May 19, 2005

The Case for No Confidence

Mustafa Hirji (email) at 03:40 PM

Supposing you were on the Board of Directors of some organization (e.g. a university). And suppose that the Board discovered that massive amounts of money were lost in the past few years. Suppose then that several workers came forward and accused the Chief Executive of having used that money on personal expenses and on transfers to friends. Suppose then, that the internal investigation into this was blocked and eventually shut-down by the Chief Executive with a promise that he’d figure out what happened to the money.

As the person legally responsible for the organization, what do you do? Do you sit back and do nothing? Or do you take action by suspending the Chief Executive until you figure out what happened, or maybe even remove him completely, letting him keep his severance pay?

I would hope that you would do the latter and take some action. That’s what the standard expectation from a Board of Directors is. And if that’s the standard you would use in any corporation, why should the standards for government be less?

Today’s vote of confidence is exactly about this issue: should an ethically bankrupt government continue to hold power? (Let’s not deal with questions of whether the government is on the right path—or any path for that matter—in running the country. That would be enough to justify a no confidence vote, but questions of policy are at least debatable.)

Let’s review the major ethical lapses by the Liberal governments the past 12 years. I won’t cover more ambiguous violations such as Cabinet ministers accepting gifts from lobbyists (which is against the law and has been an alleged transgression of many Cabinet members including Paul Martin).

  • Political interference on behalf of friends. From the Dupuy Affair where the CRTC was influenced into giving a radio license, to Art Eggelton’s giving his former girlfriend contracts for minimal return of service, the Liberals seem to interfere for personal gain far too often and usually stonewall when caught.
  • The Krever Inquiry. This investigation into Hep-C tainting of blood was originally seen by the Liberals as a way to damage the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, Krever found that responsibility went farther back than the Mulroney government, back to the final Trudeau Ministry. The Inquiry was shut down, and Hep-C victims who were infected prior to 1986 (an arbitrary date that puts all the blame on the PC government of Mulroney) have still not been compensated.
  • The Somalia Inquiry. Boxes of documents were shredded to cover-up wrong doing. When it started to dig up dirt on the Liberals, it was quickly put to silence.
  • The APEC Inquiry. PMO directed abuse of protesters was first ignored and then covered-up by the Liberals. Solicitor-General Andy Scott was overheard on an airplane explaining how he’d make the RCMP take the fall. Two inquiry chairs resigned on the grounds that there was political interference that prevented proper investigation. In the end, the report’s recommendations were ignored and the Liberals never took responsibility for their abuse of Canadian students.
  • Gun Registry. A $13 million program has costed over $2 billion instead. Evidence and claims of mismanagement have never been been followed-up.
  • HRDC Billion Dollar Boondoggle. A billion dollars in “Grants and Contracts” was lost, especially in the Transitional Jobs Fund, and never fully investigated. Evidence runs rampant of violations of financial administration rules, interference by Minister Pierre Pettigrew himself (who now Minister of Foreign Affairs) and of money flowing disproportionately to the riding of Saint-Maurice—the riding of Jean Chretien.
  • Shawinigate. Where do I begin! Political interference by Jean Chretien, himself, in three government programs (the Immigrant Investors Program, the Business Development Bank, and the Transitional Jobs Fund) all of which had money flow to projects from which Chretien, himself, personally benefited. Tied into all this was a CIDA grant that should not have qualified for consideration, something allowed by Pierre Pettigrew, once again. In all this we have a quarter million dollar sale written on the back of a napkin that is of questionable authenticity (as determined by handwriting analysis). And a Chretien-appointed judge ordered an RCMP raid that destroyed evidence of all this. It was ordered on a Saturday without allowing the other side to present their case.
  • AdScam. Tens of millions lost in sponsorship grants. Accusations of intimidation, death threats, laundering of cash, and links to organized crime.
There is a clear record of unethical practice by the Liberal government. It is time to hold them to account.

Archive URL for this entry: http://www.pointsofinformation.ca/archives/individual/2005/05/19/mustafa_the_case_for_no_confidence_389.html

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pointsofinformation.ca/poi-ping.cgi/360