Canada’s access to information system is failing in plain sight. One month, a 60% complaint spike. One law, unread by the Prime Minister’s Office. And a committee where accountability is losing time.
I pulled up the Major Projects Office's mandate. It was established under the 2024 Budget as part of the government's response to the housing crisis, with its formal launch coming in 2025. Keith's timeline doesn't hold up against the committee record either. Maynard's comparison was pointed at a broader pattern of resourcing choices, not a specific five-year audit of that office. Worth asking which budget lines Hardy was actually drawing from when he made that comparison, because the numbers deserve scrutiny in both directions.
"When MP Gabriel Hardy pointed out that she was churning through 6,000 files a year on $17 million while the newly created Major Projects Office had burned through $213 million over five years without approving a single project,"
This strongly suggests that the MP was saying that the MPO had been in operation for 5 years.
Hardy's "$213 million over five years" was almost certainly drawn from a different program, possibly the Impact Assessment Agency or a predecessor major projects coordination function. The framing in committee was a rhetorical comparison, not a precise audit of the MPO itself. That's worth pressing on, because the numbers matter.
I would agree if she had phrased it differently such as "The MPO is set to burn through.." or "The MPO has a 5 year budget of", but she didn't she was gaslighting on the MPO. And since she specifically mentioned the MPO and their budget and timeline, she was not referencing the IAA or anything else.
What I draw from this is simple- it's good to be King. Access to Information? Who cares! Ethics issues? Same answer.
How is this possible? 'Major Projects Office had burned through $213 million over five years" The Major Projects Office is only a year old.
I pulled up the Major Projects Office's mandate. It was established under the 2024 Budget as part of the government's response to the housing crisis, with its formal launch coming in 2025. Keith's timeline doesn't hold up against the committee record either. Maynard's comparison was pointed at a broader pattern of resourcing choices, not a specific five-year audit of that office. Worth asking which budget lines Hardy was actually drawing from when he made that comparison, because the numbers deserve scrutiny in both directions.
"When MP Gabriel Hardy pointed out that she was churning through 6,000 files a year on $17 million while the newly created Major Projects Office had burned through $213 million over five years without approving a single project,"
This strongly suggests that the MP was saying that the MPO had been in operation for 5 years.
Hardy's "$213 million over five years" was almost certainly drawn from a different program, possibly the Impact Assessment Agency or a predecessor major projects coordination function. The framing in committee was a rhetorical comparison, not a precise audit of the MPO itself. That's worth pressing on, because the numbers matter.
I would agree if she had phrased it differently such as "The MPO is set to burn through.." or "The MPO has a 5 year budget of", but she didn't she was gaslighting on the MPO. And since she specifically mentioned the MPO and their budget and timeline, she was not referencing the IAA or anything else.
Good point Keith.