By Alisom@Creekside
Welcome Vic Toews to Stephen Harper’s Perps with Perks for “giving patronage a bad name,” as Dan Lett wrote in the Winnipeg Free Press.
Appointed to the Queens Court by Justice Minister Peter MacKay in March last year, eight months after leaving the Cons cabinet, Toews — a former Justice Minister, Public Safety Minister, and head of the Treasury Board — has spent his time on the Manitoba bench making his presumed future appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada next year a tad more tricky for the Cons.
Toews has had his wages garnisheed under an order from a Quebec tribunal for failing to pay thousands of dollars in back rent on a Gatineau condominium.
:Toews claimed he did not pay the back rent because he could not understand the tribunal’s order and supporting documents, which were written in French.”
I’m guessing not recognizing a court order as a legal document is not a strong supporting argument for appointing even a former Attorney-General of Canada to the Supremes.
As a sitting judge, it would not be appropriate for Justice Toews to comment on your inquiry.”
The application for funding submitted by a personal friend of John Baird’s scored 3rd from last out of the 167 applicants reviewed by her department.
Ms Finley appears to have signed off on the project proposed by Rabbi Chaim Mendelsohn, Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Centrepointe in Ottawa following interventions from Baird ( who toured Israel with him the following year) as well as Peter Kent, Nigel Wright, and PMO staffers Ray Novak, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, and Rachel Curran, Policy Advisor for Social Affairs.
CBC and the G&M have provided good accounts on this but federal ethics watchdog Mary Dawson’s scathing report tells a tale of patronage beyond Finley.
1) While I appreciate Rabbi Mendelsohn’s stated concerns to Dawson that he was in danger of losing support in the Jewish community if he couldn’t rock up grants from the Cons (page 14), his building not having “any existing barriers requiring reduction” for wheelchair access should have been the determining factor.
2) “Rabbi Mendelsohn claimed in emails to ministerial staff following the 2011 election that Chabad Lubavitch branches across Canada had mobilized tens of thousands of volunteers and voters.” Again, not really a wheelchair access problem.
3) “Three departmental officials told me that, in early summer of 2011, the Department received a letter from Minister Kent [the project is in Mr. Kent’s riding} to Ms. Finley … Minister Kent addressed the importance of the Federation and the Markham proposal and urged Ms. Finley to consider funding it. Two of these officials vaguely recalled that Minister Kent referred to a relationship between the Jewish community of the Greater Toronto Area and the Conservative Party of Canada.”
Again …
4) “Mr. Wright wrote that she [Ms Finley] had pulled him aside outside the Cabinet room and asked him whether he considered the Markham proposal “important.” Mr. Wright wrote that he told her he had been asked by the Prime Minister to “sort it out.”
Mr. Wright wrote he did not intend to suggest to Ms. Finley that funding should be approved for the Markham project, only that it was important that the matter be considered carefully and fairly. Mr. Wright believed he had “sorted out” the matter by communicating that request to Ms. Finley.”
5) Following Nigel Wright’s conversation with Finlay’s Chief of Staff Phil Harwood:
“Rabbi Mendelsohn said that Mr. Harwood provided him with a list of additional information that was needed and asked him to compile the information based on concerns expressed by officials in the Department about the completeness of the Federation’s Markham application. … Mr. Harwood said he was unable to recall clearly why Rabbi Mendelsohn had submitted additional information on the Markham project. …Rabbi Mendelsohn submitted additional information… after being told by Mr. Harwood to do so ”
6) Following the Markham project’s crappy internal review and Harwood’s discussion with Nigel Wright:
“Mr. Harwood said that he recommended that Ms. Finley consider sending the Markham project for external review…. no other
applicants were permitted to submit additional information for assessment, either by the internal or the external evaluators. Following the external evaluation, the Markham proposal was not subjected to additional evaluations by the internal review committee as were the top 25 projects”
7) Following the crappy external review, Department officials drafted a letter:
“A letter of decision will be sent to the organization to inform them they were unsuccessful in their application.”
However the letter was not sent, Finley was not informed of it, and “Departmental officials told me they were instructed by the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Paquette, to provide only the findings of the external evaluation.”
Both internal and external reviews noted “the proposal did not directly address the requirements for making buildings and other facilities accessible to persons with disabilities.”
8) “Ms. Finley signed the memorandum, dated August 26, 2011, approving the funding of the Markham project by checking the “yes” box.”
9) As funding for approved projects were used up, “an additional $1,044,000 to cover the funding for this project was taken from the small-sized projects component of the program.”
10) “The Government of Canada announced the funding of the Federation’s Markham project on October 11, 2011.”
11) “The Department ultimately withdrew its funding for this project. Information provided to my Office indicated that the Chabad Lubavitch of Markham was unable to obtain the necessary construction permits required for the work to be completed within the timeline negotiated with the Department, and there were significant increases in costs to deal with building deficiencies.”
12) “It was clearly inappropriate that the funding went to the Markham project.”
Throughout, there’s also pages and pages of this:
“Mr. Baird told me that he didn’t recall speaking to Ms. Finley … Mr. Baird doesn’t recall speaking to Rabbi Mendelsohn about the proposals… Mr. Kent could not recall speaking with Ms. Finley about the Markham project … Mr. Kent’s office could not locate a signed copy of the letter to Ms. Finley… Ms. Finley told me that she was not aware of a letter from Minister Kent … Ms. Finley told me she could not recall a discussion with Mr. Wright… Ms. Finley told me that she did not specifically recall discussing the Markham proposal with Mr. Harwood… Ms Finlay did not recall any discussion with former Minister Baird …”
Update: Kady O’Malley: “At no point in the Finley report does the ethics commissioner “make it clear” the prime minister was not involved in the selection process.”
Wecome aboard, Minister Finley.
Leave a Reply