Who in the hell cares? It's not like we actually have journalists anymore. Only now are a few of them waking the hell up and TELLING CANADIANS THAT THE REFORM-CONSERVATIVES ARE ROBBING US BLIND!!!!!!!Cripes, even Gerry Nicholls lambasted Harper, and not one single donkey was flying ...
My girl Martha has been stating for weeks that the Harper government is illegally using our money for partisan ads. And I'm not talking about the hate mail that seems to be arriving on a weekly basis now.
I'm referring to the 56 million dollars and counting that they have spent to announce an Action Plan that it is big on announcement but little on plan. And they are now advertising this crap in the New York Times !!!!!
And yet, for all their bluster, no one can find where all the infrastructure money has actually gone. We have a serious problem here.
WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From MacLeans
Note to PCO: Y’all might want to consider spending a little less money advertising the Economic Action! Plan …
by Kady O'Malley
October 9, 2009
… and putting a little more time and effort into documenting how the money is actually being spent.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has analysed the most recent progress report — you remember, the one unveiled by the prime minister before a captive audience at a Saint John train yard – and, well, it’s not exactly what you’d call a rave review:
Content remains uneven in the GC’s Third Report, notwithstanding the additional data that have become available over the past three months and the additional time available to address previously noted shortcomings.
Many missing data correspond to implementation and outcome indicators that the GC collects as part of its standard due diligence process and should be readily available (e.g. risks, mitigation plans, uncertainties). Failing to include these data could hinder Parliament‟s ability to provide meaningful oversight of the economic stimulus package.
Of greater concern than the absence of readily available information is the regular shifting of titles and categories of stimulus measures. Some measures have been re-categorized or renamed between the GC‟s Reports. In particular: certain measures re-categorized under new titles and grouping names, such as environment-related initiatives (four discrete measures were presented in the First Report, but then aggregated under a new title in the Second Report).
Other measures seem to have been dropped from the Reports altogether, such as Maternity and Parental Benefits for the Self-Employed (included in Budget 2009, but not included in subsequent updates).
These changes to the titles and categories of initiatives render it challenging to track implementation progress through the three Reports (further examples are presented in Annex E). It could also hinder Parliament‟s ability to use these documents as budgetary oversight tools.
Finally, the GC‟s Third Report continues to place uneven emphasis across the stimulus package, failing to link the level of reporting with the risk and materiality of the initiatives. In general, smaller items in the federal stimulus plan (e.g. support for shipbuilding, enhanced work-sharing flexibility) tend to have adequate coverage, while larger items could benefit from additional disclosure (e.g. infrastructure).
As a result, parliamentarians are in a good position to provide oversight of many items contained in the stimulus package, but these represent only a small portion of the total stimulus funding and tend to be lower-risk (and less complex) projects.
There’s more — much more, including examples of stimulus items that have gone missing, or that have been renamed and recategorized — in the full report, which is definitely worth reading ...
-----------------------------
More from MacLeans
Can you hear that whistle blowin’? (Let the witch hunt begin!)
by Kady O'Malley
October 9, 2009
It’s going to be a very long, and not particularly relaxing weekend for senior civil servants.
First, there was last night’s eyebrow-raising report from Canadian Press, in which “government insiders past and present” spoke out against the Conservatives’ alleged use of taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes. Not surprisingly, not one was willing to go on the record — and really, does anyone out there not agree that in this case, that “fear of reprisal” is entirely justified? — but the concerns that they expressed seem to be remarkably consistent:
A partisan government advertising campaign paid for by taxpayers raised alarms from the outset among senior public servants who serve Prime Minister Stephen Harper, The Canadian Press has learned.
The Privy Council Office, the non-partisan bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister’s Office, has never been comfortable administering the website for the Economic Action Plan — and informed Harper of its misgivings at the time of last January’s federal budget.
Those misgivings were heard, but overruled.
While the story is being denied by both PCO and PMO, the extraordinary claim originates from several sources within the famously discreet Privy Council Office.
