what is wrong.

I’d like to ask Mr. Ignatieff whether Ms. Simson represents the constituents who elected her, the Liberal Party or her fellow caucus members when she sits in the House. It is only her constituents that elected her, not the Liberal Party (or its Leader) and certainly not the Liberal caucus: it is her constituents that she is responsible to first and foremost.

The issue of representation seems to be lost on today’s politicians. The impending third reading of Bill C-391 is a prime example. This Private Member’s Bill that would see the abolition of the gun registry is currently in Committee and will be brought back to Parliament for, what Mr. Ignatieff has told his caucus, will be a “whipped” vote. All Liberals will be expected to vote along Liberal Party lines (against the Bill) regardless of the wishes of their constituents. While you may agree with the Liberals on this particular issue, it is the principle of whipped votes that I disagree with and it is an issue that the former Reform Party attempted to tackle back in their early days before they sold out to "business as usual" on Parliament Hill.

Back to Ms. Simson. During the 2008 election, she promised her constituents that she would be accountable to them and that they would see where she spent their money. She is now doing exactly what she promised her constituents she would do if elected, a highly unexpected turn of events on Parliament Hill and something that deserves respect.

Last week, another Liberal MP, Rob Oliphant, also made the right decision and posted his MP expenses online. It certainly looks like Mr. Ignatieff is experiencing yet another "palace revolt"; now three of his MPs have gone against the party line and have done what they feel is in the best interest of their constituents, the same thing that happened on the second reading of Bill C-391.

On Sunday, Craig Oliver of CTV's Question Period had the privilege of interviewing Canada's Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, a person that most Canadians both respect and trust. In the interview, Ms. Fraser told Mr. Oliver that she is waiting for a formal invitation from the Board of Internal Economy as the next step toward auditing the expenses of both the House and the Senate. Once the invitation is extended, she will meet with the Clerk of the House of Commons (and Secretary to the Board) Audrey O'Brien to discuss the scope of the audit and exactly what aspects of expenditures she will be allowed to access. She hopes to audit MP expenses as part of the examination of financial issues but will also examine broader management, security and information technology issues.

Ms. Fraser noted that it is unusual to have an audit with any restrictions (imagine if a publicly traded company told an auditor that they couldn't have access to all of their financial transactions); she stated that she was concerned that if any access restrictions were in place, that the audit would not be credible. She noted that she would not be judging "value for money", rather, she would be looking at "performance"; whether a program is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness (i.e. whether it meets certain goals). She will not be telling the House (and by extension, Canadians) whether the program or expenditure has merit; that will be up to the public to decide. She anticipates that the audit will take 12 to 18 months to complete.

Let's hope that our elected officials bend to the will of those that elect them, do the right thing and release all of the information necessary to complete a credible audit. If they don't, Canadians' trust in our political system will sink even further. It's about time Canada's MPs realize that most Canadians simply don't trust them. They need to take a step away from the palace on Parliament Hill and show some respect for those who send their tax dollars to Ottawa every April 30th. We need to tell our MPs (and Senators) that they are not entitled to spend our money without letting us know whether they are spending it wisely or not and that we need proof of their prudence.

As an aside, in the Question Period interview, Ms. Fraser also announced that she will be auditing the anticipated billion dollar expenditure on security for the G8/G20 Summits later in June. On the same show, Public Safely Minister Vic Toews stated that he would be pleased to have the expenditure audited (unfortunately, after the fact), but only time will tell if the Conservative government is co-operative or if they cook up some reason to keep the financial details secret.

Not Negotiating with Sheila Fraser

The story of Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's requested audit of MPs expenses has morphed slowly over this past weekend. Back in early May, the all-party Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons rejected Ms. Fraser's request to audit the House of Commons, most specifically MP expenses which total over $500 million annually. The last time the expenses of the House of Commons and Senate were audited by the Auditor-General (Denis Desautels) was in 1991.

The NDP have decided (finally, after everyone else joined the party) that they will not stand in the way of further negotiations with Auditor-General Sheila Fraser regarding her request to audit MP expenses, following in the footsteps of the flip-flopping being done by both the Conservatives and Liberals. Earlier, the NDP had claimed that since Ms. Fraser was an officer of Parliament, an audit performed by her would be like "auditing her own bosses". Hardly. Like most Canadians, I don't believe that Ms. Fraser would be biased in performing an audit of Parliament since she appears to be quite independent of both the government and MPs. Most Canadians seem to trust Ms. Fraser's impartiality and integrity and, sadly, far more than we trust those we are forced to elect to public office election after election. In fact, I suspect she would hands-down win an electoral race should she chose to participate.

In the case of the Conservatives, Mr. Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas stated on Sunday that:

“The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions continue. He’s also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency...”.

Perhaps, as usual, Mr. Harper is basing his new position on the results of the latest poll that shows that 88% of Canadians want to see an audit of MP expenses. Mr. Ignatieff also flip flopped stating that what he supported was:

"Sheila Fraser, the Auditor-General, coming to the Board of Internal Economy and talking about what she wants to do and then taking it from there..."

I find it most interesting (and more than a bit frustrating) that the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals are all forcing Ms. Fraser to "negotiate" and "discuss what she wants to do" with regard to an audit. There should be NO negotiation and NO discussion; this audit should be mandatory, non-negotiable and should be performed regularly (i.e. more frequently than every 10 to 15 years) to ensure both transparency and complete honesty.

Canada's Election Act should be changed before the next election requiring that all candidates from all Parties agree that their detailed expenses be posted on both their personal/MP websites and on the Parliamentary website. If the individual running for the office of MP is not willing to subscribe to complete transparency when it involves spending taxpayers' funds, then they should not be allowed to run. If potential MPs are not willing to tell us how they are spending our money, then they obviously have character deficiencies that make them poor candidates for political office. As I've posted previously, MP Michelle Simson (Liberal - Scarborough Southwest) posts her expenses on her website. Here is a screen cap of her disclosure (I hope she doesn't mind):

She sets a fine example to other MPs of all Parties; her expense statement is transparent, complete and detailed enough that it provides her constituents with an excellent view of the efficient manner in which she performs her duties. MP Marlene Jennings (Liberal - Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine) also posts a "Proactive Disclosure" on her website. Both of these MPs set an exemplary precedent for the remainder of Canada's MPs.

In contrast, here's what we get from Board of Internal Economy through the Speaker of the House:

It is interesting to note that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spent $18,266 on "Other" items when many of his fellow MPs had other expenses that were less than a few hundred dollars. This is where more detail is necessary.

Publicly traded Canadian corporations submit their financial statements to a full audit every year to assure shareholders that corporations are truthfully stating their financial health. While this doesn't always work (i.e. Nortel), it more or less ensures a level playing field for all Canadian corporations. In the case of Canada's Parliament, the Canadian public is the shareholder (i.e. owner) of the business and our elected officials are merely our employees. Without a regular audit, our employees can spend as they wish because they are not responsive or responsible to anyone but themselves. Under the present system, our MPs and Senators can increase spending without restriction. That has to change.

Go get 'em Ms. Fraser.

UPDATE:

From a CBC report this evening, it now appears that the Conservative government is willing to invite Ms. Fraser to conduct a performance or "value for money" audit and will announce a series (yet another) of proposals to ensure greater transparency (one of the CPC talking points) for MP and parliamentary expenses. The proposals will be taken to the Board of Internal Economy next week.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/26/mps-expenses-auditor-general.html

Stamps and Guns and "Other Expenses"

I thought I'd post a three catch-ups on items that I posted earlier this week.

1.) Stamps, Guns and Candice: On Wednesday, I posted a writeup about Candice Hoeppner's attempts to influence voters in Wayne Easter's Malpeque riding using her MP postage budget regarding her Private Members Bill C-391. Yesterday, in the Globe and Mail, she admitted that she had sent out between 500 and 800 letters to "people who indicated to her that they are interested in the issue" of dismantling the gun registry. She sent these letters to voters in the eight Liberal ridings whose MPs voted for her bill in second reading back in November 2009, against their Party. She's urging these people to put pressure on their MP to vote for the Bill. While I am in agreement with her Bill (although it is $2 billion too late), I am not in agreement with her tactic. Yes, according to "the letter of the law", she complied with the rules of the House and is allowed to use her postage budget in this manner. My concern is that she has now wasted roughly $450 of taxpayers' money strictly to further promote her own agenda on this one issue. That is wrong, especially in light of the recent ban on the clearly partisan "10 percenters".

