OTTAWA — Spending habits aren’t the only things MPs want to conceal these days — their attendance records are also off limits to the public.

Despite rules docking MPs and senators pay if they miss more than 21 days of work during a sitting of Parliament, House of Commons attendance sheets remain shrouded in secrecy.

“I don’t see why any of this stuff is secret,” said Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “What is it they are hiding here?”

MPs self-report their attendance each month, noting both the number of days they are absent from the House and the reasons for their absence, such as committee and constituency work or illness.

But the records are considered “personal information,” said Heather Bradley, spokeswoman for Speaker Peter Milliken. “They are not publicly available.”



Guimond said the House’s procedure committee attempted to study the chronic absences of Quebec-area independent MP André Arthur last year but couldn’t obtain his attendance sheets.

The Bloc accuses Arthur of not showing up for work in Ottawa while he pursues a string of other projects, including formerly hosting a television show.

Arthur, who has always received his full salary, declined an interview.

Godin said Arthur’s constituents know he does not attend Parliament often, yet they still re-elect him.

“What can you do?” he said. “The only way to correct that is (to change the law so) that you cannot hold two jobs.”

Liberal MP Derek Lee said MPs might only change the rules if they discover a case similar to that of Andrew Thompson, the senator who spent 14 days in Senate over a seven-year period in the 1990s while he lived in Mexico.

Thompson’s scandal prompted the Senate to boost fines to $250 daily and to release senators’ personal records

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/05/24/14064186.html

ya know ,,,,we all sit around and complain ,these idiots know it, lawyers know it,throw in all those lies and scandels and there ya go !!thats okay ,, with education cuts our children will be too stupid to realize anything

Godin said Arthur’s constituents know he does not attend Parliament often, yet they still re-elect him.

“What can you do?” he said. “The only way to correct that is (to change the law so) that you cannot hold two jobs.”
------------------------------------------

Might be better if we cut their MP's pay and perks to the point where they all HAD to hold two jobs.

Where did the idea of "full-time" politicians ever come from in a "democracy" anyways?

These people are SUPPOSED to be OUR 'representatives'. But nowadays they seem to have the notion that the only thing they're being paid for is to enable them to 'represent' themselves, and their Party, and its Leader, TO us. Do we need that?

Maybe if THEY were as personally affected by the increased tax take their creations like the HST will remove from THEIR incomes, through having incomes more in line with what the rest of us are making, they wouldn't be so quick to just "follow the Leader."

"New Democrat Nathan Cullen, M.P. for Skeena –Bulkley Valley was ranked number 4 on the list of overall big spenders at $580,579..."

Same amount as about 45 pensioners trying to get by for one year on CPP & OAS...

I thought that a self-proclaimed representative of the working class would perhaps (just maybe) be a little more careful about spending taxes from the working class...but, alas, more wishful thinking on my part!

They are ALL THE SAME - gorging from the trough.

The people of Canada MUST insist that we see what they are spending and how much they are working. This is rediculous!!! WE PAY THEIR WAGES! WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SEE THEIR EXPENSES, END OF STORY!!! WAKE UP! GEEESUS!

"Same amount as about 45 pensioners trying to get by for one year on CPP & OAS. I thought that a self-proclaimed representative of the working class would perhaps (just maybe) be a little more careful about spending taxes from the working class...but, alas, more wishful thinking on my part"

I'm confused, does your average pensioner also maintain an office year-round and have to employ staff to deal with the various issues that people bring to their attention, along with the all of the other stuff that goes along with that like telephone expenses, office furniture, rent, etc?

Also, is a pensioner expected to travel from Terrace to Ottawa (that isn't a cheap flight) multiple time a year to "represent the woking class" as you put it, or would you prefer they don't incur the costs and just stay in Terrace so that you can then complain about the fact that they don't attend Parliament?

------------------------------------------

"The people of Canada MUST insist that we see what they are spending and how much they are working. This is rediculous!!! WE PAY THEIR WAGES! WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SEE THEIR EXPENSES, END OF STORY!!! WAKE UP! GEEESUS!"

And what will you say when you find that the expenses are primarily comprised of boring things like airfare, hotel charges and the like? Personally, I'd rather have the Auditor General focus her attention on identifying material spending risks in large government departments instead of what MP's are spending their money on. Even if they are all wasting 30-40K per year (which I doubt is occuring with any real frequency), it probably pales in comparision to the waste that could be identified in departments with truly big budgets.

The Auditor General has limited resources. Spend those resources on areas that can provide real cost savings and not just great headlines.

