PACP Committee Report

“G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund,” Chapter 2 of the 2011 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada

The Liberal Party of Canada’s
Dissenting Report to the Conservative’s Majority Report

It is regrettable but necessary that the Liberal Party of Canada must present to the House of Commons for its consideration a dissenting report concerning the government’s handling of the infamous G8 Legacy Fund as investigated by the Auditor General of Canada.

This minority report is necessary due in large part to the concerted effort by Conservative members of the Committee to completely whitewash this affair and to minimize the findings and recommendations of our Auditor General.

The first indication that the government was attempting to whitewash this affair became evident early in the proceedings when they used their majority in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to deny both the interim and the current Auditor General of Canada an opportunity to appear before the Committee to present their findings. In doing so, the Conservatives shut down any possibility of having a discussion with the OAG about what should be done and prevented additional questions from being asked. Even the Auditor General of Canada noted that such a decision was contrary to the past practice of the Committee and, in his expressed opinion, contrary to best practices in achieving parliamentary accountability through the operation of public accounts committees.

The issue considered by the Auditor General was the spending of a $50 million budget for gazebos, picnic tables, artificial lakes and other facilities supposedly in support of the G8 Summit meetings that were to be held in Muskoka, Ontario in 2010.

The OAG found that the authorization for the $50 million budget was obtained through a mis-information campaign and in complete contradiction to parliamentary oversight and approval.

Right from the outset, there were serious issues arising out of the administration of this program including, but not limited to,:

1. The government using an existing program known as the Border Infrastructure Fund even though none of the projects that used taxpayer’s funds had anything to do with border infrastructure. In fact, most of the spending occurred hundreds of kilometers from any border crossing.
2. The government’s suggestion that they needed to use an existing, unassociated program fund to disperse the money was due to impending start date of the G8 Summit. The Auditor General disagreed saying that if administrative and Parliamentary approval had been sought for such a fund, it could have been achieved within the necessary timeframe.
3. Senior departmental officials from Transport Canada, Industry Canada, Foreign Affairs and other key government departments told the OAG that they had nothing to do with the process of determining the budget level for the G8 Legacy Fund which is a serious matter in and of itself. The fact that the final budget was nearly ten times the money of any similar fund compounded this concern. Politics was clearly trumping policy and accountability.

Ultimately, the OAG explicitly concluding that Parliament was deceived when it asked to approve $50 million for additional border infrastructure instead of what the Conservatives intended to use it on, such as gazebos and fake lakes for Minister Clement’s riding.

Additionally, there is the issue of deciding how the ill-begotten money would be used. Minister Tony Clement set up what most would consider a private application and approval process for the funds. Government bureaucrats were not allowed to be involved in the selection of projects which would benefit from taxpayers money. Instead, applications were directed to minister Clement’s own MP constituency office in Muskoka.

To this day, Parliament has no idea how projects were selected. Ministers Clement and Baird indicated it was the community at large who self-approved spending of the funds. Apparently, it was the dozens of Mayors from the area who were involved in this process and who apparently took their original quarter of billion dollars in “asks” and collectively reduced it to just under $50 million in requests without so much as a guiding hand of any federal government officials. All the projects that were submitted to ministers Clements and Baird were 100% approved. It is still unclear, however, how many bridges the ministers thought could be bought and sold through this process.

The facts, and the government’s response, are more than troubling. More questions than answers remain about this sordid affair. And part of the reason why a dissenting report was required is because Conservative Committee members refused to include specific quotations and references from the Auditor General in any report that they would support. They suggested that context in which the statements were made could not be clearly understood. In response, the Conservatives were reminded repeatedly that had they allowed the Auditor General to appear before the Committee to explain his statements and recommendations, the government could have presented questions and become better informed of the Auditor General’s position. They refused to allow the Auditor General to appear and then used it as an excuse as to why substantial sections of testimony should be stricken from the report. This, quite frankly, is offensive and can not go unreported.

The Harper government has attempted to whitewash the entire G8 Legacy affair. The administration and parliamentary contempt surrounding the fund was bad enough. Now, the whole situation is made worse by the cover-up.