2.) Go get 'em Sheila Fraser: In yesterday's posting, I discussed the MP refusal to allow Auditor-General Sheila Fraser access so that she could audit their MP expense budget. The Board of Internal Economy used the excuse that it was beyond her mandate and then took off for a one week break. Despite the media's attempts to ask both the Liberal and Conservative Government House Leaders about this issue, they were unsuccessful. As well, a recent poll indicated that 88% of Canadians thought that MPs expenses should be public but I guess that's not enough for the Board of Internal Economy, after all, 12% still think MPs shouldn't be scrutinized! Fortunately, the Globe and Mail has posted a pdf file listing all Member's expenditures for the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year. It is downloadable (after you click a few times on the Scribd website) but it makes for fascinating reading. You don't get specific expenditures (i.e. how many toilet seats were bought) but you do get an idea of how much is spent on travel, telephones, printing, office rent etcetera and you can see how much your own MP spends compared to his or her peers. One column I found particularly interesting was "Other" Some MPs like Ken Epp of Edmonton - Sherwood Park had expenses as little as zero in that column, others like Steven Fletcher of Charleswood - St. James - Assiniboia had "Other" expenses as great as $308,905. It sure would be nice to know what that was spent on but taxpayers will never know because Board of Internal Economy decisions are made behind closed doors.

I say, keep trying Ms. Fraser, Canadians deserve to know how 500 million tax dollars are being spent.

3.) Helena Guergis: On May 13th, 2010, the much persecuted Helena Guergis posted this press release on her website. I don't have much to say about it other than it does seem to contradict some of the statements she made in the CBC interview with Peter Mansbridge earlier this week. What stood out to me was the reversal of her comments on Monday regarding her husband's non-use/now use of her Parliamentary email account through her Blackberry. This story has more twists and turns than a drunk driver on a mountain highway. The press release is worth a read if only to put her spin on things after she took the time to mull over her Mansbridge interview.

My Hero - Sheila Fraser

One item that the mainstream media covered briefly yesterday was the request by the Auditor-General General Sheila Fraser (my favourite civil servant along with Kevin Page). She had the unmitigated gall to ask our elected Members of Parliament and our Senators to audit their expenses. Needless to say, our MPs have such a sense of entitlement to our tax dollars that they told her to take a hike stating that this action would fall beyond the scope of her mandate. She is allowed to audit government departments and Crown corporations but not the legislative branch. Somehow, this just doesn't seem right to me.

For your information, it costs Canadians more than $500 million annually to run the legislative branch on Parliament Hill. With an expenditure of that size, certainly waste exists and there should be plenty of room for improvement exactly the same as there is in any large publicly traded corporation. As well, back in 2008, total office expenses for things like staff, travel, office rent etcetera claimed by Canada's 308 MPs reached $127 million, a jump of 42% since 2001. A jump of that size should have raised eyebrows. A separate group of expenses covers goods like telephone, printing office furniture and other improvements. This article in the Toronto Star from June 2009 is an interesting expose of how our MPs spend money

The Board of Internal Economy, a Parliamentary Committee that operates with absolutely no transparency, makes decisions in secret about MP and Senate office and other expenses. Canadian taxpayers know how much in total we are spending on these items, but we have no idea exactly what we're getting for our money. It is this same Board of Internal Economy that refused Ms. Fraser's request yesterday.

For your information, here are the members of the Board of Internal Economy and here's their mandate:

The Board claims that MPs expenses are audited externally, however, the last time the Auditor-General was "invited in" to perform an audit of expenses was 1991. I'd suggest that plenty has changed since that time; just look at the wasted tax dollars spent on "10 percenters". If MPs had to post their specific expenses for all Canadians to see, I'd suggest that the expenditure of $10 million annually on that program would have ended long ago.

In his budget of March 2010, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty projected that Canada would run a budget deficit of $49.2 billion for fiscal 2010 - 2011. By allowing the Auditor-General to examine expenses allowed for both MPs and Senators, savings could potentially be found.

After reading through the Globe and Mail article on this story, I did find one encouraging nugget. Scarborough Southwest MP Michele Simson (Liberal) has posted details of her expenses on her website for the sake of complete transparency. Congratulations to her! This should be the mandate, voluntary or otherwise, of all MPs and Senators. She does give Canadians an interesting snapshot of how our MPs are spending money. Her office budget was $129,000 annually back in 2008 - 2009 and she actually returned some of that money unspent. She spent a bit over $23,000 on travel and $5200 on printing. On the other hand, we have PEI's new Conservative Senator Mike Duffy who somehow managed to spend $100,848 on travel expenses alone during his first 3 months in office in 2009.

But I guess when you're entitled to spend someone else's money, you're not going to let a little thing like a threatened audit get in your way. I would suggest that if our MPs and Senators have nothing to hide, then they should let Ms. Fraser proceed with a thorough examination of their books but I suspect that's not the case.

UPDATE:

The Globe and Mail kindly posted a copy of the 2008 - 2009 expenses for all MPs here. It makes for fascinating reading!