I can’t and won’t explain or defend the $16 orange juice or the limo, but why people focus on that and not the fact that every single day Stephen Harper moves within Ottawa with a motorcade of two black sedans (front and rear) with three smoky-glassed, bullet proof SUVs in between – FIVE vehicles – is beyond me. The reality of our outrage levels are such that $16 orange juice grabs headlines and $20 million a year on the PM’s personal security (more than double previous PMs) rolls right by without notice. It’s the way people freak out over a few pennies increase on a litre of gasoline, but, without a whimper, purchase completely unnecessary bottled water at a higher price per litre than gas. It’s just one of those human nature things that defy rational explanation.

Where I think we need to give our collective head a shake (and here I am looking directly at the national news media reporters) is the forgery of the KAIROS approval documents. The story line from the mainstream press seems to be that Stephen Harper has been putting up with a Minister who makes mistakes and gets into trouble. The inserted “NOT” in the KAIROS document gets remembered as a mistake by Oda for which Stephen Harper defended her.

I wrote the following column in February 2011 for a local community paper, Island Tides.

Please read it to refresh our collective memory. The very most logical conclusion of the train of events is that Bev Oda approved KAIROS funding and someone higher up, someone in the Prime Minister’s Office being the most likely suspect, ordered the Minister’s approval be reversed – resulting in the crude forgery. Harper has not been covering for Oda. She was covering for him. And, in true form, he just threw her under the bus.

KAIROS — a scandal that matters

Scandals in “Harperland” (as Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin has dubbed current day Ottawa) are increasingly disturbing. The mystery of why the aid group KAIROS was denied CIDA funding – and how critical documents were forged — is now occupying the Speaker of the House, Parliamentary committees, and a fair amount of media ink. The fact that it happened at all is an outrage.

“Kairos” is a Greek word with a number of meanings, all related to time. In its theological meaning, it suggests the appointed time. It suggests opportunity within crisis. It is a moment that is critical.

Nearly all the major Christian denominations in Canada are core groups in KAIROS — the United Church, Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Society of Friends, and more. Back in my Sierra Club days, I had the pleasure of working closely with KAIROS. We were partners in climate work and advocating for social justice in international trade deals. The group has a superb record.

It was a shock when, in late November 2009, after thirty five years of CIDA support, CIDA funding for KAIROS projects overseas was cancelled. KAIROS had been expecting a $7 million grant for the next five years of its work. The Green Party issued a press release within days of the loss of funding (December 3, 2009), calling for CIDA support to be restored. Political interference seemed likely, as through its climate work, KAIROS had been critical of the oil sands. There were protests across Canada, including in Ganges where Salt Spring Island clergy and multi-faith parishes held a protest, calling for KAIROS funding to be restored.

In the House, throughout late 2009 and into 2010, International Development Minister, Bev Oda, denied that there were any political motivations. She stated that the programmes no longer fit CIDA’s current priorities.

It was even more shocking when the minister for Immigration, Jason Kenney, claimed that the reason KAIROS had been denied expected continued support for its programs was that the group was anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Kenney made the charge in a speech delivered two weeks after the funding was cut at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem (December 16, 2009). KAIROS reacted quickly, proving it had no involvement in Israeli boycott campaigns.

Anyone tracking this issue now had two Cabinet ministers (three if you count Oda’s Parliamentary Secretary Jim Abbott) with very different stories. Oda (and Abbott) claiming it was routine CIDA decision-making; Kenney claiming a clamp-down on anti-Semitic, anti-Israel groups.

In late October 2010, an Access to Information request revealed the CIDA documentation. CIDA had recommended that the $7 million be approved. Senior CIDA officials, first V-P Naresh Singh, and then President Margaret Biggs, had signed off on the advice to the Minister to approve the funding. Her signature appeared on the document, but inserted crudely, with a hand-drawn carrot, was the word “NOT” (in capitals.). CIDA officials had signed a document approving funding. Testifying to the parliamentary committee investigating the matter, Minister Oda told the committee she had no idea how the word “NOT” was inserted.