Prince George--regarding your snide remark about Nathan Cullen, his riding is larger than Harris and Hill put together. Also compare plane fares out of Smithers, Terrace, or Prince Rupert with those out of PG. He also has or shares offices in 4 different towns, because of the vast area.

These clowns who call themselves our elected politicians can spend money like it is going out of style. While on the other hand they are trying to sue some welfare recipients for overpayments they probably can not pay back anyway. What a slap in the face to the taxpayers in this province!!!

Unless we see a breakdown of costs no judgement can be made. NMG brings up good points.

"These clowns who call themselves our elected politicians can spend money like it is going out of style. While on the other hand they are trying to sue some welfare recipients for overpayments they probably can not pay back anyway. What a slap in the face to the taxpayers in this province"

You do understand the difference bewteen an MP and an MLA and Provincial vs Federal Jurisdiction, don't you?

A lot of travel is optional. Out of respect for a pensioner (who because of whatever circumstances must try to get by on a very small pension) a MP or MLA may decide to keep his/her expenses to an absolute minimum.

There are also those on income assistance, unemployed, and so forth.

There are video and phone conferencing and the Canada Post and email options.

Obviously I stepped on a few very sensitive NDP toes - why get upset if there is nothing to get upset about?

I stand by my comment even if some think it is snide.

These numbers mean nothing until we see itemized expenses. Just like we say innocent until proven guilty, why not give our representatives the benefit of the doubt for a change?

Democracy is the most expensive form of government, except for all the rest.

Whoa...this seems extreme.
Sure would like to see some paperwork on these expenses!
No wonder they don't want an audit!
There is no doubt it costs money for them to do their jobs,but at the same time we are talking a LOT of money here.
Looks like the good life to me,with very little accountability.
Time to follow the money!

NMG... You do understand that all levels of government spend taxpayers money. Besides the last time I looked this was an opinion site, so you can quit picking apart other opinions to suit your own little world.

I also say lets get a list breaking down the spending before making any judgements.

Hope that they spend the money with brains or get those who can. Get out and vote all you young folks. I think or rather I hope Canada is starting to get the idea that voting counts. Because if you don't vote then you have bad government.

Lets see the audit... what are they scared of

"Even if they are all wasting 30-40K per year (which I doubt is occuring with any real frequency), it probably pales in comparision to the waste that could be identified in departments with truly big budgets."

What?

30-40k a year times over 300 equals roughly 12 million bucks of overspending!

Inexcusable waste if the 12 million could be used to build homes for the homeless, for instance!

Just because one waste pales in comparison to some other bigger waste doesn' make the waste any less offensive!

Waste is waste.

"Lets see the audit... what are they scared of"

Precisely! I want accountability, not lame excuses.

What are they hiding? One wonders!

One idea: A cap on expenses - if they run out of money they can hitchhike through the riding with a brown paper bag lunch!

Or they can stay at home and email their latest illuminations to the faithful!

Grrrr...

"Besides the last time I looked this was an opinion site, so you can quit picking apart other opinions to suit your own little world."

Ah, so you are now limiting the nature of the opinon?

If you think it is red, and I think it is white, why would I not be allowed to express my opinion just because it it different than yours?

And then when I explain that I am looking at the red with a red light shining on it, you might even understand why it is white. :-)

Besides, NMG is dead right and everyone who opposes his thoughts is dead wrong. :-)

Sure lots of OPINIONS with no facts. Don't like the system then junp in and change it.

How do you establish the "facts" when the "figures" they're supposed to be based on aren't made available?

We can, and should, assume the accused 'big spenders' are completely innocent of wasting taxapayer's money until they're proved guilty of blatantly doing so.

But that doesn't mean we, who are providing that money, shouldn't be able to question where it's gone and what for. How do we know that unless there are periodic audits?

We can only guess, based on past experience, and past costs of MPs overall expenses adjusted for inflation. And the figures we have seen seem to many of us just a little high. For what WE are getting in return.

Did our MPs of years past even HAVE such things as "Constituentcy Offices"?

If we do need them now, why do people now seem to have more troubles with their Federal government that requires a MP's intervention than they did in the past?

Why are we 'centralising' so many of those problematic things in Ottawa? Couldn't they be better handled Provincially, or even Regionally?

Is ever "bigger" government really ever "better" government?

More "cost effective" for the taxpayer relative to the services it provides in return for his taxes? Or is it the other way around?

Did our MPs of times past spend most of their year in Ottawa in a Parliament almost continually in session? Why does Parliament now HAVE TO BE continually in session? Haven't we got enough Laws governing us as it is?