MPs expenses

[Smallc]

Just out of curiosity, why is the public buying McGuinty's OJ?

I'm not sure. It was for the office, or some such.

[Smallc]

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.

I think so too. The KPMG Audit should be released to a certain extent.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think so too. The KPMG Audit should be released to a certain extent.

Finally!

[Smallc]

Finally!

I said that all along. It shouldn't go to the detail of how much each member spent on chewing gum, for example.

[Topaz]

IF any of want to here is the website for the taxpayer federation, who has collected 60,000 signtures so far for the MP's etc to open the books. http://www.taxpayer.com/

[bloodyminded]

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.

Ha! Thanks for that, Eyeball.

You're right, too. I notice even beloved red state conservative pop queen Miley Cyrus has sexed up her image suddenly.

[punked]

IF any of want to here is the website for the taxpayer federation, who has collected 60,000 signtures so far for the MP's etc to open the books. http://www.taxpayer.com/

Yeah you mean the conservative tax payer federation right?

[capricorn]

Yeah you mean the conservative tax payer federation right?

For greater accuracy, I would term it the non-NDP taxpayers federation.

[punked]

For greater accuracy, I would term it the non-NDP taxpayers federation.

Nope as far as I can tell no NDP, Liberal, or Bloc people were employed by them but PLENTY of Conservatives have worked for them before and after holding office, or working in a conservative government.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Where are you getting the %500m number? Does it include the actual building of Parliament itself and its upkeep (i doubt it)? Or just people and institutions that function within Parliament?

[Smallc]

Where are you getting the %500m number? Does it include the actual building of Parliament itself and its upkeep (i doubt it)? Or just people and institutions that function within Parliament?

$534M is, according to the media, the amount of money under the control of the Board of Internal Economy.

[Argus]

Yeah you mean the conservative tax payer federation right?

Why do you want to turn this into a left right political issue? It's got nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal or NDP. It's about monitoring how our money is being spent by the MPs and senators from all parties.

You might have a look at the national post today. It's running the second in its series about the massive levels of corruption among municipal, state and federal politicians south of the border. There's a lesson to be learned from that. We don't want to become as notoriously corrupt as the Americans.

[punked]

Why do you want to turn this into a left right political issue? It's got nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal or NDP. It's about monitoring how our money is being spent by the MPs and senators from all parties.

You might have a look at the national post today. It's running the second in its series about the massive levels of corruption among municipal, state and federal politicians south of the border. There's a lesson to be learned from that. We don't want to become as notoriously corrupt as the Americans.

I am ok with that, however the Canadian tax payer federation is just a wing of the conservative party.

[Moonbox]

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.

Smallc sometimes I forget that you're actually a young guy, because you're so opposed to change within our government I'd almost think you're eighty years old. There's enough precedent in Canada and outside that we should be cynical and suspicious of our politicians. That's not to say they're all bad, but enough of them are that we should care.

We've seen for a long time that Canadian politicians (not just Liberals) have a sense of entitlement and it would be interesting, I think, to see what sort of expenses they claim. I imagine there are a lot of expenses that, while they may be commonly claimed by MP's from all parties (and thus acceptable/common practise amongst then), are actually just giant craps on the collective taxpayer's head.

[ToadBrother]

Why do you want to turn this into a left right political issue? It's got nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal or NDP. It's about monitoring how our money is being spent by the MPs and senators from all parties.

You might have a look at the national post today. It's running the second in its series about the massive levels of corruption among municipal, state and federal politicians south of the border. There's a lesson to be learned from that. We don't want to become as notoriously corrupt as the Americans.

I've seen enough cronyism and nepotism in local governments in my little chunk of Lotus Land to know full well that there's corruption aplenty north of the border.

[Topaz]

I did find one MP to publisher her expenses. http://www.michellesimsonmp.ca/financial.html

[Oleg Bach]

Go have a nice lunch - maybe spend seven bucks on a nice sandwhich and a glass of juice - don't sit there like an idiot surrounded by gay waiters talking about the eighty dollar wine..and DON'T order the most pricey thing on the menu because you figure you are getting it for free - Public service means just that - service - and when a servant costs the master more than he is producing then that servant is attempting to coup the master (public) - get rid of the rebellious servant!

[Argus]

I am ok with that, however the Canadian tax payer federation is just a wing of the conservative party.

If that were the case then the Conservative MPs would not be dodging the question and making awkward, stupid excuses about why they can't reveal their expenses.

[August1991]

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 think that's a dodge, smallc.

We need someone, independent of parliament, to audit the personal expenses of our MPs. A KPMG audit with expenses broken down into broad categories isn't sufficient. The recent situation in the UK demonstrates this.

At the moment, the Auditor-General has credibility with the public and seems to be the ideal person/office to perform an audit. In fact though, Canadians want a reliable and permanent way to verify that their MPs spend money wisely. I fear that if the AG were named to do this, MPs would simply choose the next AG differently.

Half a billion for a House of Commons with some 300 members (over $1.5 million for each) strikes me as alot. Like most people who spend other people's money, these people are spendthrifts.

[Oleg Bach]

With a sense of self importance comes a sense of entitlement. Politicans and life time appointees should realize that they come and go and are not important.

[Smallc]

Half a billion for a House of Commons with some 300 members (over $1.5 million for each) strikes me as alot. Like most people who spend other people's money, these people are spendthrifts.

Apparently you didn't bother to read anything else I wrote. That is for far more than 300 people. That amount is for thousands of people and the operations of the entire legislative branch.

[Smallc]

Smallc sometimes I forget that you're actually a young guy, because you're so opposed to change within our government I'd almost think you're eighty years old. There's enough precedent in Canada and outside that we should be cynical and suspicious of our politicians.

I disagree. I don't think anyone should be opened to limitless scrutiny. Do performance audits (from an outside body like...say...KPMG) and release a letter grade. We don't need to see everything that everyone bought. This level of scrutiny is going to make anyone worth while far too paranoid to even attempt to enter politics.

And you're right, I tend to believe that changing a government system that works so well, is, on the whole, a bad thing. I would need a great deal of convincing for any major change.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Smallc

[robert_viera]

It's mid-May and the fiscal year 2009-2010 ended a month-and-a-half ago, but we won't get to see the report on how MPs spent our tax dollars until 6-8 months after March 31st. Here is a list of the dates on which MP expense reports have been made public:

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 (218 days after March 31)

Thursday, October 21, 2004 (204 days after March 31)

Thursday, September 29, 2005 (182 days after March 31)

Thursday, September 28, 2006 (181 days after March 31)

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 (200 days after March 31)

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 (247 days after March 31)

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 (218 days after March 31)

Yet if you look at the reports you will see the statement 'PREPARED MAY 200...' on the cover page of each report, with the exception of the 2008-2009 report.

Why are MPs making the public wait until the fall to see reports that are prepared in the spring?

Transparency delayed is transparency denied.

[msdogfood]

There ALL hiding something!! this why they dont like this!

[wyly]

I disagree. I don't think anyone should be opened to limitless scrutiny. Do performance audits (from an outside body like...say...KPMG) and release a letter grade. We don't need to see everything that everyone bought. This level of scrutiny is going to make anyone worth while far too paranoid to even attempt to enter politics.

Smallc as their employer you are entitled to see what they bought...any employer I ever had held me accountable for things I charged to the company account...when I file my income tax I can be audited for any items that I claim for deductions, if they're not legit I'll hear about it...