The fact the story is being aired at all — even under the cloak of anonymity — suggests just how far the Conservatives are stretching the traditional boundaries of partisan behaviour in Canada’s professional bureaucracy. [...]
In interviews with past and present government insiders, The Canadian Press was told the Tories are trampling the admittedly grey area between partisanship and policy.
More than one career bureaucrat said they’ve never seen anything so blatant as the current use of the office for self-promotion.
None would speak on the record, some for fear of reprisals, but many said it is a story that needs to be told.
“You have a political party that is not constrained by what conventionally would be perceived as overtly partisan actions,” said one former insider.
“I can tell you every funding program across the government is being politicized,” said another public servant.
“They do it for their own needs and they don’t do it to help people. Welcome to Stephen Harper’s world.”
The CP story ran last night. This morning, during the post-QP scrums, Martha Hall Findlay seemed to be suggesting that similarly senior civil servants have also been in touch with the
Liberals:
Question: Okay. Individual came forward, who was it anyway? I haven’t had a chance to -
Martha Hall Findlay: Well, at this point I’m not going to disclose their names because out of protection for them at this point.
Question: But you actually spoke to someone personally.
Martha Hall Findlay: I have not spoken to that person personally but that person has spoken to members of our group, absolutely.
Question: Right. And then -
Question: Are you talking about a private conversation? Like what’s the source of all this?
Martha Hall Findlay: Well, we’ve already seen there have been a number of reports of senior civil servants. In this particular circumstance, to disclose their names would be I think very, very troubling for them. So we want to make sure that we are in fact protecting them.
Question: This is a -
Martha Hall Findlay: A process.
Question: — a civil servant who came to the Liberal caucus to talk to you about this?
Martha Hall Findlay: We have had – and they may not be the same people because we have had newspaper reports of senior civil servants actually making statements to members of the media. We also have had conversations internally with others who have raised the same concerns. But at this point it’s not fair to them to disclose who they are.
This, ITQ would humbly suggest, is exactly why in camera committee meetings were invented. If there are, in fact, witnesses who would like to come forward with information, but who are too afraid of retribution to do so publicly, that would be the perfect forum for them to air their concerns, securely protected by parliamentary immunity. She wouldn’t even gripe about not being allowed to liveblog it.
-----------------------
From CTV News
Bureaucrats objected to gov't ad campaign: sources
By: Bruce Cheadle , The Canadian Press
October 8, 2009
OTTAWA — A partisan government advertising campaign paid for by taxpayers raised alarms from the outset among senior public servants who serve Prime Minister Stephen Harper, The Canadian Press has learned.
The Privy Council Office, the non-partisan bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office, has never been comfortable administering the website for the Economic Action Plan -- and informed Harper of its misgivings at the time of last January's federal budget.
Those misgivings were heard, but overruled.
While the story is being denied by both PCO and PMO, the extraordinary claim originates from several sources within the famously discreet Privy Council Office.
The fact the story is being aired at all -- even under the cloak of anonymity -- suggests just how far the Conservatives are stretching the traditional boundaries of partisan behaviour in Canada's professional bureaucracy.
For the record, a PCO spokeswoman said there has never been any disagreement. At no point did PCO raise any objections to developing the site," Myriam Massabki said in an email. Website development is consistent with PCO's role in co-ordinating the implementation of the government's agenda."
Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the story was "entirely false." (like anyone would believe a thing that little weasel had to say) "The site is legitimate and appropriate and we reject that characterization entirely."
The actionplan.gc.ca website, linked to by a massive advertising campaign that has cost at least $34 million, has been widely criticized as an exercise in Conservative propaganda on the taxpayers' dime.
In interviews with past and present government insiders, The Canadian Press was told the Tories are trampling the admittedly grey area between partisanship and policy. More than one career bureaucrat said they've never seen anything so blatant as the current use of the office for self-promotion.
None would speak on the record, some for fear of reprisals, but many said it is a story that needs to be told.
