Brian Masse And Public Authorities

This is an open BLOG to Brian Masse for which I would like an answer but which I will not receive because it is too embarrassing for our NDP MP.

I need Brian to tell us again why he is in favor of a Public Authority to run a public Bridge in the Windsor area. I have written a number of BLOGs already warning of the dangers of these types of bodies and suggesting strongly that we seriously consider what takes place in this area.

Now Canada's Auditor General has written a scathing report with respect to the Blue Water Bridge. All I know is that if private money was involved, a person would be fired on the spot for the inadequacies shown in this report. But not with Government. What's a few million dollars of taxpayer money?

Moreover when one reads the conclusions of the Report about how the Authority carries on business, it is a damning indictment. It is no wonder that the Ambassador Bridge is the best operated border crossing between Canada and the United States. Heads would roll in a privately run business.

Don't you just love the bureaucrateze:

• "we noted opportunities for improvement in other areas"

The interesting question to ask is what was the money actually used for. The Auditor General should investigate that and not just leave the matter.

$7.5M for "a US consulting firm... to promote the Authority's interests to US and Canadian government officials and politicians, and to provide various consulting services" seems remarkable.

Since the Authority reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, what action is the Minister going to take to find out whether funds were spent inappropriately.

Given that the Ministry now has new powers under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, I expect that the Minister will immediately send in the team to investigate the deficiencies and see how they have been improved. Or will that only happen with private crossings?

Here is the Report:

• Blue Water Bridge Authority—Special Examination Report 2007
  
  What we examined
  
  The Blue Water Bridge Authority owns the Canadian portions of the Blue Water Bridge linking Point Edward, Ontario, and Port Huron, Michigan. Its mandate is to operate, maintain, and repair the Canadian portions of the Blue Water Bridge, including the approaches and adjacent structures it owns. The Authority finances its operations mainly with revenues from bridge tolls, and it generated a surplus in both 2005 and 2006. It has 78 employees, and expenses in 2006 totalled $20.7 million.
  
  The Authority was established in 1964, became a Crown corporation in 2002, and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our special examination covered the period between September 2006 and March 2007.
  
  Why it's important
  
  The Blue Water Bridge is a major access point for commercial traffic to the south-central United States, handling about 10 percent of Canada's trade with the US. About 3.7 million passenger vehicles and 1.7 million commercial vehicles use the bridge each year.
  
  What we found
  
  We identified a significant deficiency in the Authority's management of a contract for consulting services.
  
  The Authority paid a US consulting firm about $7.5 million, over nine years, to promote the Authority's interests to US and Canadian government officials and politicians, and to provide various consulting services. It awarded the contract without competition and without the Board's approval. It did not specify the services to be performed and did not regularly assess the services it received; nor did it inform the Minister of the consultant's US activities. In December 2006, the Authority terminated the contract.
  
  While we found that the Authority has good practices for planning and managing its structures, we noted opportunities for improvement in other areas.
  
  The Authority needed to develop policies and procedures for contracting with suppliers and monitoring their work; re-establish formal coordination of bridge maintenance activities with its US counterpart; develop an environmental policy setting out goals and activities; improve its strategic planning by identifying relevant objectives, strategies, and performance measures; monitor its performance; and provide more complete performance and strategic information in its corporate plans.
  
  The Board of Directors needed to exercise closer stewardship, particularly in its relations with the Authority's major stakeholders, in strategic planning, in approving contracts, and in assessing its performance and any impact the number of directors might have on its efficiency.