Public Service Commission of Canada Investigation

[Canuck E Stan]

Probe finds 'phantom' jobs created for ex-political staffers

The Public Service Commission of Canada has uncovered 24 cases of "unsatisfactory staffing actions" involving the movement of public servants to and from political jobs, the commission said in a report released Tuesday.

The commission said an audit revealed the creation of "phantom" jobs for political staffers after they left a minister's office. The investigation began in 2006 when the Public Service Commission (PSC) looked into two cases of public servants who were on leave from appointed positions to work in minister's offices.

The commission found that the two positions existed only on paper, and launched a full review of the movements between government offices and the public service.

The audit spanned the actions of 15 organizations from 1990 to 2006,and examined 157 movements. Of these movements, 99 were excluded from the audit as "low-risk", the report said, while 24 became cases of interest.

Most of these incidents occurred under the Liberal government after 1996.

The old laundry is being pulled from the Liberal hamper and it doesn't smell any better than the old laundry that Dion claims the Conservatives have. Looks like a game of who's got the dirtiest laundry......maybe Chretien's and Martin's will find their way on top of the pile next.

[jbg]

Probe finds 'phantom' jobs created for ex-political staffers

The old laundry is being pulled from the Liberal hamper and it doesn't smell any better than the old laundry that Dion claims the Conservatives have. Looks like a game of who's got the dirtiest laundry......maybe Chretien's and Martin's will find their way on top of the pile next.

My reaction to that is that a proof is a proof. If the CPC can probe something, that proof, being a proof, is a very good proof.

[noahbody]

My reaction to that is that a proof is a proof. If the CPC can probe something, that proof, being a proof, is a very good proof.

That's because it's prooven.

[Kitchener]

Drag it out into the open; it's the only way. The Liberals should continue to have their noses rubbed in the messes they made.

A concern is that the consistent efforts of the Conservatives to make it easier to hide government misconduct will result in fewer such revelations -- from any federal government, of whatever governing party.

[Keepitsimple]

Wait'll Dobbin checks in - he'll clear everything up.

[jdobbin]

Wait'll Dobbin checks in - he'll clear everything up.

I always like to say that there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

[jbg]

I always like to say that there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Very funny. Chretien wrote that speech for Rummy.

[Argus]

My reaction to that is that a proof is a proof. If the CPC can probe something, that proof, being a proof, is a very good proof.

I like to think of myself as practical. I never really minded when a party favorite was given a job which needed doing, for which he or she was capable of doing. That's patronage and it will always be with us. And it really doesn't cost us anything.

The difference between patronage and corruption is when you make up a job, usually at a high pay level, and give it to a party favorite who, in most respects, wouldn't be capable of doing it even if it existed. That's corruption. That's stealing tax money to reward your party's friends. For example, when the Liberals made their former speaker Gilbert Parent "Ambassador to the Environment" at a $250,000 annual salary. That was outright theft, and everyone involved ought to have been thrown into prison.

If you give a contract to a company which is a party backer for a job that needs doing, and they do it at the proper price, that too is merely patronage. If you make up a job, ie, the sponsorship scandal, and the party backer only pretends to do it, or does it at an inflated price, that's corruption. For example, the military being stuck with the Iltis light truck, made by Bombardier. This vehicle was a lemon from the start. It repeatedly failed the military's own tests. But clearly Bombardier had greased enough palms within the Liberal party. The Liberal government of Jean Chretien simply ordered the military's test range closed, and contracted further testing to an American company, which pronounced the vehicles perfectly acceptable. They were a disaster from the start, poorly designed in almost every respect, with inadequate power, very high maintenance costs, and prone to breakdowns and fires. This was corruption, one of the many examples of corruption under the Liberals which people tended to simply write off as patronage. It wasn't. It cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars, and has been a burden on the military ever since.

It is worth noting that most of the members of the Liberal cabinet which approved the purchase of the Iltis are still in the Liberal party and many are still sitting in the front ranks of their shadow cabinet.

As for these fictitious employees, they ought to be arrested for theft, along with whomever in the Liberal party appointed them to their "jobs".

But somehow we've come to expect that politicians can't be held to the same standards of honesty as the rest of us. They can lie, cheat and steal, and still smile (smirk) at the cameras and suggest their words should be trusted.

[JaysFan]

Drag it out into the open; it's the only way. The Liberals should continue to have their noses rubbed in the messes they made.

They did. The voters gave them a time out.

A concern is that the consistent efforts of the Conservatives to make it easier to hide government misconduct will result in fewer such revelations -- from any federal government, of whatever governing party.

Wait, that's only a concern to you but you think that the Liberals should have their noses rubbed in the mess they made?

To me, that's much more of a concern. It's a far graver concern when the current government (Cons) insists on hiding these sorts of things and making it far more difficult to be held accountable for it.

Why do the Conservatives feel it's necessary for them to now introduce new measures aimed at hiding government misconduct and restrict the ways to which revelations of their misconduct can be investigated?

That's a far more serious concern than rubbing the noses of previous governments' mistakes..

Edited May 31, 2008 by JaysFan

[Kitchener]

They did. The voters gave them a time out.

