MPs expenses

[Argus]

Cause I can't. Interesting there's such unanymity on the subject from all four parties. Whether it's the "responsible economic management" party or the "people's" party, no one seems much interested in letting the public have a look at their expense claims. Which leads me to ask - just what are they hiding?

Long years ago my mother used to work for an MP/cabinet minister. She described him as a penny pinching crook who stole every piece of equipment that wasn't nailed down, including the fax machine, and who dumped his wife for a woman who'd already had 2 kids by two other MPs. I think having a look at MP expenses would be quite worth the effort.

[Smallc]

MP expenses are audited every year by KPMG, and they are availabe broken down into broad categories. For the AG, an Officer of Parliament, to audit Parliament, it would very possibly be a conflict of interest.

[Moonlight Graham]

MP expenses are audited every year by KPMG, and they are availabe broken down into broad categories. For the AG, an Officer of Parliament, to audit Parliament, it would very possibly be a conflict of interest.

I dont understand the conflict of interest. An Officer of Parliament yes, but an appointed person with no accountability to the PM or any other MP and isn't a member of Parliament herself, only makes reports to the House.

However, isn't the AG's job to audit the activity of the federal government, i didn't think the AG audits what other MP's not in the acting government does? I may be wrong.

Anyways, if the AG doesn't look at MP expenses, i think someone else should. Unless there is a threat to national security or real issues of privacy maybe in the realm of international diplomacy, what's the problem with looking at the books?

[Wilber]

I don't have a problem with it being done by an outside entity but individual MP's and Senators spending of public money should be a matter of public record. Look at what happened in Britain when MP's spending wasn't subject to public scrutiny. These people are after all, our employees on our dime.

[Smallc]

I don't have a problem with it being done by an outside entity but individual MP's and Senators spending of public money should be a matter of public record. Look at what happened in Britain when MP's spending wasn't subject to public scrutiny. These people are after all, our employees on our dime.

As has been said over and over by the MPs, our system of expenditurs is completely different. MPs aren't given money to spend like in the UK. Everything has to go through the rules and regulations that are ste out. Also, as has been pointed out, you can see the spending, if only in broad categories.

[Smallc]

I dont understand the conflict of interest.

She would in essence be auditing herself. Her department is part of Parliament's $500M in expenditures. An outside agency is the better way to go....though I think that the results of that audit should be released.

[ZenOps]

Yeah, $500 million is a lot. Divvy that out between 307 MP's and they are well over a million apiece.

I'm honestly not all that concerned if its going to cocaine and strippers, I'm more concerned if its going to religious favoritism, like the reason we barred George Galloway from entering Canada.

Edited May 16, 2010 by ZenOps

[Smallc]

Yeah, $500 million is a lot. Divvy that out between 307 MP's and they are well over a million apiece.

That budget isn't only for MPs. It's also for Senators, committees, Officers of Parliament, etc.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Smallc

[ZenOps]

TRhat budget isn't only for MPs. It's also for Senators, committees, Officers of Parliament, etc.

So - more like 2000? Thats still a considerable sum for lunch and gas money.

[Smallc]

So - more like 2000? Thats still a considerable sum for lunch and gas money.

It's not just lunch and gas money. It's for everything related to the operation of Parliament.

[scorpio]

Funny, Duceppe doesn't have a problem with an audit.

[Smallc]

There already is an audit. That audit should be released to the public. Money shouldn't be wasted on a redundant audit that has potential conflict of interest issues.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No person should fear having expense accounted for, unless there is something fishy going on. Taking advantage of political position for personal benefit is something that should be considered very serious by the public. Any elected representative who would take money or benefit from their position at government expense is guilty of nothing less than abuse of privilege, which can in fact be viewed as a breach of trust.

[Wilber]

Funny, Duceppe doesn't have a problem with an audit.

I don't see why any self respecting MP would. What is the point of an audit that doesn't hold people accountable?

[Smallc]

No person should fear having expense accounted for, unless there is something fishy going on.

I disagree. MPs have to be afraid no matter what they do, because no matter what it is, a certain group is going to hate it and them. I think more than anything, MPs are afraid of an overreaction.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

I disagree. MPs have to be afraid no matter what they do, because no matter what it is, a certain group is going to hate it and them. I think more than anything, MPs are afraid of an overreaction.

As they should be. Look at NS for a nice witch hunt that has been happening for the last year.

[Argus]

MP expenses are audited every year by KPMG, and they are availabe broken down into broad categories. For the AG, an Officer of Parliament, to audit Parliament, it would very possibly be a conflict of interest.

You are always so willing to believe.

They say there are "strict rules" and even though you have no clues what the rules are, you accept that.