"You have a political party that is not constrained by what conventionally would be perceived as overtly partisan actions," said one former insider. "I can tell you every funding program across the government is being politicized," said another public servant.
"They do it for their own needs and they don't do it to help people. Welcome to Stephen Harper's world."
The Privy Council Office doesn't even have a line item accounting for the cost of development of the economic action plan website. The $2-million budget went to Finance, but PCO developed the website with frequent input from the PMO.
"Expecting public servants to manage government communications that has a partisan spin to it is a misuse of public power," Peter Aucoin, a professor emeritus at Dalhousie University, said in an interview.
There has always been a healthy tension between PCO and PMO. The bureaucrats provide policy advice with political implications, while the PMO provides political direction with policy implications.
Aucoin, a retired professor of public administration who has extensively researched government advertising practices, said governments of all stripes in Canada have nudged their bureaucrats into partisan behaviour.
"But this (current ad campaign) is ratcheted up to a scale beyond, and you can see why the PCO is uncomfortable with it," said Aucoin.
"It's so blatantly obvious. If this isn't partisan advertising then nothing is."
Dropping such a campaign in the lap of PCO is doubly perplexing, because the Privy Council Office is mandated to oversee all government advertising to ensure it conforms with existing rules, including non-partisanship.
Others point to Harper's appointment of an assistant deputy minister, Malcolm Brown, to last summer's intensely partisan Employment Insurance working group as an abuse of the bureaucracy.
The message, said Liberal MP and panel member Mike Savage, was clear for all public servants: You're on the Conservative team.
"I think it set a bad tone for the working group and our interaction with other (public service) officials," said Savage. "It was a negotiating process. I don't really think it's the duty of the public service to negotiate in that way." No worse than previous governments? But the Tories reject the characterization.
"The public service of Canada prides itself on being non-partisan," said Soudas. "And under this government we also pride ourselves on the fact the public service does a good job and does so in a non-partisan way."
Others said the Harper government, under the direction of his former chief of staff Ian Brodie, was respectful of the traditional public service boundaries in the early years of the Conservative minority.
Kevin Lynch, the powerful former clerk of the Privy Council Office, used his retirement speech at a tribute dinner last month in Ottawa to praise Brodie for his "great understanding of the institutional roles and responsibilities of government and the public service."
He also referred to "the importance of building an effective and respectful working relationship between the new government and the public service."
Some suggest that respect for partisan lines has fallen away since Brodie departed for the private sector in the spring of 2008. Lynch stepped down as PCO clerk in June.
Harper's current chief of staff, Guy Giorno, earned such a reputation for partisan government advertising under former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris that the next provincial government brought in strict rules in 2004 to bar the practice.
Harper himself said all the right things when he paid a video tribute to Lynch at his retirement dinner. "The Canadian public service has the admiration of the entire world," said the prime minister, "for its competence, its professionalism and its non-partisan devotion across our country and its people."
Aucoin contrasted those soothing words with Harper's outburst in the last weeks of the 2006 election campaign, when he warned that a Liberal-dominated judiciary and bureaucracy would thwart Conservative power.
"Stephen Harper came in (to office) saying that we had a Liberal civil service, and he said we would have one for some time -- presumably meaning that at a certain point in time we'd have a Conservative civil service," said Aucoin. "That's all on the record."
"It's this perception that the civil service is there to be used."
During a recent address in Ottawa to departmental audit committees -- groups made up of former senior civil servants -- Aucoin referred to the politicization of the bureaucracy as "a form of political corruption."
Some of his listeners, he said, were shocked by his use of such a term and asked if that's really what he meant to say. "I said yeah, it's a misuse of political authority," Aucoin recounted.
"It's not illegal, necessarily. But if we're going to talk about values and ethics -- and we're not going to make them criminal -- then there's got to be a sphere of behaviour that's inappropriate."
"I think the time really has come for a fundamental look at the public service: The role of a professional, non-partisan public service."
No comments:
Post a Comment