And the more apologizing and damage-control they have to do for it, the harder they'll think about allowing such practices next time.

Similarly, I was all for a wide-scope investigation into Mulroney's lies and sleaze. Let's make it a complete no-brainer that if you take lobbyist money in paper sacks in hotel rooms, it will come back to haunt you for as long as you live.

Wait, that's only a concern to you but you think that the Liberals should have their noses rubbed in the mess they made?

What word would you prefer -- a hysterical panic?

The point of the thread is the revelation about the Liberals. I am contemptuous of the solid core of posters here who greet every Conservative gaffe and ethical brownout with "But the Liberals!" So... don't be like those posters. The Conservatives' efforts to reduce transparency is a concern, yes. But it's not the central point here.

To me, that's much more of a concern. It's a far graver concern when the current government (Cons) insists on hiding these sorts of things and making it far more difficult to be held accountable for it.

Then start a thread on it, or revive one of the existing threads on this topic.

[JaysFan]

And the more apologizing and damage-control they have to do for it, the harder they'll think about allowing such practices next time.

Fair enough but at what point do we focus more on the current government's actions and concentrate on having accountability start here, now with the present corrupt government than reminding previous governments of their mistakes and forcing them to constantly apologize and pay for it.

I'm all for your idea in principle but it should start and concentrate on those currently in office.

Similarly, I was all for a wide-scope investigation into Mulroney's lies and sleaze. Let's make it a complete no-brainer that if you take lobbyist money in paper sacks in hotel rooms, it will come back to haunt you for as long as you live.

Agreed but again, let's concentrate on the here and now first. Get the current house in order and then go after anyone from the past who may have benefited from abusing their position for their own private gains.

The point of the thread is the revelation about the Liberals.

A thread of which was started in 2007 and had no interest in it, read no response, until yesterday when a Conservative decided to bump it?

Sorry, that smells like someone was reaching to post some Liberal bashing to offset the number of Conservative miscues over the past few weeks which have been prominently on display and talked about.

A revelation of which occured after the Conservatives took office and ordered a review, err a witch hunt looking for wrong doings that they could use to remind voters of their opponents previous record while in power.

But given the numbers of transgressions, I'd suggest that overall, over the course of 16 years, 15 different organizations, the number of wrongdoings is probably a lot lower than the Conservatives had hoped they would find.

Which is all the more reason to be concerned with the Conservatives now making it harder to hold governments accountable for the same types of actions. It begs the question of, just how many cases of this have they already been up to themselves and if so, how long will it be before they can be held accountable given that they're already implementing measures designed to make it more difficult to do so.

I am contemptuous of the solid core of posters here who greet every Conservative gaffe and ethical brownout with "But the Liberals!" So... don't be like those posters. The Conservatives' efforts to reduce transparency is a concern, yes. But it's not the central point here.

I disagree, you can't raise one issue without giving equal time to how the Conservatives determined efforts to reduce transparecy is also at play. It was based on the Liberals wrong doings that the Conservatives placed themselves on a pedestal promising to be better than them.

Which they've failed to do.

Then start a thread on it, or revive one of the existing threads on this topic.

No need to, the two issues at play here, go hand in hand with one another. Edited May 31, 2008 by JaysFan

[Topaz]

Probe finds 'phantom' jobs created for ex-political staffers

The old laundry is being pulled from the Liberal hamper and it doesn't smell any better than the old laundry that Dion claims the Conservatives have. Looks like a game of who's got the dirtiest laundry......maybe Chretien's and Martin's will find their way on top of the pile next.

My question is IF this happened in 1996, why has it taken the commission 10 years to find this?????? Some one wasn't doing thier job also!

[Argus]

Fair enough but at what point do we focus more on the current government's actions and concentrate on having accountability start here, now with the present corrupt government than reminding previous governments of their mistakes and forcing them to constantly apologize and pay for it.

I suppose at the point where anyone is able to actually establish any corruption with the current government. Not that facts are likely to get in the way of people like you who clearly have a hate on for the Tories.

[eyeball]

(JaysFan @ May 31 2008, 01:19 PM)

Fair enough but at what point do we focus more on the current government's actions and concentrate on having accountability start here, now with the present corrupt government than reminding previous governments of their mistakes and forcing them to constantly apologize and pay for it.

I suppose at the point where anyone is able to actually establish any corruption with the current government. Not that facts are likely to get in the way of people like you who clearly have a hate on for the Tories.

Interestingly, there is no legal definition of corruption in Canada so you can't just charge a politician with it. Corruption is more like a state of being or a field. A story in the G&M a few months ago quoted a lawyer speaking on behalf of a legal society or organization based in Ottawa who defined official or political corruption as being characterized by secrecy with a marked intent to deceive.

Instead of an Accountability Act we should have a Transparency Act. In addition to a Privacy Commisioner we should have a Secrecy or Anti-Secrecy Commisioner. Checking the ability of the government to operate in secrecy should be in the interest of all people. Unfortunately some people think we have enough transparency and some think we don't. Its very discouraging that the line dividing these also runs close to the line that divides the right-wing from the left. I suppose this must bode well for somebody somewhere.

Edited June 1, 2008 by eyeball