Thanks to Liberal MP, John MacKay, the Speaker of the House was asked to investigate the whole mess. His findings were released February 10th. Speaker Milliken found that the document was “doctored” and that it raised “disturbing questions:”

“Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes.”

Now, Minister Oda has changed her story. She now claims the document was changed at her direction, although she still does not know who did it.

Of course, the Opposition members of the Committee have pointed out that she misled the Committee. NDP MP Paul Dewar says the minister lied to the Committee when she said she had no idea how the “NOT” appeared.

None of this washes. If the Minister did not want to fund KAIROS, the solution was easy enough. There are a number of tried and true ministerial responses to advice they don’t like (even when the advice is solid, as the CIDA approval of KAIROS). Send the unsigned document back downstairs to CIDA officials, leave it on the desk to gather dust, ignore it.

The only plausible explanation for the state of the document is that Bev Oda signed the approval and the “NOT” was inserted subsequently.

This is where long-standing attacks against KAIROS from Harper Cabinet members, Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney, as well as right-wing Christian lobbyist Charles McVety, are highly relevant. In particular, Jason Kenney’s speech in Israel and its timing seem pivotal. People like right-wing Evangelical leader Charles McVety, of the Canada Family Action Coalition, was a KAIROS detractor. Targeting KAIROS for the speech in Jerusalem would explain PMO interference. Someone, and I am willing to bet, not someone directed by Oda, inserted the “NOT” after funding was approved.

We now have a case of fraud. It is part of a pattern of abuse of the essence of Canadian democracy and our foundational principles of “peace, order and good government.” The victims of this fraud are not just in Canada. They are the people in developing world whose projects were not supported. In a larger sense, we are all victims of this fraud. Will it be like so many other abuses of power, of contempt for Canada’s historical record in the world of peace-keeping and development assistance, that are just swept under the rug? Or will this be a moment of “kairos” that allows Canadians to wake up to the crisis and seize the opportunity to fully explore this act of fraud and forgery.

The post Bev Oda deserves a defence appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Travel Status Expense Account includes the following claimable items:

• Secondary Residences Costs
• Per diem costs when outside the riding
• Travel costs within the riding or within the province the riding is located

* Secondary Residence costs CAN include the following:

• Rental of furnished or unfurnished apartments, condominiums or homes, whether leased or rented by the day, week or month, except for leasing or rental arrangements that include a purchase option;
• One basic telephone line;
• Basic cablevision; and,
• Utilities (oil, natural gas, propane, electricity, water and water tanks).

Note that Elizabeth May only claims rent but does not claim phone, cable and utilities for the secondary residence.

** Travel Costs

The Member is allowed to claim all travel costs for travel within the province their riding is located and for travel to/from Ottawa.

Note that Elizabeth May absorbs the vast majority of travel costs within her riding personally.

*** Per Diem

A Member of Parliament is allowed to claim a per diem of $83.25 per day when outside the riding. Elizabeth claimed a total of 56 days in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, however she was outside the riding approximately 6 months of the 2011-2012 year.

The post Personal Expenses for Elizabeth May as Member of Parliament appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It’s interesting that Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan is so enthusiastic about supporting Bill C-27, requiring First Nations chiefs to declare their salaries and other federal payments. It would be commendable if Mr. Duncan also agreed to publicly declare his own itemized expenses.

To date, the only MP who has agreed to do so is Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. MPs who vote for this bill without agreeing to the same public disclosures themselves can add the charge of racism to their hypocrisy.

Jim Erkiletian, Nanaimo, B.C.

The post Letter to Editor (National Post) – Re: Act Would Make Public Chiefs’ Pay, Nov. 23. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The background that led to the CBC transparency project was obvious. In May 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser got in a tussle with a little known group called the ‘Board of Internal Economy.’ This committee of the House of Commons oversees over $140 million of public monies used for MP expenses for things such as travel, entertainment, staff and housing. The Board is made up of the House leaders for each party, the Speaker of the House and a few others. Fraser wanted to look at the books of the reimbursed expenses for MPs. The Board said ‘no.’

