John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
July 27, 2004
News that Ottawa will pay the hefty legal bills for retired civil servant Chuck Guité during the sponsorship scandal’s upcoming public inquiry is leaving a sour taste in the mouths of taxpayers.
The recommendation to award the money was made by Justice John Gomery, who is heading the sponsorship probe. Mr. Guité was a public servant when $250-million of tax money was misspent without proper oversight and paid out to Liberal-friendly advertising firms for little or no work. Last spring, when Mr. Guité appeared before the House of Commons public accounts committee--the first body to probe into the scandal - the federal government helped defray the cost of his personal lawyer as per Treasury Board guidelines. Justice Gomery cited this procedure to support Mr. Guité’s application to spend more tax money when the public inquiry opens.
While it is repugnant that the federal government will again pay Mr. Guité’s legal bill, Commissioner Gomery was careful to note Guité will need to fend for himself against the six fraud-related charges the RCMP laid against him in May. Taxpayers might, finally, get their day in court.
The final decision on whether or not Guité will receive legal aid rests with Ottawa. Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he accepts Commissioner Gomery’s recommendation. That is fine, but Mr. Martin must take the next step by ensuring all Treasury Board guidelines are followed when it comes to dolling out cash for embattled public servants. Of great interest to taxpayers is the one stipulating that Ottawa can recoup the cost of legal assistance when it is demonstrated a public servant acted improperly.
Mr. Guité is believed by many to be the adscam’s linchpin, but he has yet to be found guilty. If Ottawa is going to fund his legal bill it should be ready to yank the money back if it is demonstrated he broke the rules. The Prime Minister must ensure Treasury Board rules are faithfully adhered to, and that no more money is wasted on the adscam file.
But there is another twist to Justice Gomery’s ruling, as Mr. Guité is not alone in seeking money from Ottawa. Of the 15 persons or organizations participating in the inquiry two others requested funding. The others--surprisingly--are the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois. Justice Gomery believes they too are entitled to taxpayer support because it is unfair, he says, to expect political parties to pay their own ticket at the inquiry since they are prohibited from accepting union or business donations.
The sour taste just got sourer.
There is no good reason for political parties to receive financial support from Ottawa for this or any other activity. With revisions made to the Elections act last year, each political party will receive an annual subsidy of $1.75 per vote received in the 2004 general election. as a result of this welfare program, taxpayers will fork out more than $23-million a year to the various political parties.
When these changes to the Elections act were implemented, the idea was that the newly created subsidies would replace the banned union and business donations as a funding source. But even at the time, those opposed to supporting parties directly with tax dollars warned that politicians would soon be back asking for more money, using the new fundraising limitations as an excuse to plead poverty. and here they are acting out the script, even though the Conservatives will receive $7-million every year from taxpayers and the Bloc almost $3-million.
a political party has one purpose, which is to elect its candidates to Parliament. It is unreasonable to ask taxpayers to pay for any partisan organization to have standing at a government inquiry. If the Conservatives and Bloc wish to follow the proceedings of the Gomery Inquiry, they should pay for their own legal representation and not come cap in hand to Ottawa. The Martin government should ensure these two parties receive no more tax money.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement