MPs need to go further to ensure expense scandals don’t happen again: taxpayer watchd

[SLM]

Got pics?

Of the skeletons or is this a foot fetish thing?

LOL.

 

[taxslave]

Of the skeletons or is this a foot fetish thing?

LOL.

Sure.

 

[SLM]

Sure.

Hmmm. Non committal and leaving the door open for kinky.

Nicely played.

 

[JLM]

Not looking to enter politics, too many skeletons.

I am fairly interested in holding feet over the flames for those that do enter politics though.

At the very least! Putting their balls in a vice sometimes works better. -

 

[SLM]

At the very least! Putting their balls in a vice sometimes works better. -

I get all kinds of grief when I talk about squeezing mens balls.

 

[JLM]

I get all kinds of grief when I talk about squeezing mens balls.

There is a time and place for it.

 

[lone wolf]

Lawmakers need to learn the meaning of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

 

[Liberalman]

MPs need to go further to ensure expense scandals don’t happen again: taxpayer watchdog

Gregory Thomas of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation was on Parliament Hill Thursday, with a solution to put an end to Ottawa's expense scandals.
Thomas — the Executive Director of the taxpayer watchdog — addressed the Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs about improving the financial accountability of our members of parliament.
He offered a laundry list of recommendations:
- Extending the Access to Information Act to cover spending by MPs, Senators and parliamentary admission (currently MPs and Senators are exempt from having to release expense information via ATI requests)
- Extending the authority of the Auditor General to Parliament ( The AG cannot audit Parliament without an 'invitation' and without terms of reference decided upon by MPs)
- Putting all receipts and documentation relating to Parliament Online – receipts, leases, contracts, etc.,
- Allowing recall petitions against MPs and Senators, as in British Columbia,
- Depriving MPs and Senators convicted of a serious crime, where the sentence is federal time, of their pension eligibility.
Those seem like measures that most Canadians would likely embrace.

But will the politicians go for it?
Probably not.
"MPs and Senators don’t want to show us their receipts, because they don’t want the scrutiny," Thomas told Yahoo Canada News in an email exchange on Friday afternoon.
"Former MP Joe Fontana is charged by the RCMP with expensing his son’s wedding reception in 2005. The first anybody heard of it was when a document leaked out from a Golf and Country Club in London, Ontario. Commons administration never said a word, the Commons board of internal economy never told the public what was going on. Seven years went by.
"We need receipts and other documentation for the same reason auditors need to see receipts. We need to see how the money was spent – who spent it, who received, and what valuable goods or services were received in exchange for the money. If you don’t have the proper paper trail, there’s no way of telling whether or not the money was spent properly."

Liberal MPs and senators — to their credit — have started disclosing their expenses online but there's little detail. MP Hedy Fry's proactive disclosure, for example, says that expensed $2,621,60 for airfare between September 26 to October 3 for "other Parliamentary business."
That's it — no receipts and no real reason given for the travel. (Parliament was not in session)
Thomas lauds MPs Elizabeth May and Brent Rathgeber who do post their receipts online.
If you go to Rathgeber's website you'll see an itemized list of expenses: for staff salaries, for housing allowances, for hospitality and travel. And if you click on the dollar amounts, you'll see actual receipts.
"It would sure put an end to expense scandals," Thomas said.
"If Senator Duffy had posted his receipts when he was first appointed in 2009, his housing issues would have been brought to light immediately, addressed immediately, and he’s probably still be in the Senate."
MP Allowances (Courtesy of CBC News)
- MPs who live outside Ottawa get an annual housing allowance of $28,000
- Non-Ottawa MPs also receive a meal per diem of $90/day while Parliament is in session (no receipts required)
- MPs whose ridings are in the national capital region get a daily food allowance of $48/day
- MPs using their cars to get around their respective ridings are entitled to the mileage reimbursement of $0.52/kilometre — no proof of actual use required.
- Each MP gets 64 free round-trip flights a year regardless of cost (ie: First class or business class is okay). 25 of the flights can be used to go anywhere in Canada and four can be used to go to Washington DC or New York.
- Spouses and children are allowed to share in some of those flights — no questions asked.
- Each MP is allocated $10,000/year for "hospitality" expenses with little oversight.


Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines


Post there expenses online. Good idea. Now how do we make it happen?

The Conservative government or the PMO initially agreed with the expenses and paid them and gave positive answers to the Senators when asked if they were legitimate expenses now they get thrown out of Senate they followed the rules. The Senators that voted to throw them out should be thrown out of office just because they never followed sober second thought and just did what their puppet master in the PMO demanded.
.
.

 

[gerryh]

Nope. Just finding this here place horrendously boring and stupid, what with the yes no yes no yes no, and so, having thought on it for at least, oh, bout a week, have decided to bugger off.

Good luck with your changing of the dictato........er.........government.

Then say goodbye Gracie and don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.

 

[pgs]

The Conservative government or the PMO initially agreed with the expenses and paid them and gave positive answers to the Senators when asked if they were legitimate expenses now they get thrown out of Senate they followed the rules. The Senators that voted to throw them out should be thrown out of office just because they never followed sober second thought and just did what their puppet master in the PMO demanded.
.
.

Does Liberal Max Harb ever cross your mind or are his intitlements somewhat different ?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Short of armed rebellion, blood in the streets, and pitchforks, our options are limited. Always will be since we agreed to this form of dictatorship.

But, we're welcome to send "e.mails"..................:roll:

Or we can vote for the shiny pony.




He was asked a simple question about China, and managed to get himself embroiled in a world of crap in less than 25 words. Spent the rest of his speaking time explaining what he had "not really meant". It's all too wonderful a gift for Harper.

I'm in for the armed rebellion. I even got some extra firepower I can lend if you need a hand-cannon or shotgun.

Really though, best we could do is demand full accounting of how thet spend every penny of our money and anyone commiting fraud or misuse of funds loses all benefits and pensions and gets the maximum jail sentence allowed. Once a couple of them get 15 years in a real prison the rest will smarten up in a hurry.

 

[JLM]

I'm in for the armed rebellion. I even got some extra firepower I can lend if you need a hand-cannon or shotgun.

Really though, best we could do is demand full accounting of how thet spend every penny of our money and anyone commiting fraud or misuse of funds loses all benefits and pensions and gets the maximum jail sentence allowed. Once a couple of them get 15 years in a real prison the rest will smarten up in a hurry.

I think about all you'd accomplish there Nick would be spending $100 to protect $1. A better way would be a voucher system, very little cash involved. When you go travelling you are issued vouchers for meals, vouchers for parking, any plane tickets must be approved up front and any claims for over $100 have to be scrutinized by the Minister of Finance's office. You just can't be putting people in jail for 15 years for claiming a lunch they bought a hooker.

 

[Blackleaf]

How many of them bought duck houses?

 

[captain morgan]

How many of them bought duck houses?

We don't furnish ducks with vacation homes here in Canada, nor do we offer leisure facilities to muskrats, woodchucks or white tail deer.

That said, we do construct 'duck blinds' for those poor duck souls that are visually impaired... Although we won't build them a home, it's not like we don't have a heart

 

[SLM]

We don't furnish ducks with vacation homes here in Canada, nor do we offer leisure facilities to muskrats, woodchucks or white tail deer.

That said, we do construct 'duck blinds' for those poor duck souls that are visually impaired... Although we won't build them a home, it's not like we don't have a heart

Duck is delicious, especially the visually impaired ones. Yum.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think about all you'd accomplish there Nick would be spending $100 to protect $1. A better way would be a voucher system, very little cash involved. When you go travelling you are issued vouchers for meals, vouchers for parking, any plane tickets must be approved up front and any claims for over $100 have to be scrutinized by the Minister of Finance's office. You just can't be putting people in jail for 15 years for claiming a lunch they bought a hooker.

I am more than happy to spend a sh*tload more to lock these f*ckers up for very long periods of time. They attempt to gain positions of public trust (we don't force it on them) and then betray that trust at almost every turn. The precedent needs to be set and followed of minimum 5 years in prison and up to life for any of them that betray our trust in any way shape or form. Once that idea is set in the law and followed all this bullsh*t will cease in a hurry. It is worth every penny because while it may not end it completely it would make the incidence a rare thing instead of the norm.

 

[Blackleaf]

We don't furnish ducks with vacation homes here in Canada, nor do we offer leisure facilities to muskrats, woodchucks or white tail deer.

During our own MPs' expenses scandal in 2009 one newspaper - I think it was the Telegraph - published a list of things which the MPs had been buying from their generous, taxpayer-funded expenses.

Some of them even bought packets of sweets or bars of chocolate or loo roll from taxpayers' money.

One item that stood out, though, was the "Stockholm" duck house which the then Conservative MP for Gosport, Sir Peter Viggers, bought for a floating island in a pond, and was designed to allow the ducks to take shelter from foxes and the cold. The duck house cost him (or, rather, the taxpayer) £1,645.

Since then, "duck house" has become a euphemism in Britain for such scandals.

The comedian Ben Miller is to star in a new London theatre comedy about the MPs' expenses scandal called The Duck House, written by Dan Patterson, who is the producer of the weekly satirical panel show Mock the Week, and Colin Swash, the writer of topical comedy panel show Have I Got News For You.

Sir Peter Viggers and his duck house

 

[JLM]

I am more than happy to spend a sh*tload more to lock these f*ckers up for very long periods of time. They attempt to gain positions of public trust (we don't force it on them) and then betray that trust at almost every turn. The precedent needs to be set and followed of minimum 5 years in prison and up to life for any of them that betray our trust in any way shape or form. Once that idea is set in the law and followed all this bullsh*t will cease in a hurry. It is worth every penny because while it may not end it completely it would make the incidence a rare thing instead of the norm.

You're just going to make martyrs out of them, Nick. These people really have an over exaggerated sense of self importance and imposing severe sentences would just make them think the rest of the world is f**ked up for not being able to realize how valuable and underpaid they are. -

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yeah, maybe allow them $50 a day without further scrutiny. -

This is a tough one & what is a reasonable amount....and what is a reasonable
expense?

I work away from home, much of the time in oilfield locations with oilfield pricing,
where the locals can't afford to eat locally. In the S.E. corner of Saskatchewan
the locals drive down to the USA when they take their families out for supper.

Recently I've been working about 500km's N.W. of home, and when I need some
hot food at the end of the day, I'm looking at $13 for a freak'n Hamburger with fries,
and another $4 for a bowl of soup, and another $5 or $6 for a small side Ceaser
salad....and another $3 for a cup of coffee to go with that. That's eating cheap too.

I'm assuming the options aren't as limited in Ottawa as they are in Unity, Sk. but
$50 can disappear pretty quickly. Next week I'll be working just above the U.S.
border in Saskatchewan where I can look forward to a chicken breast with a small
portion of cold-slaw and a few onces of vegetables and some fries and a piece of
garlic toast for about $20.....& I'll need two orders of that for supper....& I'll need a
bowl of cereal & a few pieces of toast at the bunkhouse before I go to bed. That's
one meal and I'd be hungry afterwords.

....and then what's a reasonable expence? Food for sure but what else? Is drycleaning
or a laundry service when away from home a reasonable expence? What about gum
or toiletries? The lines need to be clearly defined.

 

[taxslave]

[/FONT][/FONT]
Does Liberal Max Harb ever cross your mind or are his intitlements somewhat different ?

He is a Liberal and as such is entitled to his entitlements.

I am more than happy to spend a sh*tload more to lock these f*ckers up for very long periods of time. They attempt to gain positions of public trust (we don't force it on them) and then betray that trust at almost every turn. The precedent needs to be set and followed of minimum 5 years in prison and up to life for any of them that betray our trust in any way shape or form. Once that idea is set in the law and followed all this bullsh*t will cease in a hurry. It is worth every penny because while it may not end it completely it would make the incidence a rare thing instead of the norm.

Locking them up costs taxpayers money. Not much in favor of that. Making them do a significant amount of community service and living in their own homes would be much more economical.