NDP researchers yesterday released a hundred pages of receipts or so detailing some of the travel expenses of Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda. The receipts obtained by the NDP under federal Access to Information laws cover a period of time when Oda was Heritage Minister. She is now the Minister responsible for the Canada International Development Agency.
The NDP discovered a couple of things.
First, in some cases, travel and hospitality expenses and were not disclosed at the Heritage Canada Web site. That's against Treasury Board policy.
Second, the NDP digging turned up details on some disclosed expenses that might give some Canadians pause to question Oda's travel habits. For example, on March 16, 2007, Oda made an announcement at Toronto's Harbourfront. She had some expenses associated with that announcement. The disclosure at Heritage Canada's Web site lists one item: Other Transportation: $1,291.88.
What the NDP found is that “Other Transportation” was a limousine bill. The limo picked Oda up at her home at 8 a.m. about 80 kilometres west of Toronto, drove her downtown, hung around with her all day, drove her to a Conservative Party “boot camp” event in the evening, then drove her home after that and — $1,300 later — dropped her off at 11 p.m. back at her home.
The NDP found thousands of dollars in limousine invoices as it dug through her files.
Here's the piece I filed on this issue:
OTTAWA – Roasted by the opposition months ago for racking up thousands of tax dollars in limousine costs while she attended the Junos in Halifax, Conservative minister Bev Oda is under fire for the same thing once again.
The federal New Democrats, relying on invoices and receipts obtained under Access to Information requests, accused Oda on Wednesday of spending thousands more on limos, flights, hotels and food for her and her friends, some of which she failed to disclose under new federal accountability laws.
Oda did not respond to the allegations but, in the House of Commons, government House leader Peter Van Loan said she has filed and disclosed expenses according to government rules … [Read the rest]
From your story:
” … said Angus, who drives himself back and forth between Ottawa and his hometown of Cobalt, Ont., 500 kilometres away, in his own car.”
So what does Angus want? A medal for his virtue?
Would I merit one if I said I never owned a car and always use public transportation?
Is Angus a cabinet minister? When he gets to be one, maybe he'll see the necessity of using a limo.
All of those snarky (I admit it) comments aside, why doesn't Angus instead make himself useful and introduce a private member's bill to:
1. take away ALL perks and expense allowances from ALL MPs
2. raise the MPs' salaries to compensate for that loss
Most people figure MPs already receive a more than adequate salary ( ? $150,000 minimum ?).
Taking into consideration the toll being an MP takes on their private lives and their families, especially on those whose riding is very far from Ottawa, that salary is not an exorbitant one.
But is an expense allowance really necessary? Just let them have a more than adequate salary and absorb whatever expenses they deem necessary to do their job.
Whether they want a limo or to hitchhike, it's their choice.
That would eliminate the need for listing a pack of gum as an allowable expense or the argument of being “entitled to my entitlements.”
On a related topic, if I may.
Is there any way to find out how many days MPs have been absent from QP?
The reason I ask is because Bob Rae, on a parliamentary panel with CPAC's Peter Van Dusen, stated that the PM is often absent.
Now, I watch QP daily (more drama than soap operas!), and I notice that the PM is seldom absent, except on occasions like today, when he was in Toronto, or the day after he returned from Bucharest, etc.
I would appreciate being steered to the information so that I could set Mr. Rae right, quoting chapter and verse.
No records are kept of an MP's attendance in the House of Commons. And indeed, it is considered a violation of Parliamentary Rules of Order for a member to refer to another member's absence during a debate in the House of Commons.
So all we have so far as that goes is the anecdotal evidence provided by MPs and journalists.
I did not see what Bob Rae said but it's true that Harper was not in the House yesterday.
On Fridays, when Question Period is at 11:15 am rather than 2:15 pm as it the rest of the work week, it is exceedingly rare to find the PM or any of the party leaders present.
Thank you for your reply.
If memory serves, there was some kind of rule regarding attendance implemented in the Senate a few years ago after revelations of a couple of senators spending more time on the beaches to the south instead of sitting in the Upper House.
Perhaps a similar rule should be brought in for the House.