Roundup: Poisoning the expenses well

Posted on by

With the story out yesterday morning about Rona Ambrose’s expenses claimed while staying in Stornoway, I think we’re starting to approach peak ridiculousness with the growing war over expenses, and accusations of poor judgment across the board. That the Conservatives have spent the past two days pushing a non-story about Dominic LeBlanc giving a speech at an event sponsored by a law firm with Irving connections, claiming poor judgment and a conflict of interest where clearly none actually exists (it’s not a fundraiser, no decisions are being made, it’s a speech, FFS), it’s desperation and grasping at straws.

https://twitter.com/robsilver/status/781902059440181249

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902332837687296

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902590615359488

The bigger problem, however, is the corrosive effect this continues to have, fuelling not only the cheap, petty outrage that voters are being encouraged to feel anytime government spends money, but it is starting to burn the very real bridges for why we have expense regimes in the first place.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/781863718799941632

Like Rob Silver above, Wherry may be exhibiting his trademark sarcasm, he’s got a point – we are rapidly approaching the point where We The Media have stoked such public opposition to legitimate expense claims by clutching our pearls at seemingly large numbers presented without context while crying “Judgment!” and “Taxpayers’ money!” that people are developing the wrong impression. We had NDP MPs last parliament declaring that if we’re to have senators, then they should all work as volunteers, and lately I’ve had jackasses barking at me on the Twitter Machine saying that senior political staff should also be volunteers. We’re half-a-step away from people demanding it of MPs.

Which gets back to the whole point of expense regimes in the first place – so that it acts as an equaliser, so that you don’t have to be inordinately wealthy in the first place in order to participate in political life, be it as an MP or senator (or senior political staffer, apparently). Do we really think it’s for the best that we return to an era where only the wealthy can afford to participate in political life and let them dictate policy for us? Or where a lack of an expense regime would encourage actual graft (as opposed to this nonsense we’re currently getting the vapours over with moving expenses and whatnot) from politicians to help make themselves financially whole from the expense of doing their jobs? Seriously, we need to grow up and stop poisoning the well because we don’t want to go where this road leads. Only certain doom lies that way.

Good reads:

  • On the Royal Tour, Will & Kate toured Haida Gwaii, and arrived on a replica 15-metre Haida war canoe. Not sure about the “No LNG” t-shirts on the paddlers, though.
  • There is some contention as to whether or not two of the five names on the Supreme Court appointment short-list are from Atlantic Canada.
  • SIRC says that CSIS has thus far been respecting their new powers under the old Bill C-51.
  • The government is spending $100,000 a year for their Deliverology guru’s services.
  • Here’s a look at the tightrope that AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde has to walk with so many diverse views of First Nations he represents.
  • Here’s a look at a would-be First Nations substance abuse treatment centre in Cornwall that is trying to get government funds.
  • National Defence headquarters will soon be moving to a new campus, and here’s the tale of that (somewhat sordid) saga.
  • Andrew Scheer sees himself as a “unifier” in the Conservative leadership,
  • Here’s Jason Kenney’s full response about Kellie Leitch and the problems with her anti-Canadian values screening.
  • Here’s a recap of some of the feuds establishing themselves in the leadership race.
  • Bruce Hicks gives more reasons why regional caucuses in the Senate are a poor idea, creating new elites that disadvantage minority groups like Anglo Quebeckers.
  • Kady O’Malley looks forward to next week’s Senate modernization committee report, and how they had to tweak the rules to meet the news cycle.
  • Paul Wells looks at the annual Busting of the Gaskets over healthcare transfers, and about Jane Philpott’s negotiating position.
  • Susan Delacourt looks back at how the BlackBerry changed political reporting.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at the soon-to-be-revealed new Canada Hall at the Museum of History.

One thought on “Roundup: Poisoning the expenses well”

  1. Most of our MPs interrupted successful careers to go to Ottawa. A few thousand in extra expenses is peanuts. I would be much happier if there were outrage over the influence corporate lobbyists exert on our politicians.

Comments are closed.