They tell you KPMG audits them, but you have no idea what the circumstances or depths of that audit are, nor have you ever seen the result, but you accept that. KPMG doesn't do a performance audit. That means, for example, if an MP is paying for something, say a speechwriter, and paying at a much higher rate than normal for speeches he never uses anyway KPMG will accept that. All they do is trace where the money went. They don't judge whether that spending was wise or useful or wasteful.

For a comparison. A similar KPMG audit of the sponsorship scandal would have turned up no issues. Money was sent to various private enterprises, which produced receipts. That's all they need to know. It was the AG doing a performance audit which pointed out the wastefulness of some of the actual results of that spending.

I have little doubt that if the AG did a full audit we'd see at least ten percent of MPs forced to resign for pilfering their expense accounts, for misusing and misspending public money on themselves, on family, friends and campaign doners.

[Argus]

As has been said over and over by the MPs, our system of expenditurs is completely different. MPs aren't given money to spend like in the UK. Everything has to go through the rules and regulations that are ste out.

And even though you have no actual information on which to judge any of that, you believe without a second thought.

You don't even know what the rules and regulations are, or how carefully they're enforced, or who enforces them.

An MP buys a computer for $2,000 and shows the receipt. End of story as far as KPMG goes. The AG would want to see the computer and find out where it's located and what it's used for. Maybe it turns out it's in the MPs home used by his kids to do their homework.

[eyeball]

I disagree. MPs have to be afraid no matter what they do, because no matter what it is, a certain group is going to hate it and them. I think more than anything, MPs are afraid of an overreaction.

This excitability of ours is pretty much the same reason we apparently can't be trusted to have direct democracy. It's why politicians have to lie to us to get elected and make unrealistic promises and paint rosy scenarios to stay elected.

I think it's unrealistic to expect the great unwashed will ever find it's old station and relearn the benefits of trusting it's betters without question. So the only thing left to do is embrace the horror of full disclosure and reveal the whole spectrum of human behaviour and misbehaviour for all to see. Perhaps if we become used to it, the trivial aspects which is probably the vast majority, will fail to excite and the stuff that really matters will be a lot harder to get away with.

It wasn't that long ago that many in our society would be shocked at seeing a bare nipple on TV but just the other night I watched a cartoon about queefing.

[Argus]

I think it's unrealistic to expect the great unwashed will ever find it's old station and relearn the benefits of trusting it's betters without question.

Maybe Smallc can teach them.

\

[Wilber]

I disagree. MPs have to be afraid no matter what they do, because no matter what it is, a certain group is going to hate it and them. I think more than anything, MPs are afraid of an overreaction.

So what, that's politics. MP's are some of the biggest overreacters out there.

On the other hand, a lack of transparency allows people to think whatever they like and make accusations that can't be refuted. People will naturally think there is something to hide and with reason.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So what, that's politics. MP's are some of the biggest overreacters out there.

On the other hand, a lack of transparency allows people to think whatever they like and make accusations that can't be refuted. People will naturally think there is something to hide and with reason.

Exactly right! Which would make it wise to be open about the entire issue. Fear is what politics feeds upon, it is what drives much of this world. It is time to stop the fear and it is time to step up to the plate. It is time to become more responsible citizens and start demanding the same from our elected representatives.

[Smallc]

You are always so willing to believe.

They say there are "strict rules" and even though you have no clues what the rules are, you accept that.

They tell you KPMG audits them, but you have no idea what the circumstances or depths of that audit are, nor have you ever seen the result, but you accept that. KPMG doesn't do a performance audit.

So maybe they should and maybe they should give a letter grade. I don't really care how many cans of orange juice Dalton McGuinty drinks (the scandal caused by too much information in the Ontario Legislature). I want to know how the MPs are doing, sure, but I don't need to know every detail about their lives. People love to pounce on politicians for everything. I don't blame them for not wanting to release more information about their thankless jobs.

[Sir Bandelot]

They should be scrutinized for every penny they spend, and the reports made available to the public in full detail. The same goes for any organizations that receive public money, including hospitals. There is an elite class of administrators that believe they're entitled to help themselves to public money, while forcing those beneath them to make do with less and less. I note I can only claim 15% of my non-taxable income now. Seems to me it used to be 17.

[Wilber]

So maybe they should and maybe they should give a letter grade. I don't really care how many cans of orange juice Dalton McGuinty drinks (the scandal caused by too much information in the Ontario Legislature). I want to know how the MPs are doing, sure, but I don't need to know every detail about their lives. People love to pounce on politicians for everything. I don't blame them for not wanting to release more information about their thankless jobs.

I don't need to know every detail of their lives either but that is not the same as knowing how much they spend individually in certain areas. If there are big discrepancies between certain individuals, the public is entitled to an explanation why. Just out of curiosity, why is the public buying McGuinty's OJ? Not that I would get excited about it. 20 year old single malt would be another matter.