In the wake of the UK scandal in which MPs had taxpayers reimburse them for outlandish personal expenses, including the cleaning of one MP’s castle moat, Canadians might want to look at the details.

The Nova Scotia government opened their records and criminal charges were laid. One MP had the gall to claim the installation of a back-up diesel generator at his home was really for the seniors home down the road. I could see no valid reason for refusing to open the books before I became an MP. Certainly, once elected, I was quick to agree to the CBC challenge.

I assumed that a goodly number of other MPs would also agree to posting all expenses. I was somewhat shocked when the CBC (and Radio Canada) TV crews showed up to interview me about the project and asked me how I felt about being the only MP to agree. My surprise turned to discomfort as they explained how former Liberal MP Michelle Simson was shunned by her colleagues when she started posting her expenses on her website. (She was not re-elected, but does not believe that was due to her campaign for transparency.)

In defence of the other 307 MPs who refused the offer to make their expenses public, my hunch is that they would have agreed, had their party hierarchy not insisted that every last one of them refuse. The solidarity between the Conservatives, NDP, Liberals and the Bloc is solid. The parties do not want anyone looking behind the totals for the details.

The general categories of expenses are published. Individual members’ expenditures are reported and published by Public Accounts (see below). Every MP’s expenses are broken down for staffing, travel within the riding, advertising (not related to campaigns), costs of printing and mailing out MP newsletters.

To understand the level of detail, I will use an example. In 2007-08, our previous MP spent over $21,000 for travel within the riding. That is clear and reported. What we cannot know is the break down: how much on ferries? Personal car? Float planes? Et cetera.

Each MP has a barebones budget of approximately $28,000/mo, on top of the basic annual salary of $158,000. That amount must cover the costs of the constituency office (rent and operations), staffing in the office in Ottawa and in the constituency, printing, mailing, advertising, travel within the riding, and assorted other activities. (I find I am already really stretching that budget! I need to provide a lot of help to constituents and track every issue on the Hill, so I am relying on volunteers and interns a great deal).

Once an MP is asked to perform additional duties (chairing committees, party whip, parliamentary secretary or minister), additional amounts are added to their salaries and resources. Once an MP is a Minister of the Crown, there are additional budgets for travel and expenses.

Completely outside the reported expenses is the system for MP travel to and from Ottawa and the riding. This comes to an additional over $25 million/year. The travel budget is an art form all its own. It is called a point system. Each MP receives 64 points. Each ‘point’ is a round trip journey from home to Ottawa or some other location within Canada for which MP work requires travel). The trips are booked by the government travel agent and are on Air Canada.

I wondered if Air Canada provided some sort of government discount. No. Any MP ticket is paid by taxpayers to Air Canada at the going rate. MPs are entitled to fly Business Class.

I decided early on that I would stick with flying economy to save money. The odd thing is, due to the fact that the system is outside my office budget and on points, when I fly less and fly economy, my office budget does not benefit from money saved. The government coffers benefit.

I asked the travel agent to tell me how much I would cost the taxpayers in travel for a year (assuming 15 round trips—this includes any staff travel or ‘designated traveller’—a spouse or family member). The total, travelling economy, comes to $12,000.

Then I asked what it would have cost if I flew Business Class. It would cost $79,000. And that’s only for 15 trips out of a possible 64 allowed.

Of course, I am also motivated by reducing my carbon footprint. I will always struggle between wanting to be home for important events, even if it means flying on a Friday and returning on a Sunday, versus cost and carbon. My office is also budgeting to buy carbon offsets.

I hope I will not be the only MP providing full disclosure of expenses for long. I hope other MPs will join me and that together we can force openness from the Board of Internal Economy. For now, I am hoping that people who asked ‘what can one Green MP do?’ will think this is a good thing.

For more information on MP expenses go to:

http://parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/housegeneralinformation/membersexpenses

The post Transparency with Public Funds: What are an MP’s Obligations? appeared first on Elizabeth May.